Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-13 YPC PacketC° ry;`lply '1µ y,��1.� . 7`�yY V. ".. �:...,i� ..1�7" 7.�. PAR "ll . s"1 ¶ T .�i li III N W ni .1, 29 1III111(o�srth lr " 'I'�",� ,�'', � oJ�V ;, " kmll m l 2tid 4pt�)r d�iki;,tnal ''' "lll�+ ' ' ' �;m � � 911111 901 u �Phoniii (,,10 5'U i5li .? ,ill, 7mcc ( 09) ,Yu5 41151 ,5' ill, I'�I1114:1,e l°:� '�i� , "' Pii��u�lp'+ia. �"q�'" I d`� IIS%I' V, ! m � .�' ilu '' City of Yakima Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARING/STUDY SESSION City Hall Council Chambers Thursday May 16, 2013 2:00 pm - 5:00 pm YPC Members: Chair Ben Shoval, Co -Chair Dave Fonfara, Ron Anderson, Al Rose, Scott Clark, Paul Stelzer, Bill Cook 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, Administrative Assistant Agenda Announcement: This meeting is a study session on the City's Master Program in which the general public is invited to participate and comment. I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. General Audience Participation Not Associated with an Item on the Agenda IV. Public Hearing: • Text Amendment: New Section 15.09.210 Special Requirements for Retaining Walls V. Shoreline Master Program Review: • Staff Distribution of Shoreline Materials • Task#1- Review Section 17.05.020 Environmental Protection • Task#2 - Review Section 17.05.030 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation • Task#3 - Review Section 17.09.030 Fish and Wildlife Habitat and the Stream Corridor System • Task#4 - Review Section 17.050.060 Flood Hazard Reduction • Task#5 - Review Section 17.07.030 Boating and Private Moorage Facilities • Task#6 - Review Section 17.07.150 Shoreline Stabilization • Task#7 - Review Remaining Sections of 17.09 Critical Areas • Follow-up: Questions or Concerns Regarding Previous Edits and Changes VI. Other Business VII. Adjourn to May 22, 2013 CITY OF YAkxAA YAKIMA PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING City Hall Council Chambers SIGN -IN SHEET HEARING DATE: Thursday Max, 16, 201 Please indicate which item you are interested in. Text Amendment Public Hearing Shoreline ester PianMeeting- NAW ADRUSS, ZIP CODE 79-5 F \�C -, ;i�!\ t _ 1 e jrucw V- q0 � E I Yakima Planning Commission Public Hearing Sign -In Sheet — 05/16/2013 Yakima Planning Commission Public Hearing Sign -In Sheet — 05/16/2013 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: City of Yakima Planning Commission FROM: Steve Osguthorpe, AICP Community Development Director SUBJECT: Zoning Code Text Amendments Pertaining to Retaining Walls FOR MEETING OF: May -16,2013 ISSUE: The City has been in the process of addressing some retaining wall issues that came about when a wall built behind lots on the south side of Skyline Way failed. The wall was later replaced, but the replacement wall has had similar structure problems and is currently being reviewed for structural soundness. The structural integrity of the wall has been of great concern to downhill property owners, but no less than the visual impacts the replacement wall has had on their properties. The wall is made of stacked ecology blocks that may be found to have similar visual characteristics as the large Jersey barriers often used along highways. While the blocks have a pattern of smaller blocks molded into their face, the pattern is somewhat superficial. It does not visually diminish the size of the larger blocks because the seams of the actual blocks are clearly discernible from the seams of the artificial molded blocks. Retaining walls are used throughout the City. Some have been similarly controversial while others have been successfully incorporated into their settings. Examples of walls that would likely be considered more aesthetically pleasing include: a wall made of mortared natural stone on North 58" Avenue; a wall of stacked basalt stone on Greystone Court; a wait of stacked manufactured stone on Castlevale at Triple Crown Way; and keystone walls along multiple properties on North 74th Avenue. (See attached photos). The defining characteristic of these walls is that they are made of components that provide a consistent, more natural pattern and texture to the wall face. These are in distinct contrast to the wall behind Skyline Way made of the larger ecology blocks, which create an almost clumsy stacking pattern that emphasizes the larger size of the blocks. Some people may find these blocks to be more industrial in appearance. There are nonetheless products that are made of larger blocks that do stack in a manner that makes the actual seams and the artificial seams pretty much indistinguishable and/or that provide similar visual characteristics as natural or cut stone. The Redi-Rock retaining wall system is a good example of this. The use of timber is also a commonly accepted retaining wall system that is found in many residential and commercial applications. Page 11 While walls of any material can be designed for structural soundness, the issue addressed with this proposal is an aesthetic issue. The only way to ensure that retaining walls will not be visually intrusive or out of character with abutting development is to develop standards that address the design characteristics of retaining walls. In response to expressed concerns of abutting property owners, staff has drafted the following standards that would apply to all walls exceeding six feet in height in residential zones and on commercially developed property. They would apply only to those walls that are within 75 feet of abutting property as measured from the bottom or toe of the wall. The standards would be adopted as Section 15.09.210 of the zoning code. PROPOSED TEXT. 15.02.020 — Definitions "Retaining Wall" means a wall made of wood, stone, cement, steel or other products intended to support, retain or stabilize earthen or gravelly materials at either natural or finished grade. 15.09.210 —Special Requirements for Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding 6 feet in height, or retaining walls that are part of a stepped or terraced series of walls located closer than 15 feet from each other at any point, and that collectively exceed 8 feet in height, are subject to the following standards: a. Decorative Block Option: Retaining walls shall be constructed of, or faced with, individual blocks no larger than 8" high x 24" wide; or b. Larger Decorative Block Option: Retaining walls shall be constructed of, or faced with, decorative blocks of any size that are molded to provide the visual appearance of the block sizes in Option "a", provided that actual seams of the larger blocks are indiscernible from the molded seams; or c. Stone Option: Retaining walls shall be constructed of, or faced with, natural stone or faux stone of any dimension, provided that faux stone is designed and colored to have the appearance of natural stone; or d. Timber Option: Retaining walls shall be constructed of, or faced with, treated timber, or e. Landscape Option: Retaining walls shall be landscaped with vines, espaliers, shrubs and/or trees that screen at least 75% of the wall surface within 3 years of growth. Landscaping shall be located on-site and within 4 feet of the face of the wall. Landscaping shall include an automatic irrigation system, and shall be maintained throughout the life of the wall. f. Retaining walls are exempt from these standards when: a. The toe or downhill footing of the retaining wall is located more than 75 feet from any property line or street right-of-way line. b. They are not part of a residential, commercial or professional office site development. Page 12 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The staff is unaware of any goals or policies of the comprehensive plan that are inconsistent with, or that do not support adoption of, the proposed zoning text amendments pertaining to retaining walls. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW After review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the agency, the City of Yakima has determined this proposal will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. A DNS was therefore issued for this proposal on April 30, 2013. The DNS does not become final until the end of the appeal period. The deadline for appealing the SEPA determination is May 14, 2013. The public may comment on the SEPA determination at the May 16, 2013 meeting. PUBLIC NOTICE AND FEEDBACK: Notice of the proposed amendments was published in the Yakima Herald on April 7, 2013, and was sent to the State Department of Commerce on April 8, 2013. To date written comments (attached) have been received from the following individuals: a. Joe Walsh of Central Washington Home Builders Association. Mr. Walsh expressed concern over the merit of the proposed amendments, and whether they would preclude certain types of materials that may be superior in performance to those specified in the draft language. Staff met with Mr. Walsh, who provided picture examples of the types of materials that would be excluded under the proposed language, including a product made by Redi-Rock. He also questioned the use of timbers in retaining walls. Staff agreed that both treated timbers and the Redi-Rock product would comply with the intent of the proposed language, and amended the text to ensure that such products would be permitted under the proposed standards. b. Mike Dooley,Branch Manager of Wilbert Precast Yakima. Mr. Dooley offered similar comments as Mr. Walsh, expressing concern that the proposed language would preclude the use of the Redi-Rock product he markets. Again staff agreed with the comments and amended the text to ensure that his and similar products to his would be permitted under the proposed standards. PLANNING COMMISSION OPTIONS: The Commission can act in accordance with one of the following options: 1. Make a motion to recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed amendments as drafted. 2. Make a motion to recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed amendments with modifications. 3. Make a motion to recommend that the City Council not adopt the proposed amendments and retain the status quo. 4. Make a motion to refer the matter back to staff for additional information. Page 13 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that there are no inconsistencies between the proposed text and adopted comprehensive plan policies. Staff believes that the proposed amendments would address the expressed aesthetic concerns related to retaining walls, which could help to protect property values. However, this is a policy matter that will ultimately be the decision of policy makers. Staff recommends that the Commission hold the public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council based upon feedback of the public and Commission's collective analysis of this issue. _ /s/ Steve Osguthor a 05/16/2013 Steve Osguthorpe, AICP Date Community Development Director Page 14 DRAFT REX'011 / 111 °f' CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM MAY 16, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This document provides draft regulations for the following sections of the City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update: • Section 17.05.020 Environmental Protection* • Section 17.05.030 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation* • Section 17.05.060 Flood Hazard Reduction* • Section 17.07.030 Boating and Private Moorage Facilities • Section 17.07.150 Shoreline Stabilization • Chapter 17.09 Critical Areas in Shoreline Jurisdiction* Typically, the base language is from the Yakima County Regional SMP, and then amended with strikeout/underline to be more consistent with City conditions or SMP Guidelines. In some cases, sections are "all new" and noted as such. The draft sections should be read in conjunction with the following documents distributed to the Planning Commission at prior meetings: • Preliminary Shoreline Environment Designations & Use and Modification Matrix Framework (updated version distributed at 4/10 meeting) • Excerpts From Ecology's Shoreline Master Program Submittal Checklist (distributed at 3/27 meeting) • SMP Update Guidance — Consistency (distributed at 3/27 meeting) °j °' u�!I G E ) l IIEGUI A j II S 17.05.010 Environmental Protection [ALL NEW] Consultant Note: The Yakima County SMP did not have a discrete Environmental Protection section, and instead focused on protection of critical areas/buffers. This section has been generated by Consultant to ensure WAC compliance and broader application of environmental protection principles to the entire shoreline jurisdiction, not just critical areas. A. Ecological Functions. Uses and developments on City of Yakima shorelines must be designed, located, sized, constructed and maintained to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources. Uses and developments must not have an unmitigated significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions fostered by this SMP. B. Protection of Critical Areas and Critical Areas Buffers. Critical areas, critical area buffers, and shoreline buffers must be protected in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 17.09, Critical Areas in Shoreline Jurisdiction. C. Mitigation Requirement. If a proposed shoreline use or modification is entirely addressed by specific, objective standards (such as setback distances, pier dimensions, or materials requirements) contained in this SMP, only then is a mitigation sequencing analysis described in May 2, 2013 1 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT Section 17.05.010.1) not required. In the following circumstances, the applicant must provide the mitigation sequencing analysis described in Section 17.05.010.D: 1. if a proposed shoreline use or modification is addressed in any part by discretionary standards (such as standards requiring a particular action if feasible or requiring the minimization of development size) contained in this Chapter, then the mitigation sequencing analysis is required for the discretionary standard(s); or 2. when an action requires a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline Variance Permit; or 3. when specifically required by regulations contained in Chapters 17.05, 17.07 and 17.09 of this SMP. D. Mitigation Sequence. In order to ensure that development activities contribute to meeting the no net loss of ecological functions provisions by avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating for adverse impacts to ecological functions or ecosystem -wide processes, an applicant required to complete a mitigation analysis pursuant to Section 05.020(c) must describe how the proposal will follow the sequence of mitigation as defined below: 1. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimize the impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project or activity; 4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and 6. Monitor the impact and the compensation projects and take appropriate corrective measures. Mitigation Plan. All proposed alterations to shoreline jurisdiction that may have adverse effects on ecological functions require mitigation sufficient to provide for and maintain the functions and values of the shoreline area or to prevent risk from a critical areas hazard. The applicant must develop and implement a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional. Mitigation in excess of that necessary to ensure that development will result in no net loss of ecological functions will not be required by the City of Yakima, but may be voluntarily performed by an applicant. In addition to any requirements found in Chapter 17.09, Critical Areas in Shoreline Jurisdiction, a mitigation plan must include: An inventory and assessment of the existing shoreline environment including relevant physical, chemical and biological elements; 2. A discussion of any federal, state, or local management recommendations which have been developed for critical areas or other species or habitats located on the site; 3. A discussion of proposed measures which mitigate the adverse impacts of the project to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions; May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 4. A discussion of proposed management practices which will protect fish and wildlife habitat both during construction, and after the project site has been fully developed; 5. Scaled drawings of existing and proposed conditions, materials specifications, and a minimum three-year maintenance and monitoring plan, including performance standards; 6. A contingency plan if mitigation fails to meet established success criteria; and 7. Any additional information necessary to determine the adverse impacts of a proposal and mitigation of the impacts. Alternative Mitigation. To provide for flexibility in the administration of the ecological protection provisions of this SMP, alternative mitigation approaches may be approved within shoreline jurisdiction where such approaches provide increased protection of shoreline ecological functions and processes over the standard provisions of this SMP and are scientifically supported. 17.05.020 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation [ALL NEW] Consultant Note: The County SMP has some jurisdiction -wide policies, but most policies are limited to critical areas and buffers and the regulations appear to be applied only to critical areas and buffers. This section has been developed with applicability in and outside of critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. A. Vegetation conservation standards do not apply retroactively to existing uses and developments. Vegetation associated with existing structures, uses and developments may be maintained within shoreline jurisdiction as stipulated in the approval documents for the development. B. Vegetation within shoreline buffers, other stream buffers, wetlands and wetland buffers, WDFW-mapped priority habitats and species areas, and other critical areas must be managed consistent with Chapter 17.09 - Critical Areas in Shoreline Jurisdiction. Regulations specifying establishment and management of shoreline buffers (buffers associated with Type 1 streams and shoreline lakes) are located in YMC 17.09.030, Fish and Wildlife Habitat and the Stream Corridor System. C. Other vegetation within shoreline jurisdiction, but outside of shoreline buffers, other stream buffers, wetlands and wetland buffers, and other WDFW-mapped priority habitats and species areas, must be managed according to YMC 17.05.010, Environmental Protection, and any other regulations specific to vegetation management contained in this SMP and City of Yakima Code. D. Vegetation clearing must be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate approved shoreline development that is consistent with all other provisions of this SMP and City of Yakima Code. Mitigation sequencing per YMC 17.05.010.1) must be applied unless specifically excluded by this SMP, so that the design and location of the structure or development minimizes native vegetation removal. The City may approve modifications or require minor site plan alterations to achieve maximum tree retention. E. Where vegetation removal conducted consistent with this section results in adverse impacts to shoreline ecological function, new developments or site alterations are required to develop and implement a supplemental mitigation plan. Adverse impacts are assumed to result from: 1. removal of native trees and shrubs, May 2, 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT 2. removal of non-native trees or shrubs that overhang aquatic areas or stabilize slopes, or 3. removal of native or non-native trees or shrubs that disrupts an existing vegetation corridor connecting the property to other critical areas or buffers. Mitigation plans must be prepared by a qualified professional and must contain information required in YMC 17.05.010.E. Mitigation measures must be maintained over the life of the use or development, and must include compensation for temporal loss of function and the restoration of specific functions adversely impacted by the vegetation removal. F. Shoreline vegetation may be removed to accommodate a temporary staging area when necessary to implement an allowed use or modification, but mitigation sequencing must be utilized and the area must be immediately stabilized and restored with native vegetation once its use as a staging area is complete. G. Where a tree poses a safety hazard, it may be removed or converted to a wildlife snag if the hazard cannot be eliminated by pruning, crown thinning, or other technique that maintains some habitat function. If a safety hazard cannot be easily determined by the City, a written report by a certified arborist or other qualified professional is required to evaluate potential safety hazards. H. Selective pruning of trees for views is allowed. Selective pruning of trees for views does not include removal of understory vegetation, and must not compromise the health of the tree. I. Hand removal or spot -spraying of invasive species or noxious weeds on shorelands outside of steep or unstable slope areas is encouraged. Where noxious weeds and invasive species removal results in bare soils that may be subject to erosion or recolonization by invasive species, the area must stabilized using best management practices and replanted with native plants. Aquatic weed control may only be permitted where the presence of aquatic weeds will adversely affect native plant communities, fish and wildlife habitats, or an existing water - dependent recreational use. Aquatic weed control efforts must comply with all applicable laws and standards. Removal using mechanical methods is preferred over chemical methods. 17.05.050 Flood Hazard Reduction [ALL NEW] Consultant Note: This new section is derived almost exclusively from WAC requirements in 173-26-221(3). Some language is shown in tracks to indicate that it was relocated from existing City code. A. Development in floodplains shall avoid significantly or cumulatively increasing flood hazards. Development shall be consistent with this SMP, including YMC 17.09.020, as well as applicable guidelines of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and an approved flood hazard management plan. B. The channel migration zone (CMZ) is considered to be that area of a stream channel which may erode as a result of normal and naturally occurring processes and has been mapped consistent with WAC 173-26-221(3)(b) [See Figure X of this SMP]. Applicants for shoreline development or modification may submit a site-specific channel migration zone study if they believe these conditions do not exist on the subject property and the map is in error. The CMZ study must be prepared consistent with WAC 173-26-221(3)(b), and may include, but is not limited to, historic aerial photographs, topographic mapping, flooding records, and field verification. The CMZ May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM study must be prepared by a licensed geologist or engineer with at least five years of applied experience in assessing fluvial geomorphic processes and channel response. C. The following uses and activities maybe authorized within the CMZ or floodway: 1. New development or redevelopment landward of existing legal structures, such as levees, that prevent active channel movement and flooding. 2. Development of new or expansion or redevelopment of existing bridges, public stormwater facilities and outfalls, and other public utility and transportation structures, including trails, where no other feasible' (see definition in YMC 17.01.090)alternative exists or the alternative would result in unreasonable and disproportionate costS2. The evaluation of cost differences between options within the CMZ or floodway and outside of the CMZ or floodway shall include the cost of design, permitting, construction and long-term maintenance or repair. Where such structures are allowed, mitigation shall address adversely impacted functions and processes in the affected shoreline. 3. Development of new or expansion or redevelopment of existing utility lines where no other feasible alternative exists or the alternative would result in unreasonable and disproportionate costs. The evaluation of cost differences between options within the CMZ or floodway and outside of the CMZ or floodway shall include the cost of design, permitting, construction and long-term maintenance or repair. Where such structures are allowed, mitigation shall address adversely impacted functions and processes in the affected shoreline " � u,..f[ ("[11 .I..y J f (11itlt.!..p s"Migi.pri I I __ I to-A,�, rJf `r__,_k ------------ j . (i i+ _0 ?f? si ul "rvq i� s( rrae _ 11ho� . Nca c + sa h it II foldty d �1, ,1 � rb l���e .m �r�ll r� �Ar�C�.�9 �y :.,ia�.�1� ;,mmlJtm i s�,►ml"�� �_�qk,1,' f.�".a-i).9(t,a , i p- e fop ._1qP,,,.jir1B_fb w. 1 "Feasible" means that an action, such as a development project, mitigation, or preservation requirement, meets all of the following conditions: A. The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the past in similar circumstances, or studies or tests have demonstrated in similar circumstances that such approaches are currently available and likely to achieve the intended results; B. The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose; and C. The action does not physically preclude achieving the project's primary intended legal use. In cases where these Guidelines require certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is on the applicant. In determining an action's infeasibility, the City may weigh the action's relative public costs and public benefits, considered in the short- and long-term time frames. z For the purposes of this section "unreasonable and disproportionate" means that locations outside of the floodway or CMZ would add more than 20% to the total project cost. Other methods to determine unreasonable and disproportionate cost may be used on a case-by-case basis with approval of the Shoreline Administrator. [20% has been used as a threshold by WSDOT and the Federal Dept of Justice for ADA standards] May 2, 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT 1 ....tkr"t.?.°.T.J,ranS,InisF,ioI') ":II s" "rN�.AJ sl���,C.;i-t��.a�"..,f.o(,), 'y?�N,�t wNi9�_sul�l�c�ww' _3ow+w�rs I ���t��ti��� lir�o ilNii o„�a.i, w oq, 1wa” "owt,where. io,d, _5 _5 :,swvo; N iii r,. iii trort;t w i„ 1 3ltmt e tG s ,t',di 49, ti7Nfi� N I9; _ o.d C?Iid 1 !_wd/ w 4 , h tras 1°q¢Iliil,l lwaltrotul.ly tlriodirc.o,fnd u wciw�r iw but not INlnrted t cryd .aj)d iefined..pttr lovi,ns�odrw�ts anti wN tu_i_ttl a � st����l iwiw°ri Nrwiwgwwa_z of tach::.lotwelow the axiu..... established scour of the P wt r y a �� t�iateri coxa tlwe ba ws a l�: riwa�iu o awn .Iys a„ia Iw a is d fe i;,lw Siq ll:;1� ; ]n ailitat ed -ho a tl o t lly w.rth:ti� tl _lw, r rt_l:r tlrrcariway to tier” r, axu utii ex ,,.. t Ix tenti l r°ttannel wn,i i�atiolt ��� Ci�'towrNlNrq?�d, icy �t wdra�,log[ut.p5it se.....'4w ti-°:o_.i�t; t otr"iagal a ha:.nnei inlgg ,ndlhe 7hy0oul:wt.�N��t� ti;iaow ll+ a 1" y_ .ring _ n B s aecil' !Dari Nvaw arc s _N II al5Q_,& .Pia( roen)t.. liywirologNr iu y ,,, i�' siwl .aret t c: e t :r'wi i" t y__tlwt' wty ui a:tl pNr i, w.iiia 8w s:Nr wll ogrt--- ftpn i i d ii wi ri o a one -11111) rl,w eai ,rps :w . , , ,..m,I r��i�� m f` ;i;wstl,rwrl _wte..,lwr.wtia rru -------------------------- a 4 ctgei prtwiw._�a tnr�i ai,tl N i a of rn.p.i wi?..�� .wias awt.de aontai i tttmt,tt r a 1 i.i q t:. rtiirn._I_:1 1wydtulwi..tic n w y siwai:l:-b omi te,nt.,.witb U)is °hitt �r e�� or l�w� .. _ _ �o� way �,:;_. W t.w �-� yi Nii...t 't ri uq. � q e.xt �t...o potei t! N.:c haiii e,l naw tw,ri ,ittwl�ty_ir twwsw i ss_inl Jin t_raiwst g h i wrdc.tias ai�ai r;wo.....t 111111111111—.111111-111_ - 9 ,4 rwodmt r"Np?y , .i.ry1Nr. . i -r --total --ii--rl arl.,ifggi C1irwfio tataairsr ,wtd. e t�vegi;a rwriri utwlwiy t;1. w srtlw sn�.o...►,wte.?�..Igot...gP r4't d,ir g r�N4. Ita mani sio fi e"ssh::jj. i q ly 1 =Ila wo 1 fortlti tr in , c it �tuQ � oaf r a w star wry aw nigt. da. mN�ere amts wsm uw g of I�: VIJ) l'nor twiictri,r.r, ws av .wi'�wi ie iris r:ai?able o1 suppo,rtNtig ttwo„ Ir1C w iM4'n lain ai�ii cigl egtNiip.new,.bw'wa�ge ti oilier st.rucu.res..w.it elevations below. the one_ I.,wwnrir h % (10 _y.f itQq Ic vol th.a tr iwisitq.wssionwmmlriic" Mall t,l "d..r rmw tJ.t. Mowat l_i.o,roY;, rt iii prote t:ted lr?wilnoai ebq_N liiwili qii„trt.o. s�t...twlia .owziirws..�ir tlood.dad a,svz..i a l ilt_i.al sbii_l_tdl tett i larel, iq=ri _ tsq�i ._rw�► iitc.4a�rtiriw_i it ra i"i li a 1, tlto, tla r w :y . pi':N caNtt...l w.tt t rtr cN ow sti_ to t i� t i abo ogrourid lin-U: tll :lwa�a._Iile a'1eri icon„lloos_w?eolN.i�.nlo.gloi:ogt”; att.dwlwr,11 h...,tiny. p:tmaft,..d i i i rrq IVu 4 == is w w.ag If tlt_ tiaii_ e iwssi!r: �iw�a� q _iu e l iirgc"r ti r a -fit :.a ttve wale ra�v m No�5it g4.l)tmia l sptc.gtloa�iion �h(all be_d(te"r.! ia(,t�. .igi wad .lactw c)._ a_bo_ve... 3. New or redeveloped measures to reduce shoreline erosion, provided that it is demonstrated that the erosion rate exceeds that which would normally occur in a natural condition, that the measures do not interfere with fluvial hydrological and geo-morphological processes normally acting in natural conditions, and that the measures include appropriate mitigation of adverse impacts on ecological functions associated with the river or stream. 4. Actions that protect or restore the ecosystem -wide processes or ecological functions or development with a primary purpose of protecting or restoring ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. -5 eater-d',ew'ri.tl,t'.ritdfw:� tisit.t.Nl.tio.lgs:wlN__b 11N_9'.t+r.naiw ro_irist_bo_K lwe tl,wty µl aft��,�,olliel...tw dinetti�uti ate+i May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM ftut.�j� _rd:ef)m f p ila.ti ..yd$ e4c,--W 2 '.a 44 yaa vm�wf Ieir sa��f tj p�<saou y ansta�_r. an f -I 'atlr g uMtrlit"ri' Baa°ad_olhr ria� taa�G rte �s lad tNc t racy Nc '; tJi?la .l .r. . C� " I. l: of E,termcAe a raderat ivastal�latior°asp ar°e: d'cac:ks and l oat laa�r cl os da�rns for domestic/industrial Ailter:..sUlm.!YLv aspte t a tre tn'ient and collection tion s ±sITstl rol anc:i r roelectric_pro uction water iversITionITstructures n ITf cilities for wat r trap I la°r i . ani )n arapd. c r fisheries enhancerncLnt:,flo dw ate'r and d awmwll:q.gc''.�arrl i r 1��nj,,,..and i aculutres N ydNcau Nc tric e,neratu f a c IJties man gpl:acu�tt�r�aaaatu sir°a.ac.t�ar��s, rr�i ¢ac�►asl:a u,actua°al Casa s... r i....trt � c twi tta vomrj d,mm I ITut.j.�.l.' ptaiic.a rtt Dell grovide evidence that x°;a floodV ay location is, necessa.r in view of:wtlrn rsl i �t�r s r�m� 9BreITl�uo cmc �m�rl,_.�tuaci l�amm��rucf ci �cuumtll� a tl��wt ll�g pjgL( alis consistent withotlac�a,.�vAsic�ns c�f�tl��s Cha atmu'l �i, e f 6. Modifications or additions to an existing nonagricultural legal use, provided that channel migration is not further limited and that the modified or expanded development includes appropriate protection of ecological functions. 7. Repair and maintenance of existing legally established use and developments, provided that channel migration is not further limited, flood hazards to other uses are not increased, and significant adverse ecological impacts are avoided. 8. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities provided that no new restrictions to channel movement are proposed. D. Existing structural flood hazard reduction measures, such as levees, may be repaired and maintained as necessary to protect legal uses on the landward side of such structures. Increases in height of an existing levee, with any associated increase in width, that may be needed to prevent a reduction in the authorized level of protection of existing legal structures and uses shall be considered an element of repair and maintenance. E. Flood hazard reduction measures shall not result in channelization of normal stream flows, interfere with natural hydraulic processes such as channel migration, or undermine existing structures or downstream banks. F. New development in shoreline jurisdiction, including the subdivision of land, shall not be permitted if it is reasonably foreseeable that the development or use would require structural flood hazard reduction measures within the channel migration zone or floodway. G. New public and private structural flood hazard reduction measures: 1. shall be approved when a scientific and engineering analysis demonstrates the following: a. that they are necessary to protect existing development; b. that nonstructural measures, such as setbacks, land use controls, wetland restoration, dike removal, use or structure removal or relocation, biotechnical measures, and stormwater management programs are not feasible; May 2, 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT C. _ ...... .. tN� t ev rbc (JfPQ5_A!i 1. ; _tlr vvcd�}f�,,�1y.4W.w�p�,s�,!,rl�og�hc 8t�wflro,drr...+flr„�7�ctr iWggdmott.yrr ra r i,�ci,. t at the ability of.p y�ft�r. A � I �r�n��g _ y� _ ��� ��i N�, �,���9y, Wi � � .A4l�a� � iewa � ' jm. W.y..OQ�in fIoodWaIer a,f.te,r, a 110Qd,.I.�I eV r'_-i�alI1r�i��W I t r'.r:;�aiir_�attr�irt �Imhir.p.!..l,f tiili,rg cti+t� p, ,m),ri[” e", (111 f t[la- plea tial- att^"t� me ft ecft5,.taf N .r �7c:� afiec-te-ci a�#adw_ lsg is Ar k ..[t.. f beesn �� I!�atcn-ted; d, (that adverse impacts on ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully mitigated so as to assure no net loss. 2. shall be consistent with an approved comprehensive flood hazard management plan. shall be placed landward of associated wetlands and designated shoreline buffers, except for actions that increase ecological functions, such as wetland restoration, or when no other alternative location to reduce flood hazard to existing development is feasible as determined by the Shoreline Administrator. H. All new flood control projects shall define maintenance responsibilities and a funding source for operations, maintenance, and repairs for the life of the project. [provision relocated from County's shoreline stabilization section] New public structural flood hazard reduction measures, such as levees, shall dedicate and improve public access pathways unless public access improvements would cause unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public, inherent and unavoidable security problems, unacceptable and unmitigable significant adverse ecological impacts, unavoidable conflict with the proposed use, or a cost that is disproportionate and unreasonable to the total long-term cost of the development. In those instances where management of vegetation as required by this SMP conflicts with vegetation provisions included in state, federal or other flood hazard agency documents governing city -authorized, legal flood hazard reduction measures, the vegetation requirements of this SMP will not apply. However, the applicant shall submit documentation of these conflicting provisions with any shoreline permit applications, and shall comply with all other provisions of this section and this SMP that are not strictly prohibited by the approving flood hazard agency. K. The removal of gravel or other riverbed material for flood management purposes shall be consistent with YMC 17.07.060, Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal, and be allowed only after a biological and geo-morphological study shows that extraction has a long-term benefit to flood hazard reduction, does not result in a net loss of ecological functions, and is part of a comprehensive flood management solution. L. Roads shall be located outside the floodway, except necessary crossings which shall be placed perpendicular to the waterbody as much as is physically feasible. New transportation facilities shall be designed so that the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain is not reduced. The applicant shall provide all necessary studies, reports and engineering analysis which shall be subject to review and modification by the City. If proposed transportation May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM facilities effectively provide flood control, they shall comply with policies and regulations of this section. M. In recognition of the significant benefits of levee setbacks, maximum flexibility of Title 17, including Chapter 17.09 Critical Areas, should be granted when existing structural flood hazard reduction measures are proposed for relocation landward of the existing flood hazard reduction measure. Existing public access or recreation facilities that need to be relocated to accommodate the relocated flood hazard reduction measure shall be allowed to be reconstructed in the floodway or channel migration zone provided they do not further limit channel migration or increase flood hazards. U'z 0 II111C 10 Pit S CIIAFI j ,IIII' IIR 17.07 U S E S 1 IIIIIII; IIII IIIIC A M I F I CA"I 10 II@ tt.1c1110P11, ""'lllF1111 IIIINJ 17.07.030 Boating and Private Moorage Facilities •Awl#wuiavosIi9y 1>�ya:1aen,ea4'rtroefi,r a„fls.kil�arli0tlwwi,la A. a r I r k w � c tie Alll,bca wtmmiw l acglities shall be the minimum size necessary to meet the needs of the use. B. New pier or dock construction, excluding docks accessory to single-family residences, must demonstrate that a specific need exists to support the intended water -dependent or public access use. C. New residential development of two or more dwellings must provide joint --use or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather than allow individual docks for each residence. D. Docks, piers, and any other over -water structures for purposes of temporary or ::err aiau°�e���gl �boamt rnooraLLe�, are prohibited in free --flowing streams and rivers E. Public, commercial or industrial Rboating facilities, it al x a 4 r r � g i shall: 1. comply with the health, safety and welfare standards of State and local agencies for such facilities; 2. be so located and designed as not to obstruct or cause danger to normal public navigation of water bodies, if applicable; 3. be restricted to suitable locations; 4. avoid or mitigate for aesthetic impacts; 6. mitigate impacts to existing public access and navigation, if applicable; 7. provide documentation of ownership or authorization to use associated water areas; 8. demonstrate that state and local regulations will be met. Agencies responsible for such regulations shall be consulted as to the viability of the proposed design; 9. submit an operations and site plan demonstrating: May 2, 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM a. location and design of fuel handling and storage facilities to minimize accidental spillage and protect water quality; term moorage facilities; c. adequate facilities to properly handle wastes from holding tanks; d. that boating facilities are located only at sites with suitable environmental conditions, shoreline configuration, and access; and e. adequate access, parking, and restroom facilities for the public. Such facilities should be located away from the immediate water's edge. 1. ..As Lake: the maximum length of docks is 8 feet tneasured gg&n4icular from the Q±jWM,jtnd no new dock situated directly across froni aLi Lyistin Aock. _t,with consideration for andthe accumulation of drift lo s and debris. facilities is documented to exceed the di I ty i sfl r1g-!pLLqCL�fz�C i I i tiles is not feasible or would not be ad�tg1Lgq2.1..L) rrLe�-L,1,�pecific 17.07.150 Shoreline Stabilization A. Shoreline stabilization projects shall be allowed only where there is evidence of erosion which clearly represents a threat to existing property, structures, uses or facilities, and which stabilization will not jeopardize other upstream or downstream properties. B. Stabilization projects shall be developed under the supervision of, or in consultation with, agencies or professionals with appropriate expertise. C. Stabilization projects shall be the minimum protective measures necessaryjLiIA.shall use rneasures....d(Lsyl C d to C- sure no net loss, of shoreline ecoltyi.c..a...1 functions. soft a1111.[9�Lhg shall ble used unless demonstrated riot to be sufficient tP. )I�qLect pr D. The use of fill to restore lost land may accompany stabilization work, provided the resultant 10 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM consistent with abutting properties, a restoration plan is approved for the area, and the fill material is in compliance with �ct� � Y� �ww trf :J1�tJ'7,07 0601(Fill ). E. Stabilization projects shall use design, material, and construction alternatives that do not require high or continuous maintenance and which prevent or minimize the need for subsequent stabilization to other segments of the shore. Junk car bodies and other unsuitable debris are not to be used in shore stabilization projects. es�ee-�n� ��swa��t�r��;�-t�w��'s1����t--ief�ar�r��gM��fif�;cn��� p��riw����i•Nsoi� :�ar�N-ri ���eaifi�raear�of..��:��9w�o-nf;�iew��t�b�t:tte�m��•I�a i.�..-�.l_���t��a�i-:m�lJ��,�1���k�e�-��h� w�•%���"���r�e�=r����.��-pot-�:i;...���l�stf�b��Mti��el�o�.�. Ore t. s1f�asN� teimf f�tr:�r €fa-pile��t�tl Jq�i1r�tklr F. Additional Shoreline Standards for Shoreline Stabilization. The requirements below shall apply to all shoreline„ stabilization activities within Shoreline jurisdiction. 4w4el ° eaiik fid a vee°s a - � Leri c � t id'e f tem et ri Aaa� a �����i�m������:�•'i�tia�ws�+r�r-�����mm�r����iw�����iw�a��y-wta�a��i�a° ae�ry 211 f�4-)RP"p,i-algild.�tiaf-,rhoreline stabilization measures shall be designed, located, and constructed in such a manner as to minimize the disruption of natural channel characteristics. 2. Where a geotechnical analysis or report is required, it shall meet the provisions of the c !1L1iC1Q11 r Ided i� 17.01.090 ii �i'mmia, edu a� s c i t e a n l r ii 4;­-W*w�m�-qtr-c�t�����f���d�l���r���w�w ., 3. Demonstration of necessity. New structural shoreline stabilization measures shall not be allowed except when necessity is demonstrated in the following manner: New or enlarged structural stabilization measures to otectfef an existing primary structure, including residences, shall not be allowed unless there is conclusive evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion caused by currents or waves. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline erosion itself, without a scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need. The geotechnical analysis should evaluate on-site drainage issues and address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before considering structural shore stabilization. May 2, 2013 11 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT b. Erosion control structures in support of new non -water -dependent development, including single-family residences, when all of the conditions below apply: i. The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as the loss of vegetation and drainage. ii. Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development farther from the shoreline, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. iii. The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report. The damage must be caused by natural processes, such as tidal action, currents, and waives. Erosion control structures in support of water -dependent development when all of the conditions below apply: i. The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as the loss of vegetation and drainage. ii. Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. iii. The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report. . Erosion control structures to protect projects for the restoration of ecological functions or hazardous substance remediation projects pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (70.105D RCW) shall not be allowed unless there is conclusive evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis that demonstrates that nonstructural measures such as planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage improvements, is not feasible or not sufficient. 5. An existing shoreline stabilization structure may be replaced with a similar structure if there is a demonstrated need to protect principal uses or structures from erosion. ®For purposes of this section w rJo kiaC� ea, "replacement" means the construction of a new structure to perform a shoreline stabilization function of an existing structure which can no longer adequately serve its purpose. Additions to or increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structuress+kir 6. Replacement walls or bulkheads shall not encroach waterward of the ordinary high water mark or existing structure unless the residence was occupied prior to January 1, 1992, and there are overriding safety or environmental concerns. In such cases, the replacement structure shall abut the existing shore stabilization structure. 7. Soft shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. I1h a; c..n- 1.7 .09 R I T I A I AREAS IN I@,,,,j REII,,,, 11TE J U R 1 li'Yi rii °' II Consultant Note: The County's SMP language was not transferred to this section. Instead, the City's current critical areas regulations were transferred into this section, and changes to the existing City code are shown in strikeout/underline. Changes were made to better integrate this chapter with the remainder of the SMP (particularly for the Flood Hazard Areas section), to meet SMA/SMP Guidelines requirements, and where noted to correct possible unintentional past omissions. 12 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 17.09.010 General Provisions :�'I'����t�t-�s.�rp�r�;t-•p�t�rrl r�'�:�r:�rara�:�r����� I�r•�.l�t,+ltCi't,'Y c��-til.."N�rtiw��r�l��e�'i-�u�a:�•���w�c�� P���a��u� g�„a.,w"M-s�a��r��.:�t� "611"�„�: � ����aa �F������`d- I���;��k�� 0.a�� �' �•CF� �. "�i�'b�� �-�:�'���� -9� .p�.-I���'_'d����, a��-�r�'"r i 6����« �a �:��•d'��� b�c;�*M"-�1� �=�4��� n+ t�raf��ss�s��lt�r” e��•i"Rye-+r�i-��I"a-I���a 1..� �� !;��. � �� -�7"w �A.vr�-+x�,��r� m�����w��Nry�w°����� � I�'�� hI�a'� �-�a�•s6�I-e rn�,s fmiabw--ap p P and 6WY.S'C'p�iSY'CG64�"� j w"��"�Mf shomw is t .r9Yt c34 r$�i" I$V w 4a",-?C—VA—lase, ��t����e�������,e�+�sas���rlua4 k�r�'"�'k���,,-sway¢is��:'a"s�:I�"rr������s-'!fl����s�����a��i�kh�.•.�A�SN���, k'•I�'!nbo���:�����-•ke�C����s 44ie.."Pira A'iind tl' ,,plrrr.�s�; tl,)r wr�il,ul i�r-, A. Purpose of Chapter. The purpose of Ch. 17.09 is to establish a single, uniform system of procedures and standards for development within designated critical areas within the shoreline .1.ur ii dit'I'ITio�0...r .�;.Iw, incorporated City of Yakima and its Urban Growth Area. B. Intent of Chapter. Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 17.09 establishes policies, standards, and other provisions pertaining to development within designated critical areas regulated under the provisions of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) and development regulated under the National Flood Insurance Program. Wetlands, streams, stream corridors and rivers, areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; frequently flooded areas; and geologically hazardous areas constitute the City of Yakima's critical areas pursuant to WAC 365-190-030. These areas are of special concern to the people of the City of Yakima and the State of Washington because they are environmentally sensitive lands, or hazardous areas, which comprise an important part of the state's natural resource base. The policies, standards, and procedures of this Chapter are intended to: 1. Preserve development options within designated critical areas where such development will result in the level of "No net loss" of the functions and values of the critical areas; 2. Where appropriate, avoid uses and development which are incompatible with critical areas; 3. Prevent further degradation of critical areas unless the degradation has occurred beyond feasible protection; 4. Conserve and protect essential or important natural resources; 5. Protect the public health, safety, and general welfare; 6. Further the goals and policies of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan; May 2, 2013 13 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 7. Implement the goals and requirements of the Washington Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), ndthe National Flood Insurance Program (CFR Title 42); 8. Recognize and protect private property rights; and 9. Provide development options for landowners of all existing lots to the greatest extent possib| C. The policies, standards and procedures nfthis Chapter are not intended to: 1. Regulate the operation and maintenance of existing, legally established uses and structures, including but not limited to vegetative buffers on existing uses that have been reduced in width prior to the effective date of this Chapter; Z. Result inanunconstitutional regulatory taking ofprivate property; 3. Require the restoration of degraded critical areas for properties in a degraded condition prior to the effective date of this Chapter unless improvement of the buffer is needed for new development proposed onthe property; 4. Presume that regulatory tools are the only mechanism for protection; and, S. Prohibit the use ofvalid water rights. D. Applicability. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to any new development, construction, or use within the incorporated portion of the City of Yakima and its Urban Growth Area designated as a critical area and upon any land mapped and designated as a special flood hazard area under the National Flood Insurance Program. However, this Chapter does not apply tothe situations below, except that the Flood Hazard protection provisions of YMC 17.09.020 will continue toapply asdetermined bvYK8[17.U9.02U.A-G: 1. Within designated critical areas, there may exist lots, structures, and/or uses which were lawfully established prior to the adoption of this Chapter, as provided below, but which would be subsequently prohibited, regulated, or restricted under this Chapter. Such existing lots, structures, and/or uses shall be classified as legally non -conforming uses. J. It is the intent of this Chapter to permit these pre-existing legally non -conforming uses and structures to continue until such time as conformity is possible; a. Critical areas on federally owned lands are not subject to the provision of this Chapter; b. Minor, temporary, or transient activities (including those of recreational nature) that do not alter the environment or require a dedicated staging area, use area, or route (including temporary signs) are not subject tothis Chapter; u. Mining, asdefined inYM[171)1.O9D iscarried out under aWashington Department nf Natural Resources reclamation permit is not subject to the geologically hazardous areas provisions of this Chapter for erosion hazard areas, over steepened slope hazard areas, landslide hazard areas and suspected geologic hazard areas. Other critical areas provisions continue toapply. E. Critical Area Development Authorization Required 14 May 2,z013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM No new development, construction or use shall occur within a designated critical area without obtaining a development authorization in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, except for those provided for in YMC 17.09.010.1-1 or Y C 17°13.050. , With respect to application and review procedures, it is the intent of this Chapter to streamline and coordinate development authorization within a critical area and recognize other requirements by local, state and/or federal permits or authorizations. Development, construction or use occurring within a designated critical area shall be processed according to the provisions of this Chapter, unless determined to be exempt. Approval of a development authorization under this Chapter shall be in addition to, and not a substitute for, any other development permit or authorization required by the City of Yakima. Approval of a development authorization under this Chapter shall not be interpreted as an approval of any other permit or authorization required of a development, construction or use. 4. Development authorizations small be issued in accordance with this Chapter the S lorefine a�'rt t p.� agi a res (;)f WAC 173ITIT27 i� t wit Ii i, 5. Coordination with Other Jurisdictions. Where all or a portion of a standard development project site is within a designated critical area and the project is subject to another local, state or federal development permit or authorization, the Administrative Official shall determine whether the provisions of this Chapter can be processed in conjunction with a local, state or federal development permit or authorization, or whether a separate critical area development authorization application and review process is necessary. The decision of the Administrative Official shall be based upon the following criteria: a. The nature and scope of the project and the critical area features involved or potentially impacted; b. The purpose or objective of the permit or authorization and its relationship to protection of the critical area; c. The feasibility of coordinating the critical area development authorization with other permitting agency; d. The timing of the permit or authorization. 2. When a determination has been made that provisions of this Chapter can be handled through another applicable development permit or authorization process, project proponents may be required to provide additional site plans, data and other information necessary as part of that process to ensure compliance with this Chapter. The Administrative Official's decision on the critical area development authorization shall be coordinated to coincide with other permits and authorizations. The Administrative Official may determine to accept the development authorization and/or permits from the other reviewing agencies as complete compliance with the City's critical area ordinance. May 2, 2013 15 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM INQUIRY AND EARLY ASSISTANCE F. Critical Area Identification Form and Critical Area Report Requirements DRAFT Prior to the review of any applicable proposed development, construction or use, the applicant shall provide the City with a Critical Areas Identification Form and site plan and any other information the City may require to determine if a critical area is present. 2. Upon receipt of a Critical Area Identification Form and site plan, the Administrative Official or designee may conduct a site examination to review critical area conditions. The Administrative Official or designee shall notify the property owner of the site examination prior to the site visit. Reasonable access to the site shall be provided by the property owner. 3. The Administrative Official or designee shall review the available information pertaining to the proposal and make a determination whether any critical areas may be affected. If so, a more detailed critical area report shall be submitted in conformance with YMC 17.09.010.13 and YMC 17.09.010.Q, except as provided below: a. No critical areas present. If the Administrative Official or designee is able to sufficiently determine a critical area does not exist within or adjacent to the project area and / or a critical area report is not required. b. Critical areas present, but no impact. If the Administrative Official or designee is able to determine the existence, location and type of critical area and the project area is not within the critical area and or the project will not have an indirect impact on the function of an adjacent wetland. c. Critical areas maybe affected by a proposal. The Administrative Official or designee may waive the requirement for a critical areas report utilizing the technical expertise of other reviewing agencies if: i. The Administrative Official is sufficiently able to determine the existence, location and type of the critical area; ii. The project scale or nature is such that a specialist is not necessary to identify impacts and mitigation; and, iii. The applicant agrees to provide mitigation the Administrative Official deems adequate to mitigate for anticipated impacts. 4. Reports will generally fall into the following groups: a. Determining the absence of a critical area; b. Determining the existence, location and type of a critical area; c. Determining impacts of an encroachment on a critical area and general mitigation measures; and d. Developing a compensatory mitigation plan. ;���. ���c���'���+��.,i�lw��tvd�3�ffi�.�i,.�=�d��s����f��la���t���doa��r�daw•+�t��r��i��eir�nr�� 4 el i ri ds-ld"(AWA ea tiowtind )eijt . Jeo +ua4. 4e(J de +: fig 1; )w -4-.�y.-Wie-M4-niRi t-ra4ve 044-kla4 4a a41...4 � oa s stowa tk�4a �et400 4w Y it oti an as - asl " w-t�4 as 14.44M- arefl 16 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM G. Pre -application Conference. Any new development or use falling under the provisions of this Chapter may be subject to a pre -application conference. Prior to the pre -application conference, the project proponent must submit a Critical Area Identification From and preliminary site plan. A project review for flood hazards shall follow the pre -application requirements established to administer Part Four Flood Hazard Areas. The pre -application conference is intended to allow the Administrative Official or designee to: 1. Establish the scope of the project and identify potential concerns that may arise; 2. Identify permits, exemptions, and authorizations, which the project proponent may need to obtain; 3. Determine whether the project will be processed through the development procedures of this Chapter or coordinated with the review procedures of another development permit or authorization; 4. Provide the proponent with resources and technical assistance (such as maps, scientific information, other source materials, etc.); and, 5. Determine whether there is a need for a preliminary site assessment. ABBREVIATED REVIEW ALTERNATIVES H. Minor Activities Allowed without a Critical Areas Permitm�_�rf�;tpcf Nr�� df shoreline faerrri�„or shoreline exemawn under catcher prowisi2ata of this Title, This Chapter shall be inapplicable to the following actions-(*"�.'�," ""' : 1. Maintenance of existing, lawfully established areas of crop vegetation, landscaping, paths, and trails or gardens within a regulated critical area or its buffer. Examples include: mowing lawns, weeding, garden crops, pruning, and planting of non-invasive ornamental vegetation or indigenous native species to maintain the general condition and extent of such areas; 2. Minor maintenance and/or repair of structures that do not involve additional construction, earthwork or clearing. Examples include painting, trim or facing replacement, re -roofing, etc. Cleaning , operation and maintenance of canals, ditches, drains, waste ways etc. is not considered additional earthwork, as long as the cleared materials are placed outside the stream corridor, wetlands, and buffers; 3. Low impact activities such as hiking, canoeing, viewing, nature study, photography, hunting, fishing, education or scientific research; 4. Creation of private trails that do not cross streams or wetlands that are less than two (2) feet wide and do not involve placement of fill or grubbing of vegetation; 5. Maintenance and normal work of the Greenway pathway and grounds; 6. Planting of native vegetation; 7. Noxious weed control outside vegetative buffers identified in YMC 17.09.030.0 and YMC 17.09.040.E; and, May 2, 2013 17 CITY OFYAK|W1ASHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 8. Noxious weed control within vegetative buffers, ifthe criteria listed below are met. Control methods not meeting these criteria may still apply for a restoration exemption, or other authorization asapplicable: a. Hondremoval/spnaying ofindividual plants orother acceptable method approved by the administrative official; b. No area wide vegetation removal/grubbing. Wlew�iob6e.<Aie'14 F4 (1 Raf 18 May 2, 2013 DRAFT Wed CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM '¢*,wi��iiwwrmaw1•fwaver•�VVVwrvr�9rrr¢w-aMsVrw.wwrwrrl`"tlwrrr ��•:-&�-�"����r��w�w�q.w�a:�-F�rr��w�w��w�r���.�a�������r�;wV�;w���4`y..�aaV���w�a r4�rNa���-�w�w�� I���r� �4~4�wa�..4�aV - a.r��C4��r4�aa�ar�t ����ta�aV�:TM��-��rau��r�ww��a���"w-ewewr��wwmw�-d���dda���w�r�w�•�-�ra��wr°���4-F�a�--�'��w:� www���.�V�����'��wV�V�Idu,�-IvV�w��ak�rw�w•��wa.:Vww�a���'a�rrV�a�w 1--���- -rr��w°�w&�Vr r��-��a��V -���w� rV�r�s a:���rV�;�w r�-w�w�a��,wV� ��.�r w ar�r��r�°w�� V r.��c��r..r���ir���.� �a w������wr:rw��wrw=w� -rr•�w ��V~B wrw���w��r�rl���--I:��-t=^��",�w��Vr=�-w-�w�w�r r�a�....Rw^w�•V��rr r4Vw„aw����c��i a��r:+�r���r-a�wµ�V'�w�w �:� V��:��wt�V�r l�ww��44ara�a°a N��w.r�aV•,p��aw:r•r-���r�w�aw�r�:�x•�����w'w+��c�w� �6V�. �� �,� J���pw��rM�warw••�w-���r•�r��rwr°s�.wrk•�a�•V�Vw�...c.+���-r�V..�w'a ��t�Po;�aaa,.Naw4r4�w�,-l•4V�44al�lw:a �-lr,caa:�~lwa�'a�ww4 �'�� ���.-��"•..V �":. , C ww a we a w a-wth wwpw� [)e -t ac,r a 41!n dwia 0V •tile- rdrw+ar -Ngh- gator—r w fl : Single -Fa aVl w Vw V air l vel a a l; r r V ave w lta c 1 r anw tr wa a r d yaw w ...rwao nstFoetrwoal d eve, kipi -rw wwt a ve {1 . ari: tww rwr as+; t twawra l ,l . r, to w a ra ara rr y radh wa r-n+-,ave-n+el •pufp ree pigWA-ami ly-wr fikkmia �w���w�g�wa=tw�w�ww���t w tui; kw��aw�w�w�a�•Va���amaw:.�V�a�a�ar�� w w�V.�wr.�p �wa�wa�a� 4 wnlw�t4w. tai l 1����wa V��r��+a��•R�-�c��wla &-w �-e;'ar rxt*��a�;t'�w�' -ter-=td�a-t�a�+�t'r����-� a ��atoi ervw�N r-�+���a•ua-. ffi'Of as arar' artwa _ tea ww ra# w k Vw ¢ ww e ka �twaaaw r Lw + w � w rot w r w V w .w tawwaar wa..w w w ti�a-ave , .. . W lie, r n -, -pa Vr ing4 wl--exi,4iog-b w4la-la `K� I•tay-cot) .�roetion o yeo- -' al -swath" o be—cona Afiaa.l gio4,H0hr° -mi-Wfw r -d No'ene,in wf—p" ved 13y -u a e. I epii,w-V-oaw; nu rA4 4 1a- wadi +Wdd1444 4 4 w uaatia4 a aw4aat as .ave .c a...r ga�usw= f.. a w 4�r { "tf,,+4otawr t—&—vela pment -4 a 1 w 4+w w4aaw w aC, 4ua w a :, 4a:r r. 4 awaw t rr a w�war-pwte laww ra wy r r lR we- a-l)'wwa4 iFie ..per.0 it- saga -"-4' 4 C.-a£G` 4 ,-, 4'iem w"&' aa.lq..UV°avolveL;-tot°arl° # ?4 dwa rk% F rek ,r r44l maw's rr* advppiewef 11,me nt, a qal at -,em o u~a4.r i a f ma4wrwn-•a4a1 ti se ar-fil-6 i1lug jakr 04-) 0, I-Aj4It-I4 4,E- C�r J ... 4wwaakar"'�r-4„r"arc-caa��V�www�4-wawa f�a� twu�e�wra��r�'w:�waw�ty....44��wrwa pa�aa;��;a•��4y�-l'a��4uaaw�wat.�-�tar��4rd'dw�r4wa��wrta-i��r�w�aw.w��r•t..t w��w;raall4�w-�wra�a tiwr�r•-a�w a�"4a�w..�-aa�a waa��*u-r c�y...lwaw�c�a�a•; l=lave"�war��a'r�t�V��r���wr�rr-iaauw�awl4�awt:4�ww:.�-at��a-V•14� �waw4wl'4�:';: waa �aw�lw�;wta 4aw•gatar�r�tya��awmmt•4ac:�u-aw4�r�aaua��wa•4��Vwa44a:�wt�a-r�a•t�aw-��a4 a�r�aa4a� oaa gar �tl;�wu�4a4'�a�a4a tw. .4•��.ver:���rraw�w�ar�y�r�w�4;w�3-uar�ra�a�t�r�wuwwaw�a-+tom V�lt�a��wt�wwa~wa��waw!raary�t�a l,�wtaq.•444a�ww'mm�wa° u"t4�+'r`w��a�a��a4 °4m4+�mm�w�war�..4�.4a�r�waaacaw'-wu�:�w-w'w��Nrr��aw�a_ua�ua��4-1ae�.a�l'�utw*w~4..t.ila�•:�.wM«r4w gat-a�:a�a�u�y.a��14���t�4a4w�'w�aawTMrNw�rt- tlawt��~a4 �r•4a-ave-Oar,r�,r.,���rl�w����w4li�-�a4g+•t4a�������r�la��4f:41'.a�wa-a�r��wmu d�w�•aart-wr4-w�a��r�rttry�aa�t�r May 2, 2013 19 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT dfiiias-, -reserver and aeOvAy; Vill? r',scrr3ge=rrNrr.:mrN°r qtr i'm the F)*O 'mc-t4,c-onfisteiit�-itt+41,,)i�,Cliap�te.�r,,., flir( �D- . .. M': 4w. f-eqwred 44r--Geak), grico,t I -y+W-N3f & (,4",4 S MA=l 3 -r -44-W CAU 1=e64 20 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Mitigation requirements 1. All mitigation shall be sufficient to maintain the functions and values of the critical area. 2. All development shall demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been examined to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas; and 3. When an alteration to a critical area is proposed, it shall be avoided, minimized, or mitigated for i+i4,he U wkig 5a w fa c..i,i1 t �J l w 0.i Y: Avokfi - g-the•wa I! ,ick; �i���t,��&�-i�iia�a�twr�..t�k'����&�Y,t�e�' ����tr�wt��ri�µati�c��raw��•6y�-a��A�I�ai�°�ate.t=c��a�4��a���. I��o����-����cJ�`�;��r•a�*Ie� t��s �� r t��•�d �; ,...vc�utB�•ore-��•��;N ����¢ bi��w�ts) t� e��t�&�Yrr�.mt;kri��� �a���tTMt�y.a;t�� �a u�alt�� ����i�o-R•x�.t-� w -s° a c�R� s����t�-d������-��t�e�e�� e��v6raa��t..��:� ��tat:r����i �r�w�t tai•ki�4�����=�"`Ikl�%�4�Nv'�rtNh=����t����,. ��P�`AaNt��..I.W'-*�r�";"P'�°tR6'r�ak9••I;x��t��N'"N�.#fl��..Y"3t���"�rcYtfi.p:'k'arx ���''��I�a �tt��-i ..tl� � r ��� �at�•t�y-a=��t�l�'� �S-Jarvat#� r�x��i it�at��e��,��a �°-��a� �an��at-, � ��r�, aaa�ibib�s_ti�����rer����t-�r�ri t��l�i�•�a,pl��'��I:r�'��.��-��ra`t-iv��a�e��s��•w�� 4. If an alteration to a critical area is unavoidable, all adverse impacts to that critical area and its buffers shall be mitigated for in accordance with an approved Mitigation Plan and mitigation for wetland impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Parts 1 and 2 (March 2006 or as updated). 5. Mitigation shall be in-kind and on-site, whenever possible, and may be out -of -kind and/or off-site when deemed appropriate by the Administrative Official or designee. REVIEW PROCESS J. Application Submittal Applications for development authorizations under this Chapter shall be made on forms provided by the Department. Application submittals shall include a site plan drawn to an engineering scale of 1:20 showing: a. Dimensions of all sides of the parcel, b. Size and location of existing and proposed structures, c. Excavation, fill, drainage facilities, impervious surfaces, topography, slope; and, d. Other information as needed to determine the nature and scope of the proposed development; and e. Location of all critical areas ° lms tile�tt�fierJY J:"r:2 �4. 2. The submittal shall also include all required critical areas reports prepared in conformance with YMC 17.09.010.13 and YMC 17.09.010.Q. 3. To be complete, a critical area development authorization application must include all maps, drawings and other information or data specified by this Chapter or requested on the basis of the pre -application conference (YMC 17.09.010.G). May 2, 2013 21 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT K. Determination of Review Process 1. The Administrative Official or designee shall determine from the application submittal, and other available information what type of permit, ss and/or reviewLss will be required under this Chapter. 2. Specific information of permit type, review and process can be found in subsequent sections of this Chapter andµin YMCm Ch�o�trL 7_ ��=aew�vic-� "-at��omi:ae�9ow, �';�1--tk�a,r��aecrma��it�r�aMev� . •,aay-b•r�e�iec 5���•a�r�i�� ��p���cc�a��f�l�siwl:y-� St��f� . pr��eN:'Sta�€a�•���N���rr�e�t-i;��•�ec� ����•�-�ve�c�a����t�•+�c�ta „ �e �areii �.•i a� Hy4c a1 Apt.; Q06-14,441 t d -T o4—Tjf#ioa1 . a -mnr r jK-tiv4t4es4fiat..40 naal�ai��uf;I�-��r�r�i! 1.��s-. fie••���faa:a�a�-�i%�a�at�w��y-fie-foray-� W At:r�tAAt'itrve Atraistids�t;Rt 0f 4 a �taw*a, '..; � ..eat r : a � ei " . t r . r • r- a y....A eratio�+A's cr=�rwk.p�...����-eit���g,sMi�a,��re��t6��•r��r�t�•c• " ���a•�to�i•ii-�a�r�is-to•e .....— - ---- f�q�oeiit�t��at-i�;twit�-�"�w-rt�at. .i�a��:...�iirr.� �:���m���:.�•��i�w r� ��` .. �I�i • � •ow-a"��:e ata�a��g�r�io�l�y�� :. �:9m� .1�=�=b-it; •: pie-Mi,s . _ ��•iio�-A�d�a�4'-�s�to�•�t••ovtRe���aa ne-tom- f�td�vl�t=� wl��,:t a�iea��ett�aie-u��e-��,_�ta�lt� e•prit�. Hoo644aza ��tmtay�t��ft,;N,de•Mtt•a��Y �•t•h�'t�e�ft�•���•it�tYg�e���a���a�.a��,v��i.��rr-de;rif,����wa-"fit;:. 1:0•. �: -8 t� i��fa���imm��r�fyw�-r�n�#�� tir��th�:���N��a•k�a��•ia�i•�-i` �iai�t�iz•e� m apt-s�����j�s�t-f�r���r�l�.-r �e��r . „ �-�.�t4� . x sort'. i N 1t rtt itt r t wft ste ti t t eft city�f ff f at r. tt -147ae4aise-flood-40 ttt��� �.Iw�-c=a•�rre��t: s��w���fa•�� fr�c:rs��ct�-h .: °,na��pi�t��t��a�-�1=af L. Development Authorization - Review Procedure. Upon submittal and acceptance of a completed development authorization application, the Administrative Official or designee shall process and review the application as follows. Except: Permits or reviews under YMC 17.09.020 shall follow the development regulations and procedures of YMC 17.09.020. 22 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 1. Development authorizations shall be processed in accordance with �S��i rt °y_ i� het ir'e� Bents in YMC 17.13.030 and with specific requirements provided in -YM . 2 ,L,--,C9YM h i r 71 124),, including but not limited to: a. Submittals, b. Completeness review, c. Notices, d. Hearings, e. Decisions, and f. Appeals. 2. In ccir unist nc s where_.a criticalwwar w� f����i 1 tc� jar�m���tm���� 1 N���t the dev l'czpme,fit, .—� otherwise r° '1uiI c�1 a ibo elis t E,x the devel a 1t,.L1Lqst be reviewed and Lar r seri a s Sl°nrarclNnSr b r1il i jw7 vc 1p rm° w ail P rml�ltor a Sliworelinc "���woaM°iceIT 3. Development authorizations shall be reviewed in conformance with the applicable development standards of YMC 17.09.010.11 and with YMC 17.09.030-060. 4. Decisions on a development authorization shall be consistent with YMC 17.09.010.M, YMC 17.09.010.N, and with any specific decision criteria provided under the section for each relevant permit type, as provided in YMC 17.13 and YMC 17.09.010.R. M. Authorization Decisions — Basis for Action. 1. In additio � Lo mee�lin 1e Shoreline erni�it-soecific crlteri�gi in YMC Ch 17J � the action on any development authorization under this Chapter shall also be based upon the following criteria: a. Impact of the project to critical area features on and abutting the property; b. Danger to life or property that would likely occur as a result of the project; c. Compatibility of the project with the critical area features; d. Conformance with applicable development standards; e. Compliance with flood hazard mitigation requirements of YMC 17.09.020; f. Adequacy of the information provided by the applicant or available to the Department; 2. Based upon the project evaluation, the Administrative Official shall take one (1) of the following actions: a. Grant the development authorization; b. Grant the development authorization with conditions, as provided in YMC 17.09.010.N, to mitigate impacts to the critical area feature(s); or, c. Deny the development authorization. 3. The decision by the Administrative Official or designee shall include written findings and conclusions. May 2, 2013 23 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT N. Conditional Approval of Development Authorization. In granting any development authorization, the Administrative Official or designee may impose conditions to: 1. Accomplish the purpose and intent of this Chapter; 2. Eliminate or mitigate any identified negative impacts of the project; and, 3. Protect critical areas from damaging and incompatible development. 0. Fees and Charges. The Yakima City Council shall establish the schedule of fees and charges listed in YMC Ch. 15.26 (City of Yakima Fee Schedule), for development authorizations, variances, appeals and other matters pertaining to this Chapter. CRITICAL AREAS REPORTS P. Critical Areas Report Requirements 1. The Administrative Official or designee may require a critical areas report, paid for by the applicant, when it is determined necessary. 2. A qualified professional shall prepare the report consistent with rriost Current, a1 (q ate'ua,r�id. aMrotIl to s_ JJenfific and technical information available that is appmNi L) t(j jhe issues of concern134-,x�t-Av4)-k S ier,i e. The intent of these provisions is to require a reasonable level of technical study and analysis sufficient to protect critical areas. The analysis shall be appropriate to the value or sensitivity of a particular critical area and relative to the scale and potential impacts of the proposed activity. 3. The critical area report shall: a. Demonstrate the proposal is consistent with the purposes and standards of this Chapter; b. Describe all potential risks to critical areas, and assess impacts on the critical area from the activities and uses proposed; and, c. Identify mitigation and protective measures. 4. The critical areas report shall include information addressing the supplemental report requirements (See YMC 17.09.010.Q). 5. The Administrative Official or designee shall review the critical areas report for completeness and accuracy and shall consider the recommendations and conclusions to assist in making decisions on development authorizations, appropriate mitigation, and protective measures. 6. Critical areas reports shall be valid for a period of five (5) years, unless it can be demonstrated that a previous report is adequate for current analysis. Reports prepared for adjacent properties may be utilized for current analysis only when it can be shown through a supplemental report or site investigation that conditions on site are unchanged. 7. The Administrative Official or designee may require the preparation of a new critical area assessment or a supplemental report if the initial assessment is in error. 8. The Administrative Official or designee may rejector request revision of the critical areas report when it can be demonstrated that the assessment is inaccurate, incomplete or does not fully address the critical areas impacts involved. 24 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 9. Applicants shall provide reports and maps to the City in both electronic and paper formats. In addition, all critical area delineations / maps shall be provided to the City by means of a GPS projected coordinate system data set, such as, NAD 27 or NAD 83. The City may waive this requirement for single-family developments. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate with the Administrative Official or designee regarding electronic submittal guidelines. 10. At a minimum, a critical areas report shall include the following information: a. A site plan showing the proposed development footprint and clearing limits, and all relevant critical areas and buffers; b. A written summary of the critical areas, including their size, type, classification or rating, condition, disturbance history, and functions and values. For projects on or adjacent to geologically hazardous areas or areas subject to high floodwater depth or velocity the description shall identity the type and characteristics of the hazard; c. An analysis of potential adverse impacts and how they will be mitigated or avoided. Geological hazardous areas are additionally required to assess the risks posed by the development to critical areas, public and private properties, and both associated and unassociated nearby facilities and uses; d. When impacts cannot be avoided, the report shall include a plan describing mitigation to replace critical area functions and values. For projects on or adjacent to geologically hazardous areas or areas subject to high floodwater depth or velocity the mitigation shall additionally address the site, and other public and private properties, and both associated and unassociated nearby facilities and uses potentially affected; e. The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of analysis methods including any fieldwork performed on the site; and f. Additional reasonable information requested by the Administrative Official or designee. 11. A critical area report may be supplemented by or composed, in whole or in part, of any reports or studies required by other laws and regulations or previously prepared for and applicable to the development proposal site. 12. The Administrative Official or designee may limit the geographic area of the critical area report as appropriate. 13. Compensatory Mitigation Plans - When compensatory mitigation, as described in YMC 17.09.010.1, are proposed for wetland areas or stream channels, the applicant shall submit a mitigation plan as part of the critical area report, which includes: a. A written report identifying environmental goals and objectives of the proposed compensation including a description of: i. The anticipated impacts to the critical areas; ii. The mitigating actions proposed; iii. The purpose of the compensation measures, including site selection criteria; iv. The compensation goals and objectives; v. The desired resource functions; vi. Construction activities start and completion dates; and, May 2, 2013 25 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT vii. Analysis of anticipated success of the compensation project. b. A review of the most Cuw (Nit -accurate, anjc (,:on�A Mete scientific and technical Ali k'iformation zyaiN bNe that is ) ica le to the issues of concern ��e �f4e 9� ie�� supporting the proposed mitigation; A description of the report and the author's experience to date in restoring or creating the type of critical area report proposed; and, d. Performance Standards —The mitigation plan shall include measurable specific criteria for evaluating the goals and objectives to ensure the mitigation project has been successfully attained. e. Detailed Construction Documents—The mitigation documents shall include written specifications and plans describing the mitigation proposed, such as: i. The proposed construction sequence, timing, and duration; ii. Grading and excavation details; iii. Erosion and sediment control features; iv. A planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; v. Measures to protect and maintain plants until established; and, vi. Documents should include scale drawings showing necessary information to convey both existing and proposed topographic data, slope, elevations, plants and project limits. Monitoring Program -The mitigation plan shall include: i. A program for monitoring both construction of the compensatory project and its completion and survivability; ii. A plan which details how the monitoring data will be evaluated to determine if the performance standards are being met; iii. Reports as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project; and, iv. Monitoring for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five (5) years; Contingency Plan — Identification of the potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken if monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met. h. Financial Guarantees —A financial guarantee ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring program, and any contingency measures shall be posted in accordance with YMC 17.09.010.R.1. 14. Innovative Mitigation. Advanced mitigation or mitigation banking are examples of alternative mitigation projects allowed under the provisions of this section. One (1) or more applicants or an organization with demonstrated capability, may undertake a mitigation project together if it is demonstrated that all of the following circumstances exist: 26 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM i. Creation or enhancement of a larger system of critical areas and open space is preferable to the preservation of many individual habitat areas; ii. The applicant demonstrates the organizational and fiscal capability to act cooperatively; iii. The applicant demonstrates that long-term management of the habitat area will be provided; iv. There is a clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the identified site; v. There is a clear likelihood for success of the proposed plan based on supporting scientific information and demonstrated experience in implementing similar plans; A The proposed project results in equal or greater protection and conservation of critical areas than would be achieved using parcel -by -parcel regulations and/or traditional mitigation approaches; vii. The plan is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this section; viii. The plan shall contain relevant management strategies which are within the scope of this section; and, ix. The plan shall contain clear and measurable standards for achieving compliance with the purposes of this section, a description of how such standards will be monitored and measured over the life of the plan, and a fully funded contingency plan if any element of the plan does not meet standards for compliance. b. Conducting mitigation as part of a cooperative process does not reduce or eliminate the required wetland replacement ratios. c. Projects that propose compensatory wetland mitigation shall also use the standards in YMC 17.09.040.E. For those situations where a mitigation bank may provide an opportunity for mitigation, the requirements in YMC 17.O9.040.F shall apply. Q. Supplemental Report Requirements for Specific Critical Areas 1. Stream Corridors: When a critical areas report is required for a stream corridor or hydrologically related critical area, it shall include the following: a. A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect the functional properties listed in YMC 17.09.O3O.E; and, Where proposed construction lies within an immediate zone of potential channel migration, a hydrologic analysis report may be required. The report shall assume the conditions of the one -hundred -year flood, include on-site investigative findings, and consider historical meander characteristics in addition to other pertinent facts and data. Wetlands. When a critical areas report is required for Wetlands, it shall include the following: a. The exact location of a wetland's boundary and wetland rating as determined through the performance of a field investigation by a qualified wetland professional applying the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology Publication #96-94) as required by RCW 36.70A.175 and the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington; May 2, 2013 27 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT b. All delineated wetlands and required buffers within two hundred (200) feet of the project area shall be shown on the site plan. Available information should include, but not be limited to aerial photos, land based photos, soils maps, or topographic maps; c. An analysis of the wetlands including the following site related information; i. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon; ii. Documentation of fieldwork performed on the site, including field data sheets for delineations, wetland rating forms, baseline hydrologic data, etc.; iii. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland delineations, or impact analyses including references; iv. Wetland category, including vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic characteristics; and, d. For projects that will affect the wetland or buffer, provide the following: i. A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect or enhance on-site habitat and wetland functions and values listed in YMC 17.09.040.D.1 and YMC 17.09.030.E; and, ii. Mitigation sequencing, pursuant to YMC 17.05.010.D to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts shall result in "not net loss" of acreage or functional values of wetlands and shall follow the guidance provided in YMC 17.09.040.E. 3. Geologically Hazardous Areas. When a critical areas report is required for a Geologically Hazardous Area, it shall include the following: a. A description of the site features, including surface and subsurface geology. b. A description of the geologic processes and hazards affecting the property, including a determination of the actual hazard types for any Suspected and Risk Unknown hazards identified in the affirmative determination of hazard; c. A description of the vulnerability of the site to seismic and other geologic processes and hazards; and, d. A description of any potential hazards that could be created or exacerbated as a result of site development; e. For developments in or affecting landslide hazard areas the report shall also include: i. Assessments and conclusions regarding slope stability including the potential types of landslide failure mechanisms (e.g., debris flow, rotational slump, translational slip, etc.) that may affect the site. The stability evaluation shall also consider dynamic earthquake loading and shall use a minimum horizontal acceleration as established by the current version of the YMC Title 11 (Building Code); ii. An analysis of slope recession rate shall be presented in those cases where stability is impacted by stream meandering or other forces acting on the toe of the slope; and, iii. Description of the run -out hazard of landslide debris to the proposed development that starts up-slope and/or the impacts of landslide run -out on down-slope properties and critical areas. 28 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 4. Flood Hazards. Prior to authorization of any construction within a floodplain, which can be anticipated to displace floodwaters or alter the depth or velocity of floodwaters during the base flood, an engineering report shall be prepared by a licensed engineer in the State of Washington that establishes any new flood elevations that would result for the one - hundred -year flood frequency if the project were implemented. 0• f 48--(84+ refine- I t t o �g�il•ir�ti� .i,at.�..ef�.�sig�wf��"-sA°ze~-rr�..rc ��=��i�e_��y����e�-a��a�`'f�-�r�ii e"iNi.k:i ofmsi-irfric�e. fel~yfe��N•N�,°���.�i:,r..,.envo-�`����+��a°taf•vi�wf„ Nr�g-�a°...e;��°vawt�--a-:sf.��..�'��°����ef-�r 4w....N���is���:���t'�,....,,-isa.mmo� si,"«uirrt�tei�:������wt-f�e�s�r.���f--f�=�����i-��-�ti��f���te•i .. ifs V- -C " ° .i 0je6A-44(A-...=e � eft ell acs u" r t f (k N Ad e ive4N iw4 �-°� �' j;�°c��;st���c�l��f�•��f�vege�.��ave~°°��u�ff�•�sa°r�a���s�fN�:i �°r�'C�f�ie.i����=��-��'�a-N.e fe tepd404h I e-rnWw° °u mi w-494�-eGf idNAm"PE A-4 effuifst t awe+ -o girt- aa4 fo j e.N ... jma N '.... _ N'm l ite N.NI'enmit4�...afe ffRf l-Pae-pf o -- e A4e"rt—A4r �t...i... gA44 m: No ng-w#fa if, k - iia Ns w 4 -of .... fNne arin� r"tri°ifs fMeNesfgeiaN c�f�Nrw�'f ��=i��f��i�id....refa�si�if��f e 1�� ���•iN-��� e°����it•I:e� ..°, �io�pe :-=I=Nvea'I.i„n�rity iµ f X)seri +N. iv'e-fa iesA May 2, 2013 29 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT 47 flowo� F-oth-eit - rvw. -a P ~--, P44-51* hab jtl� valiety-of n a4ve-V 47—.-R e ff I (-W, +-W) A04 a -d 4C -A it. i -e eAetAaceow+A-c-4 -Wsit-A-f- 1,o5t--we+W,4d-s,4a - r-do-oce, ataft+aai . . ..... . . .. . .... . . b—.-W,*w.q)-wa-rFan ted-+m<Jfq:--A- 4) Fec4,4en,-,rlxa3-ve4tiie-43+j4f P, "A#"hall- be -44e- avi a*4w.,fri-i affil +e -prq-)c-Aa � d -i c -.---T- I +e -apf,+U 41t 4i -a W p4 -epee a -N a itj f"', A i 0 olfl a -n flirt..had4r -floe-dee"w- o -f-W +44 a -A d - EH 30 May 2, 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM R. General Critical Areas Protective Measures. The standards below apply 10all permits and reviews performed under this Chapter. 1. Financial Guarantees. Financial guarantees may be required to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring. | a. When required -; mitigation pursuant toadevelopment proposal bnot completed prior ] tothe City ofYakinna's final permit approval, the Administrative Official ordesignee may require the applicant to post a financial guarantee to ensure that the work will be completed. May 2, 2013 31 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT b. If a development proposal is subject to compensatory mitigation, the applicant must post a financial guarantee to ensure mitigation is fully functional. c. All financial guarantees shall be in the amount of one hundred and twenty-five percent (125%) of the estimated cost of the uncompleted actions and/or the estimated cost of restoring the functions and values of the critical area that are at risk. d. The financial guarantee may be in the form of a surety bond, performance bond, assignment of savings account, irrevocable letter of credit guaranteed by an acceptable financial institution, or other form acceptable to the Administrative Official or designee, with terms and conditions acceptable to the City of Yakima attorney. The financial guarantee shall remain in effect until the Administrative Official or designee determines that the standards bonded for have been met. Financial guarantees for wetland or stream compensatory mitigation shall be held for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of the work to ensure that the required mitigation has been fully implemented and demonstrated to function. f. If public funds have previously been committed for mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, or restoration, a financial guarantee will not be required. g. Failure to satisfy critical area requirements shall constitute a default, and the Administrative Official and his or her designee may demand payment of any financial guarantee. h. Any funds recovered pursuant to this section shall be used to complete the required mitigation. Such funds shall be deposited in a separate account. The City of Yakima will use such funds to arrange for completion of the project or mitigation, and follow-up corrective actions. Depletion, failure, or collection of financial guarantees shall not discharge the obligation of an applicant or violator to complete required mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, or restoration. 2. Subdivision Standards. The following standards apply to all permits or reviews under the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 14) that contain critical areas: All subdivisions that contain critical areas shall be eligible for density bonuses or other development incentives, as provided in the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 14) and Zoning Ordinances (Title 15); b. Critical areas shall be actively protected through the following: i. Roads and utilities for the subdivision shall avoid critical areas and their buffers, as much as possible; ii. When Geologically Hazardous Areas (excluding Erosion, Over -steepened Slopes of Intermediate Risk, Stream Undercutting, and Earthquake hazards), FEMA Floodway, Channel Migration Zone (CMZ), Streams, Wetlands and/or Vegetative Buffers fall within the boundary of a subdivision; a) Said critical areas shall be protected by placing them entirely within a separate critical area tract or by including them entirely within one of the developable parcels. Other options, such as conservation easements and building envelopes 32 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM may be deemed appropriate by the Administrative Official as meeting this provision when special circumstances obstruct the viability of this provision: b) For those new lots that do contain said critical areas, useable building envelopes (5,000 square feet or more for residential uses) shall be provided on the plat that lies outside said critical areas. iii. New lots partially within the floodplain shall provide a usable building envelope (5,000 square feet or more for residential uses) outside the floodplain; iv. New lots entirely within the floodplain shall be at least one (1) acre in area; v. For new lots containing streams, wetlands, and/or vegetative buffers, outdoor use envelopes shall be provided on the plat that lies outside said critical areas; vi. Degraded vegetative buffers shall be restored, or provided with protection measures that will allow them to recover; vii. Floodplains and critical areas shall be depicted on preliminary subdivision plats and relevant information about them disclosed on the final plat. viii. Lots or parcels that lie entirely within a Geologically Hazardous Areas (excluding Erosion, Over Steepened Slopes of Intermediate Risk, Stream Undercutting, and Earthquake hazards), FEMA Floodway, Channel Migration Zone (CMZ), Stream, Wetland, and/or Vegetative Buffers may not be further divided. 17.09.020 Flood Hazard Areas FLOOD HAZARD AREAS — GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Flood Hazard Areas Established. The special flood hazard areas identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), Flood Boundary, and Floodway Maps, and any amendments thereto made by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which, are adopted by reference and declared to be part of Section 17.09.020 of the City of Yakima's Critical Areas Ordinance and are established as flood hazard areas. The Flood Insurance Study and maps are on file with the City of Yakima, Washington. Principles. Section 17.09.020 recognizes the right and need of the river channel to periodically carry more than the normal flow of water and establishes regulations to minimize loss of life and property, restrict uses and regulate structures consistent with the degree of flood hazard. In advancing the above principals, the intent of Section 17.09.020 is: 1. To alert the county assessor, appraisers, owners, potential buyers and lessees to the natural limitations of flood -prone land; 2. To meet the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance program; and, 3. To implement state and federal flood protection programs. C. Applicability. The guidelines and regulations set forth herein, YMC Title 11, and related Building Codes shall apply to all special flood hazard areas. 1. The provisions of Section 17.09.020 of this Chapter shall apply to any development proposed in a special flood hazard area; May 2, 2013 33 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT 2. Flood hazard permits shall be approved by the City of Yakima. Approval shall only be granted in accordance with Section 17.09.020 of this Chapter and other applicable local, state, and federal regulations; 3. Topographic, engineering and construction information necessary to evaluate the proposed project shall be submitted to the department for approval; and, 4. The granting of a permit for any development or use does not constitute a representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind or nature by the City of Yakima, or its employees, of the practicality or safety of any structure or proposed use, and shall not create liability upon or cause action against the above mentioned body, or employee, for any damage that may result. D. Documented Exemptions. The following uses and activities are exempt from the provisions of Section 17.09.020 of this Chapter, but are not exLi aWi frorn this S JIP�Titl 1-orITrelate shoreline peermit requi gmtnts in Chapter 1713: 1. The alteration or substantial improvement of any structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or state inventory of historic places; 2. The installation and maintenance of aboveground utility transmission lines and poles; and, Private driveways, fences and other accessory activities and/or uses necessary for agricultural uses which the administrative official determines will not unduly decrease flood storage or capacity, significantly restrict floodwaters, create a substantial impoundment of debris carried by floodwaters, and will resist flotation and collapse. E. Interpretations 1. In the interpretation and application of Section 17.09.020 of this Chapter, the provisions shall be considered as minimum requirements; and shall be strictly construed in favor of the policies and standards herein; and deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statute. Its provisions shall be applied in addition to and as a supplement to provisions of the Yakima Municipal Code Title 11, Buildings; Title 12, Development Standards; Title 14, Subdivisions; and, Title 15, Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. YMC 17.09.020.A - 17.09.020.AG are not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. Where these ordinances and other ordinances conflict or overlap, the standard imposing the more stringent requirement shall prevail. 2. In an interpretation as to an exact location of the boundaries of the special flood hazard areas (i.e., conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions), the person contesting the location of the boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the interpretation. Such appeals shall be granted consistent with the standards of the National Flood Insurance Program § 60.6 (See 44 CFR 59, et seq. and IBC 104.1). F. Compliance. No structure or land shall hereafter be used, constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the terms of Section 17.09.020 of this Chapter and other applicable regulations. G. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability. The degree of flood protection required by Section 17.09.020 of this Chapter is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. 34 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Flood heights may be increased by manmade or natural causes. Section 17.09.020does not imply that land outside the area of special flood hazards or permitted uses within such area will not be subject to flooding or flood damage. FLOOD HAZARD PROTECTION STANDARDS H. General Standards. The following regulations shall apply in all special flood hazard areas pursuant to the IBC, ASCE-24, and Hud 24 CFR Part 3280: 1. Anchoring and Construction Techniques. a. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be: i. Anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure; and ii. Constructed using materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage; and iii. Constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage; and iv. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. b. All manufactured homes must likewise be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement, and shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of over -the - top or frame ties to ground anchors (Reference FEMA's Manufactured Home Installation in Flood Hazard Areas guidebook for additional techniques). Anchoring shall meet the specifications set forth below for structures located within one hundred (100) feet of a floodway or the ordinary high water mark if no floodway has been established. c. All new construction and any improvements or additions to existing floodproofed structures that would extend beyond the existing floodproofing located within one hundred (100) feet of the floodway or one hundred (100) feet of the ordinary high water mark if no floodway has been established, shall be elevated to a height equal to or greater than the base flood, using zero -rise methods such as piers, posts, columns, or other methodology, unless it can be demonstrated that non -zero -rise construction methods will not impede the movement of floodwater or displace a significant volume of water. The size and spacing of any support devices used to achieve elevation shall be designed to penetrate bearing soil, and be sufficiently anchored, as specified above in subsection 1.a of this section. d. Except where otherwise authorized, all new construction and substantial improvements to existing structures shall require certification by a registered professional engineer, architect or surveyor that the design and construction standards are in accordance with adopted floodproofing techniques. Utilities. All new and replacement water supply systems and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharge from the systems into floodwaters; and on-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. 3. Subdivision Proposals. Subdivision proposals shall: May 2, 2013 35 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM a. Be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; DRAFT b. Have roadways, public utilities and other facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage; c. Have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage; d. Include base flood elevation data; and, e. In the cases where base flood elevation is not available and the subdivision is greater than 5 acres or 50 lots, a step -back water analysis shall be require to generate the base flood elevation data. Watercourse Alterations. The flood -carrying capacity within altered or relocated portions of any watercourse shall be maintained. Prior to the approval of any alteration or relocation of a watercourse in riverine situations, the department shall notify adjacent communities, the Department of Ecology and FEMA of the proposed development. L Specific Standards .In all special flood hazard areas where base elevation data has been provided as set forth in YMC 17.09.020.A, the following regulations shall apply, in addition to the General Standards of YMC 17.09.020.H: 1. Residential Construction. (See IRC 323.2) a. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated at a minimum to or above the base flood elevation. b. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: i. A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided; ii. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one (1) foot above grade; and, iii. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices, provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. c. Residential construction within one hundred (100) feet of a floodway, or the ordinary high water mark if no floodway has been established, shall also meet the requirements of YMC 17.09.020.H.1.c. 2. Nonresidential Construction (44 CFR 60.3(C)(3) & (4)). New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one foot or more above the base flood elevation; or, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall: Be floodproofed so that below one foot or more above the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; b. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; 36 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting provisions of this subsection based on their development and/or review of the structural design, specifications and plans; and, d. Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not floodproofed, must meet the same standards for space below the lowest floor as described in YMC 17.09.020.1.1.b. 3. Manufactured Homes. Manufactured homes shall be anchored in accordance with Section 16A.05.28.010(1)(b), shall have the lowest floor elevated to or above the base flood elevation, and shall be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement in accordance with YMC 17.09.020.H.1.b. 4. Recreational Vehicles. Recreational vehicles placed on sites are required to either: a. Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days; Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on wheels or jacking system, attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and have no permanently attached additions; or, c. Meet the anchoring requirements of YMC 17.09.020.H.1.b. FLOODWAY FRINGE USES J. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the floodway fringe areas: 1. Permitted Uses. Any use permitted in the zoning district in accordance with YMC Title 15 and in the environmen.t.. sjgLiAIJ n in accor�.ance with YMC Title (this Shoreline Master 'rr a°, unless prohibited by YMC 17.09.020.K. Utility Transmission Lines. Utility transmission lines shall be permitted when consistent with YMC Title 15 and where not otherwise inconsistent with Section 17.09.020; except that when the primary purpose of such a transmission line is to transfer bulk products or energy through a floodway fringe or special flood hazard area, such transmission line shall conform to the following: a. Electric transmission lines shall cross floodway fringe and special flood hazard areas by the most direct route feasible. When support towers must be located within floodway fringe or special flood hazard areas, they shall be placed to avoid high floodwater velocity and/or depth areas, and shall be adequately floodproofed. b. Buried utility transmission lines transporting hazardous materials, including but not limited to crude and refined petroleum products and natural gas, shall be buried a minimum of four (4) feet. Such burial depth shall be maintained within the floodway fringe or special flood hazard area to the maximum extent of potential channel migration as determined by hydrologic analyses. All such hydrologic analyses shall conform to requirements of YMC 17.05.050.C.3.c. Beyond the maximum extent of potential channel migration, utility transmission lines transporting hazardous and non -hazardous materials shall be buried below existing natural and artificial drainage features. May 2, 2013 37 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT d. Aboveground utility transmission lines, not including electric transmission lines, shall only be allowed for the transportation of non -hazardous materials. In such cases, applicants must demonstrate that line placement will have no appreciable effect upon flood depth, velocity or passage. Such pines shall be adequately protected from flood damage. e. Aboveground utility transmission line appurtenant structures, including valves, pumping stations or other control facilities, shall not be permitted in floodway fringe or special flood hazard areas except where no other alternative is available, or in the event a floodway fringe or special flood hazard location is environmentally preferable. This does not apply to domestic water and regional wastewater transmission pipes. In such instances, aboveground structures shall be located so that no appreciable effect upon flood depth, velocity or passage is created, and shall be adequately floodproofed. K. Prohibited Uses. New manufactured home parks and the expansion of manufactured home/parks are prohibited in floodway fringe areas. FLOODWAY USES Permitted Uses. Permitted uses include any use permitted in the zoning district in accordance with YMC Title 15 and in the environmentgsw, a IOn in ccor n( w) 1 riitIgITIT13 lk�iw ----- Shoreline "lastrm��r i�"�mm� �m�1in , provided that said use is in compliance with the flood hazard protection standards of YMC 17.09.020.1-1, &-17.09.020.1, 17.05.050 and other applicable provisions of thisTgtle, and will have a negligible effect upon the floodwayin e writ-4;�lc�rdvvaeoewoar;l�:rr��l--grvi�"I�,�+� �:t9; .'_: �ittc��rs�iad �:._-I�-r�c�a�ir�aaa°r.�„ �r��;aa�l�ni"hll„:�� -ori-a,-r�-�������r�i�4��r1 ° .l"c� . �ur�•1��s certifiGatieoecl by a registered professional engineer ��w � r � Ott �r wthrough hydrologic and hydraulic analysis performed in accordance with standard engineering practice_. Tic a, 1„ Si. 1'nUSt r° ernonstr t ,athat the effect of the subject encroachment together with the cumulative effects of all similar potential encroachments shall not: I :............: -materially cause water to be diverted from the established floodway, 2,........... -cause erosion, 30 obstruct the natural flow of water, .............reduce the carrying capacity of the floodway, or 5. result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharger,.. �f�re,���i �t�•rr w tqa�-1�- . � ::� " � t-�r�-ir�ia� .. err�,v�,d�tN�t�a��.��tl.q,��t °' , w��t�r-��w�-ftla�d-tl'�raa��-tl��a•r��,��i�r�ree-�:�ftlodf��t�����rt�t"gw�a��ftloo�l���"dr"are�, era�i"y�ilfaf�cq�rav;rs�ns•f�"-=fit-ie y 38 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM kam . � ��:��ma�a•a�=k�a�ts��:�k��s���t....���a-k ��-�kW��k� ���•�° �" � �°� ro, °�� •°"gym " °•°� , ��", � �`�.�� -��"- .��� �, -gym � ° �_����� � ' �� ..... �- . ," � m : • ` � . °° �=kro�=��s : -�, - • -��. m �i°�-� k��.�«- , k� wow :�. -d e ° . • m e*jA4+V,—rwA4ef it k': . 0k4p4441e41j"DR e 1 ltnl.IA.bes--Wilk4e-r,+,q + , r#+im- M 15.2:7.412(B)7- ,�w--ate-kms k��kk - ��=�;k° �k�='. °�.= . M • • ° � . k=, May 2, 2013 39 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT eai�a� w, :.-� ��e � ., .. �'� �." -; ..- :. te�fy��� " �a��`�o✓ , -� .: " � � . �., . . " . � ,. , � :moi ad��raa�fs�aa•rd�kr��d,ge�,�,-s�afafe�e~t�t�tae e��eda�tirrns-of�saa�asc��l;iean )t�)..arNeae: M. Prohibited Uses. The following uses/developments are prohibited in the floodway: Any structure, including manufactured homes, designed for or to be used for human habitation of a permanent nature (including temporary dwellings authorized by YMC 15.04.130 & 15.04.140); Any encroachments, including fill, new construction and other development Trfer°�clrolrstlaiecj by a registered professional engineer ►f�w�d�sstrt through hydrologic and hydraulic analysis performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the effect of the subject encroachment together with the cumulative effects of all similar potential encroachments shall materially cause water to be diverted from the established floodway, cause erosion, obstruct the natural flow of water, reduce the carrying capacity of the floodway, or result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge; 3. Aboveground utility transmission line appurtenant structures, including valves, pumping stations, or other control facilities, shall not be permitted in the floodway, except for domestic water and regional wastewater facilities where necessary; 4. Where a floodway has not been determined by preliminary Corps of Engineers' investigations or official designation, a floodway shall be defined by qualified engineering work by the applicant on the basis of a verified one -hundred (100) year flood event; 5. Construction or reconstruction of residential structures within designated floodways, except af-i�LaIlowed under YM.0 Ch,.111 -tsct rm r-ir craw s -t ra f t i e m rc t '. ,,.^ed°wfrf$�p"��0irwch�t-o•f�t�•r�i�e�r:�l�f�r�?f��e�s=l.r�.�a;rr4:���th� „e_�._�"�;�r-da•r�•c�r�"r�:�+����.t-�=��� �r�r,l�vi�at�r�f��s�i�- V x•it��r_y,..�.r s f t 4 ed - e 5 T o - r- t &-4,ma.tr �i - d, ei 144 e, d as 1i t o 6&pkae e 6-4 4 a 4 1 -orf iso-inltsd d-wr #i- d f a 44n4-of4,hfs.seac4i i sa"tis•fie("' l"l..,ra 4: is ra r� ,s�afas�ar �i I. pf-o veru rlts e lf" e IV -w ' -4...a l k aifc rfa e lege d f r and daa e - r visie ero f 40 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 6. The construction or storage of any object subject to flotation or movement during flood level periods; 7. The following uses, due to their high degree of incompatibility with the purpose of establishing and maintaining a functional floodway, are specifically prohibited: a. The filling of wetlands, except as authorized under YMC 17.09.030, Fish and Wildlife Habitat and the Stream Corridor and YMC 17.09.040, Wetlands; b. Solid waste landfills, dumps, junkyards, outdoor storage of vehicles, and/or materials; and, c. Damming or relocation of any watercourse that will result in any downstream increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge (See YMC 17.09.030.1). 8. The listing of prohibited uses in this section shall not be construed to alter the general rule of statutory construction that any use not permitted is prohibited. N. Non -Conforming Uses andw-44i true a re i ?�s ur" ..strg,ctures and t ens within the special flood hazard areas established by YMC C4—.1-54-917.09.020 5." 917009,020 or amendments thereto, were lawful before these sections were adopted or amended, but which would be prohibited, or restricted under the terms of Section 17.09.020 of this Chapter or future amendment„,,rc,goa n..u,a11 dca 2. it is the ;Rte+A f YMC Ch. ,i i, T�1.1,1 a ut r la rf u x t. ru ou l w i °eto�r�avcfare� ou°�Tl�si��r�.t���f�,��apte. FLOOD HAZARD PROTECTION ADMINISTRATION O. Administration. The building official is vested with the duty of administering the rules and regulations relating to flood hazard protection in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.09.020 and may prepare and require the use of such forms as are essential to such administration. P. Authority. Upon application, the building official shall have the authority to grant a flood hazard permit when compliance with the applicable conditions as set forth in Section 17.09.020 of this Chapter and in other applicable local, state and federal regulations has been demonstrated and the proposal is found to be consistent with the purpose of the policies of the Critical Areas Ordinance. Q. Permit — Required. Prior to any development within a special flood hazard area, a flood hazard permit shall be obtained. This permit may be in addition to the critical area development authorization as set forth in YMC 17.09.010 ci aplacable shoreline f o,.rq It �i, msetforth in h a er 17.1 of this'Ml . R. Permit — Application. All persons applying for a flood hazard permit shall submit a written application, accompanied by an application fee as specified in Title 11, using the forms supplied. The application shall not be considered complete until the following minimum information is provided as identified below and in YMC 15.11.050: 1. Name, address and telephone number of applicant and property owner if different; May 2, 2013 41 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 2. Project description and taxation parcel identification number; Name of the stream or body of water associated with the floodplain in which the development is proposed; and, 4. Site plan map drawn to an engineering scale showing: a. Actual dimensions and shape of the parcel to be built on; b. Sizes and location of existing structures on the parcel; c. Location and dimensions of the proposed development, structure or alteration; d. Location, volume and type of any proposed fill; and, e. The application shall include other information as may be required by the Administrative Official to clarify the application for the enforcement of Section 17.09.020; S. Permit — Review. Flood hazard permit applications will be reviewed to determine: 1. The elevation and floodproofing requirements of Section 17.09.020 of this Chapter; DRAFT 2. The proposed development's location in relation to the floodway and any encroachments (YMC 17.09.020.M.2); 3. Alteration or relocation of a watercourse (YMC 17.09.020.H.4.c); 4. That the proposed development is a permitted use under Section 17.09.020 of this Chapter and YMC Title 15; and, 5. That all necessary permits have been obtained from those federal, state or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is required. T. Use of Available Data. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with YMC 17.09.020.A, Flood hazard areas established, the City shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source, in order to administer YMC 17.09.020.1, YMC 17.09.020.M, and YMC 17.13.150. U. Limitations. Permits issued on the basis of plans and applications approved by the Administrative Official authorize only the use, arrangement and construction set forth in such approved plans and applications, and no other use, arrangement or construction. Use, arrangement or construction at variance with that authorized is a violation of Section 17.09.020 and punishable as provided by YMC 17.13.150. V. Permit — Expiration & Cancellation. If the work described in any permit has not begun within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of issuance thereof, the permit shall expire and be canceled by the building official. W. Performance Bonds The City may require bonds in such form and amounts as may be deemed necessary to assure that the work shall be completed in accordance with approvals under Section 17.09.020. Bonds, if required, shall be furnished by the property owner, or other person or agent in control of the property. 42 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 2. In lieu of a surety bond, the applicant may file a cash bond or instrument of credit with the City in an amount equal to that which would be required in the surety bond. X. Appeals. The decision to grant, grant with conditions, or deny a flood hazard permit shall be final and conclusive unless the applicant appeals the decision pursuant to the procedure established for appeals in YMC 17.13.120. Y. Coordination. Upon application, the building official shall have the authority to grant a flood hazard permit when compliance with the applicable conditions as set forth in Section 17.09.020 of this Chapter and in other applicable local, state and federal regulations has been demonstrated and the proposal is found to be consistent with the purpose of this Chapter. ELEVATION AND FLOODPROOFING CERTIFICATION Z. Applicability. Certification for elevation or floodproofing shall be required only for the new construction or substantial improvement of any residential, commercial, industrial, or nonresidential structure located in a special flood hazard area. AA. Certification Form. The form of the elevation and floodproofing certificate shall be specified by the administrative official and shall be generally consistent with that required by FEMA for the administration of the National Flood Insurance Program. AB. Information to Be Obtained and Maintained. The elevation and floodproofing certificate shall verify the following flood hazard protection information: 1. The actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a basement; 2. The actual elevation in relation in mean sea level of flood proofing of all new or substantially improved non-residential flood proofed structures; and, 3. Where a base flood elevation has not been established according to YMC 17.09.020.A, or where elevation data is not available either through the Flood Insurance Study, FIRM, or from another authoritative source, applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc., where available. AC. Certification Responsibility. The project proponent shall be responsible for providing required certification data to the administrative official prior to the applicable construction inspection specified in the certification form. All elevation and floodproofing data specified in YMC 17.09.020.AB must be obtained and certified by a registered professional engineer, architect, or surveyor. The elevation and floodproofing certification shall be permanently maintained by the administrative official. FLOOD HAZARD VARIANCES AD. Procedure. Any person seeking a variance from the requirements of Section 17.09.020 authorized under YMC 17.09.020.AE shall make such requestn rg�i� t�ticden�i rf aot � t o�-1f f s y f coITr w n with tl�)ro , tie lli hed in YMC Cha ter,17,13. ipai rifatoailictd aftn n�factsa�. r tle. r� May 2, 2013 43 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT f nafl n4r.'-niay...i e ret-�ve��w�a�dµ���:�:i�`���d:��N�d.�,�,�r�etie@�«��d�ado-�.�te�-t�d�t�c�wef d�we9a�i���•i�d�::r���tr��f�'ail�ps f'���•�-gay-�:��r f��m�K�r—i��r��r, ages y.i��e.�A mise ad�s��w���� iebffrt~ed!�.�y�t�d���mmorai�osd• AE. Variance Limitations 1. Variances shall be limited solely to the consideration of: a. Elevation requirements for lowest floor construction; b. Elevation requirements for floodproofing; and, c. The type and extent of floodproofing. 2. Variances shall not be considered for any procedural or informational requirements or use prohibitions of Section 17.09.020. AF. Conditions for Authorization. InITad itionITto denio stmt n c ns.i °icy iN: ;d e d'a Pr° $line Variance criteria in ...0 17._13.080, the applicant &Ekfor a variance to the provisions of Section 17.09.020 , shall showthat: 1. There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property or to the intended use, such as size, topography, location or surroundings, that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and zone; 2. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located; 3. Such a variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief; 4. Failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; and, 5. The granting of such a variance will not result in: a. Increased flood heights; b. Additional threats to public safety; c. Creation of nuisances; d. Extraordinary public expense; or, e. Conflicts with other existing local laws or ordinances. t p" e i n fi io my. we�ri l ce e w ., t i k�e a d rer t tl fk4ak-I+a11 PFep0+e wpm'��t��i�edMig•����c�i�.i�o��s��tati�o, �� c�iftc �ea�m�•��f��n•�bi�a�t' . ,.ee���-i�� _ . d- AiT. 44 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM a.�,�c�li•i1ir���.��:rear�i���a�-ine�� fe���mar+:t�iaa����a�4�a���NNI��N���.� A,igi,-yr��Nr fey tinesrissttivffilmt�=irvrf+irre-rMer�ataa AG. Federal Flood Hazard Map Correction Procedures. The procedures for federal flood hazard map correction, as provided in federal regulations 44 CFR 70 of the National Insurance Program are hereby adopted by reference. 17.09.030 Fish and Wildlife Habitat and the Stream Corridor System A. Purpose and intent. The stream corridor system includes hydrologically related critical areas, streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands and is part of a fragile and highly complex relationship of geology, soils, water, vegetation, and wildlife. Policies and standards to help conserve and protect are designed to accomplish the following: 1. Meet the requirements of the Gw., w4i-Shoreuris Management Act (RCW 9640".72290.58) regarding 1he usomof the r'r ost a urrent a ;r. rr° ate aI 'N coN1i rt __ ie�itffi earn technicat infol. a _ s._ I q .__ e. o tNae issues of Cocarr rrf�e t aiN� rie ei� rr�ra ; orrationry�r�,l,.r,lc that rq�c�alaie . _.._m..�,.. . 2. Follow the requirements pursuant to flood -resistant construction in the adopted building code; 3. Provide a zero net loss of natural wetland functions and values; 4. Provide possible alternatives for necessary development, construction, and uses within a designated stream corridor and other hydrologically related critical areas; 5. Prevent decline in the quantity and quality of surface and subsurface waters; 6. Conserve, restore, and protect fish and wildlife habitats, vegetation, and ecological relationships; 7. Protect sensitive areas of the stream corridor from the potential negative effects of development; 8. Through voluntary agreements or government incentives, provide protection of natural wetland functions and values; and 9. Recognize wildlife area conservation habitats within their natural geographic location through coordinated land use planning. B. Protection approach. 1. To maintain fish and wildlife habitat, there must be adequate environmental conditions for reproduction, foraging, resting, cover, and dispersal of animals. Factors affecting both habitat and its quality include the presence of essential resources such as food, water, nest building materials, and lack of diseases. The city of Yakima protects fish and wildlife habitat through: a. Protection of habitat for aquatic species; and b. Protection of habitat for species located near the water. May 2, 2013 45 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT 2. The city of Yakima's approach to protecting threatened, endangered, and sensitive species habitat is by using the protection approach sections of this chapter. DESIGNATION AND MAPPING C. Hydrologically related critical area features. Stream corridors and other hydrologically related critical areas include one or more of the following features: 1. Any floodway or floodplain identified as a special flood hazard area identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as identified in the flood insurance study or corresponding maps, is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be part of this chapter; 2. Perennial and intermittent streams, excluding ephemeral streams, including the stream main channel and all secondary channels within the ordinary high water mark; 3. Naturally occurring ponds under twenty acres and associated submerged aquatic beds; and manmade lakes and ponds created within a stream channel; 4. All wetlands as defined in YMC 17.01.090; 5. Any flood -prone area indicated by U.S. Soil Conservation Service soil survey data; and 6. A buffer area for a stream channel, lake, or pond or from the edge of a wetland. D. Habitat and habitats of local importance. 1. Habitats of local importance are habitats or species that due to their declining population, sensitivity to habitat manipulation or other values make them important on a local level. Habitats of local importance may include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. Species and habitats of local importance may be identified for protection under this chapter. State or local agencies, individuals or organizations may identify and nominate for consideration specific species and habitats, or a general habitat type, including streams, ponds or other features. Proponents shall have the burden of presenting evidence concerning the criteria set forth below. The nomination shall be processed once a year through the annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle. a. The decision for changes to species and habitats of local importance shall consider: i. Concern due to population status; ii. Sensitivity to habitat manipulation; iii. Importance to the local community; and iv. Criteria used to identify state priority species, which include: a) State candidate species that are defined by WDFW Policy M-6001 to include fish and wildlife species that WDFW will review for possible listing as state endangered, threatened, or sensitive; b) Vulnerable aggregations, which includes those species or groups of animals susceptible to significant population declines, within a specific area, by virtue of their inclination to aggregate; 46 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM c) Species of recreational, commercial, and/or tribal importance that are vulnerable; and d) The economic impact both positive and negative to the applicant's property or surrounding property. Economic impact is to be determined by a properly qualified individual or firm using industry standards. b. Nominated habitats and habitats for species of local importance shall consider the following and must include maps to illustrate the proposal: i. A seasonal range or habitat element which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain or reproduce over the long term; ii. Areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors; iii. Habitat with limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration; and iv. Whether these habitats are already identified and protected under the provisions of this or other local ordinances or state or federal law. c. Habitat management recommendations shall be included for use in the administration of this section. Development Standards. Projects located within habitats of local importance, as designated in subsection 1 of this section, shall meet the standards below, rather than the development standards in YMC 17.09.050.1-P, unless review is also needed for a hydrologically related critical area. Projects shall be designated using management recommendations established for the species or habitat by federal and state agencies, or those adopted for species and habitats of local importance by the city of Yakima. The Department shall consider the extent such recommendations are used in its decision on the proposal, and may consider recommendations and advice from agencies with expertise. E. Functional properties 1. Streams, lakes, ponds and wetlands require a sufficient riparian area to support one or more of the following functional properties: a. Stream bank and shore stabilization; b. Providing a sufficient shade canopy to maintain water temperatures that support fish and their habitat; c. Moderating the impact of stormwater runoff; d. Filtering solids, nutrients and harmful substances; e. Surface erosion prevention; f. Providing and maintaining migratory corridors for wildlife; &. ir''rov imN 1 fc ws� t'1: 'ft, 'r �„ v:NwwNc ITITrr s is rid otl ep° 1 r� wlw6c n-iacroirive rte brates, h. Supporting a diversity of wildlife habitats; or i. Allowing for the natural occurrence of woody debris and organic matter to collect in the aquatic environment. May 2, 2013 47 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 2. Stream channels assist in one or more of the following functional properties: a. Groundwater recharge and/or discharge; b. Water transport; c. Sediment transport and/or storage; d. Biochemical functions; e. Channel migration and the protection of habitats; or f. Food and habitat. DRAFT 3. Lakes, ponds and wetlands generally provide similar functions and generally provide one or more of the following functional properties: a. Biogeochemical functions that improve water quality; b. Hydrologic functions maintaining the water regime in a watershed (flood flow attenuation, decreasing erosion, and groundwater recharge); or d. Food and habitat. 4. Floodplains generally provide one or more of the following functional properties: a. Floodwater storage; b. Floodwater passage and the movement of high -velocity waters; c. Sediment storage and recruitment; d. Food and habitat; e. Nutrient sink and/or source; or f. Groundwater recharge and discharge. 5. Habitat for wildlife consists of the arrangement of food, water, cover, and space. Wildlife habitat generally includes one or more of the following functional properties: a. Reproduction and/or nesting; b. Resting and refuge; c. Foraging for food; or d. Dispersal and migration. 6. Some functions require larger areas, which may not be achievable due to existing development and construction constraints, especially in urban areas. In these instances, adjustments to the minimum standards to accommodate such constraints may be necessary. Where adjustments may be necessary, reductions of standards should be offset by enhancement, restoration or preservation measures which replace the lost functions or values or strengthen other functional values if replacement is not possible. F. Streams, lakes and ponds typing system. For purposes of this chapter, the city of Yakima hereby adopts a stream, lake and pond typing system, for those features designated as critical areas in YMC 17.09.030.0 as follows: 48 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 1. Type 1 streams are those waters, within their ordinary high water mark (OHWM), meeting the criteria as "shorelines of the state" and "shorelines of statewide significance" under RCWChapter90.58. te«rsoHtewa f�wMarl9ioraWli- 90: 2. Type 2 streams are those surface water features which require protection due to the nature of their contributions to the functional properties listed in YMC 17.09.030.E and are considered "streams, lakes and/or ponds of local importance," as listed in Appendix B of this title; 3. Type 3 streams include all perennial streams within the city of Yakima not classified as Type 1 or 2. (See YMC 17.01.090, "perennial stream"); 4. Type 4 streams are all intermittent streams within the city of Yakima not classified as Type 1, 2 or 3. (See YMC 17.01.090, "intermittent stream"); 5. Type 5 streams are all ephemeral streams within the city of Yakima not classified as Type 1, 2, 3 or 4. Type 5 streams are not regulated as streams. (See YMC 17.01.090, "ephemeral stream"); and 6. Lakes and Ponds. a. Lakes and ponds not designated as a shoreline that receive water from he-.uD.iW dl -cif -a Type 2, 3, or 4 stream shall have the same surface water type as the highest stream type from which the lake or pond receives water. b. Natural lakes and ponds, not designated as a shoreline, that do not receive water from t f WMi (+f -a Type 1, 2, 3, or 4 stream shall be Type 3 ponds. c. Lakes or ponds not designated as a shoreline that are connected to a Type 1 stream shall be Type 4-2 ponds. G. Wetland rating system. 1. Wetlands within the city of Yakima are defined in YMC 17.01.090 and are shown on the data maps referenced in YMC 17.09.030.H. Most, but not all, of the wetlands within the city of Yakima occur near streams. The functional properties for wetlands are identified in YMC 17.09.030.E and YMC 17.09.040.D. 2. For regulatory purposes, wetlands are classified into four categories according to the wetland rating system found in YMC 17.09.040.D.2. H. Maps. Certain fish and wildlife habitat and hydrologically related critical areas have been inventoried and are depicted on a series of paper and electronic maps. The maps do not officially define the extent or characteristics of specific critical areas, but rather the potential physical boundaries and characteristics. Maps may be both regulatory and non -regulatory in nature as described below: 1. Regulatory maps include any floodway or floodplain identified as a special flood hazard area by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as identified in the flood insurance studies (FIRMs). Informational maps indicate the approximate presence, location and/or typing of the potential critical area. Informational maps include, but are not limited to, the following: May 2, 2013 49 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM a. Wetlands; DRAFT b. Streams; c. Channel migration zone; and d. Species and habitats of local importance. Note: This map will be generated at such a time when the city of Yakima formally adopts a species or habitat of local importance. 3. Other nonregulatory information sources include maps or other data sources, but are not limited to: a. Comprehensive flood hazard management plans; b. Soil survey of the city of Yakima; c. Surface geologic maps; d. Historic and current aerial photo series; and e. Geohydraulic studies—geologic cross-sections showing aquifers and confining units. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I. Prohibited uses. The following uses and activities are prohibited within a designated hydrologically related critical area: 1. Storage, handling, and disposal of material or substances that are dangerous or hazardous with respect to water quality and life safety; 2. The placement of mining tailings, spoilage, and mining waste materials, except for that associated with the mining of gravel; 3. The draining or filling of a wetland, lake or pond, except as provided for in YMC 17.07.070.6; 4. The removal and transport of material for fill outside of the stream corridor; 5. Site runoff storage ponds, holding tanks and ponds, and other similar waste disposal facilities. Note: This provision does not include regional wastewater plant facilities, collection pipes, septic systems approved by a local or state agency, and other related facilities; 6. Solid waste disposal sites; 7. Automobile wrecking yards; 8. Fill for the sole purpose of increasing land area within the stream corridor; 9. Uses located within the floodway fringe that are listed in YMC 17.09.020.K; and 10. Uses located within the floodway that are listed in YMC 17.09.020.M. J. General policies and standards. The following policies and standards shall apply to any development, construction, or use carried out within a designated hydrologically related critical area: 1. The ordinary high water mark of a stream or lake, and the edge of a wetland, shall be marked on the ground before any development, construction, or use is initiated; 50 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 2. Existing vegetation and any vegetative species pertinent to the critical area identified on the project site within the stream corridor shall only be disturbed to the minimum extent possible; Nesting areas and other sensitive habitat identified within a stream corridor shall be disturbed to the minimum extent possible; 4. Projects within the stream corridor shall be scheduled to occur at times and during seasons having the least impact to spawning, nesting, or other sensitive wildlife activities. Scheduling recommendations from the appropriate state and/or federal agency may be considered; 5. The followin measures arwe.inwco _' orated into,d �l.o„i��a ��t batµ h�tai r stormwater permits approved by a local, state or federal agency and transportation projects using the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington l)evellm n tla t not r ,Uc ipa wsi rl y . ' _.� crrr'i also inc�raWorgj�e t e "q l in eletn nts ii a �jeclwrl !sigi��: a. Excavation, grading, cut/fills, compaction, and other modifications which contribute to erosion of soils shall be confined to the minimum necessary to complete the authorized work and avoid increased sediment load; b. The removal of ground -cover vegetation, excavation, and grading shall be scheduled for periods when soils are the least vulnerable to erosion, compaction and movement unless suitable protective measures are used to prevent erosion; c. Increases in impervious surface area, compaction of soil, changes in topography, and other modifications of land within a stream corridor shall provide on-site facilities for detention, control, and filtration if potential increases have been identified to occur; d. The discharge point for controlled stormwater runoff shall be designed and constructed to avoid erosion; and e. Matting or approved temporary ground cover shall be used to control erosion until natural vegetative ground cover is successfully established; . I i 8d 9'°�i $:' '• tl=ki trN nA e d r 8a1�^N `�i�q y 9 Wei 6�” l i e-fikJi"fes te8m amr c gr i t r l'h�-o if I &i it tr r � ::tions i ui r eii , � i �lufoi it , 14.004,'+ 6. Prior to the approval of development, construction, or uses within a designated stream corridor, any existing source of biochemical or thermal degradation identified as originating on the project property shall be corrected; 7. Facilities which use fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides shall use landscaping, low-risk products, application schedules, and other protective methodology to minimize the surface and subsurface transfer of biochemical materials into the stream corridor; 8. Modifications to natural channel gradient, channel morphology, drainage patterns, and other stream features shall not permanently alter or obstruct the natural volume or flow of surface waters; May 2, 2013 51 CITY OFYAmxxASHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Development, construction, or uses within the stream corridor shall not alter or divert flood flows, cause channel shift, erosion, and increase oraccelerate the flooding nfupstream or downstream flood hazard areas; 10. Structures placed in close proximity to the outer edge of bends in stream channels shall be located to minimize the hazard from stream undercutting and stream bank erosion stemming from potential future stream migration; 11. The Department ofEcology and adjacent communities shall be notified prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse and evidence of such notification shall be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; lI. Maintenance shall be provided for the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse so that the flood -carrying capacity is not diminished; 13. Development shall not obstruct, cut off, or isolate stream corridor features; 14. Nothing in these regulations shall constitute authority of any person to trespass or in any way infringe upon the rights of private ownership; ow y 15. Projects located within the floodvvaymust meet the requirements ofYMCYMC17.O9l)201; and 16. Any portion ofthe vegetative buffer temporarily damaged ordisturbed asaresult of construction activities (excluding approved permanent use areas) shall be repaired at the completion ofconstruction using the reclamation found inYMC17.09.O3O.Ci. WATER DEPENDENCY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS K. Use classifications. For purposes ofthis section, the components ofany development, construction, or use requiring a critical area development authorization shall be classified as provided in YMC 17.090.0301-0: 1. Water -oriented uses are one of the following twe-three categories of uses,- as defined in such uses.-- fa'cngjfiet&�' Water water or,tm K, 52 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM ogeratia�as.- i"t�as-t"�a;��}vian atapbie����oa�aly, t�,a�t�,e.„merpiic..i�oamt�oa�of..po�o�aci�ll��a�t�i-��a�aataafa�y dependent open the w t;er_ or 2:..._: .watea mrelated-ease-ilooa e.. not iritriflSio I1,V­d peridRnt..on..w to a as p. t..loa�att€ ► baa vitro enema-1or1aao_vi atAfity- if., can ka,nceta ntities cafmw for or t eoaa se it providoe Boa=vitae toa..w taaa dei ndeotw�aa e orad tine-om oxi-rvity-to_its t test a ae s t aalsesw�acta...seavioesµieos..exponsive tadaPor aore,. ooa veaaierat:- xoa pget, wt aald in(4ude 01en-iai- eat-%rplan o, watertre atmerit...plt nt „ suppoft seg=vioervfoa-tiolhaaterlaeriesa-..rto.-aa��a9taw��e,:tly_oholna�d boat-aµe�ata~�St���pa* 2. Non -water -oriented uses include any use not qualifying as uses in subsection 1 of this section. L. Water -dependent uses. The following provisions shall apply to water -dependent uses: 1. Structures shall be clustered at locations on the water's edge having the least impact to the surface water and shore. 2. Use areas and structures which require direct shore locations shall be located and constructed to minimize impacts to the shore area and the vegetative buffer specified in YMC 17.09.030.P. Use areas and structures requiring direct shore locations shall minimize any obstruction or impairment of normal public navigation of the surface water. M. Water -related uses. The following provisions shall apply to water -related uses: 1. Structures and use areas shall be located as far landward from the ordinary high water mark or wetland edge as is possible and still preserve the essential or necessary relationship with the surface water. 2. Structures and use areas shall not be located within the vegetative buffer specified in YMC 17.09.030.P except where existing development or the requirements associated with the use make such a location unavoidable. 1.µµ _Structures and use areas shall be located as farwlandwar from tiwta�..:t�adw(t):ary hmt laITwater mark orvia 6aaast e¢ as a,o saiale as tl till.paesemry th _essential K neces a�iy c�ayl�atl�aNa�>�w�1�. with, the surface water. 2. Structures and Use areas m va la log t d within the y gotative bL ff . cafre waw YMC 1 .CD 03 . jEgygtL,l,iat the loication and construction shall be conducted to minimize ia�ILdcts to 9!t e si wctawa aITrea i1ndtIi y etative buffer. 0. Non -water -oriented uses. The following provisions shall apply to non -water -oriented uses: 1. Structures and use areas shall be set back so as not to be located within the vegetative buffer specified in YMC 17.09.030.P. 2. Construction abutting the vegetative buffer specified in YMC 17.09.030.P shall be designed and scheduled to ensure there will not be permanent damage or loss of the vegetative buffer. May 2, 2013 53 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM P. Vegetative buffers. The establishment nfa vegetative buffer system is necessary to protect the functions and values of certain hydrologically related critical areas. Standard and minimum buffers for streams, lakes, and ponds, and wetlands are listed inTables YMC 17.09,040 for wetland bt±I`L,�r 1. Vegetative buffers shall be measured from the ordinary high water mark for streams, lakes, ondpond .The width ofthe buffer shall bedetermined according to the stream er-��type. i4in ret 2. The adequacy of these standard buffer widths presumes the existence of a relatively intact native vegetative community within the buffer zone that is deemed adequate to protect the identified critical area. a. If the vegetation is degraded, then revegetation may be considered with any adjustment tnthe buffer width. b. Where the use is being intensified, a degraded buffer may be revegetated to maintain U the standard width. � Consultant Note: Based oninput from Ecology, the City was encouraged toreview the County shoreline buffers and modify them tnaddress City -specific local conditions. Accordingly, conditions inthe City and UGAwere reviewed on Google Earth to support development of the following environment designation -specific buffer strategy. Note that the Yakima County SMP applied 100 -foot buffers universally to shorelines, with no distinction between environment designations orbetween rivers/streams and lakes. Also note that Ecology indicated that the 1O0-fomtbuffer for the F|nodvvay/[PWZdesignation should not bereduced. Table 09.030-1. Standard Stream Buffers. Stream Type Buffer Width—standard Type 1 shoreline 449-9 streams-,_gnd lakes - and hjgLjD1gn§&: PGRd's Streams: 75' Essential Public Facilities: 100' Floodwav/CMZ: 100' Eakes 20' Urban Qonsgagncy: 100' Type 2 streams, lakes, 75'42-54 54 May 2, 2013 DRAFT and ponds CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Type 3 streams 50'Q,5!4 (perennial), lakes, and ponds Type 4 streams 25' (intermittent), lakes, and ponds Type 5 streams No buffer standards. Type 5 streams are not regulated as streams, but may be (ephemeral) protected under geologically hazardous area, floodplain, stormwater, construction, grading or other development regulations. halaitat be -met w4h-a—sma4eF4au#e-r- 3 ,� Wherc� a iMally established road or aj[!Apy crosses a shoreline or critical area buffer 'tile . . .. . . . ...................... - .... . ......... � 1,2; U I I -=, Shoreline Adrninistrator tjiay jjie rniruqrqjm ,L ed buffer width tothe waterward ed-qfj! 1�­Lt�i e Ll I . .1)roved road if a Stu�yjiqbsj ittgxj ic r�t.anid --.!-Y p P e u and [e,�: r( d ty r1rip fessional derrIonstrates that t e )art Of tile INAffer (')n; tido -P L �)� , --by i!� gl—,Aj4j�of side of the roa so jj) t !"q to be reduced: a, does, riotfj.,ovide additiona I )rotection of the shoreline waterbody;,a,nd 0L401 0 -- ........... ........ th.e..wat tjortion of the buffeL2dk!;pjLtgjhe shoreline wa r . .......... ±Lhqjra aro et a stu js nS�j, r(2 Uired, -YLOoad�qa ha -L— --y&,grridor is wider.t n 2 0 ft Al 4. Buffer aver i9y' to i remove �treqmj)Lo fLtjQ� er�mittecl when all of the follo ' !:ijg­ �, I'm conditions are met: . .............. - g The straraI r ImJj2a!LLi i corridor has sLigiLicant _differences in characteristics that affect its habitat functions. b.The buffer is increased _AdjpL(�n1lq_L�� hl er-,L nctionin area of habitat or..... more- ,. .... sensitiveooroan of the stream and_..... ad .......... --ed — j,� ,int the lower-functionin or less - 3 Buffer av i ftgEAjjon of the dimensions of a buffer that allows for increases and decreases ±KU —1r, �Qf Y-1 ............ ........... in the buffer in discrete areda j,.)rovided that the net area of buffer remains the same. May 2, 2013 55 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM sent<sitiv Dort on; as tl rrtcarrstrated..by snmrriticall earl-ea.5�n_ef.)rNt 1"Llr a (JUahfied professional. cThe totaareaofte buffer a .:.._. total ....ITvarigjty ctrtathe a° refulli' eai�: rt The buffer at its narro.west intis never less than % of the reuuired width, DRAFT as There arenofeasible alternatives to the site des gra tWa�n�t ou&'dbu,� ccal�� sf�c�dwNtl�o�at buffer ar_veriV Nr�mm b. ,the <averaD?d buffer will, not result in degradation of the strean'i or riL��an ian corridorr�tilr�r s functions and values -as demonstrated..b acritical ��n �a� � poi°tMtacar�f �iMSfuNnµf �efd professional. r. The total buffer area s%t norma ra r8in ns e tta1 tothe pare rnq.ai d without <a,yeaa�rM. d. The buffer at it naN I rwestmlLgLu t is ngyer less than o1f the reaired width. Q. Reclamation. The following guidelines shall apply to the reclamation of disturbed sites resulting from development activities within a designated hydrologically related critical area: 1. Development, construction, or uses shall include the timely restoration of disturbed features to a natural condition or to a stabilized condition that prevents degradation; 2. Large-scale projects that extend over several months shall be phased to allow reclamation of areas where work or operations have been completed; 3. Reclamation shall be scheduled to address precipitation, meltwater runoff, the growing season, and other seasonal variables that influence restoration and recovery; 4. Topography shall be finished to grades, elevations, and contours consistent with natural conditions in adjacent and surrounding areas; 5. Where existing development and construction prevent return of a site to its natural condition, sites may be finished to conditions comparable to surrounding properties provided suitable protective measures are used to prevent stream corridor degradation; 6. Cut -and -fill slopes shall be stabilized at, or at less than, the normal angle of repose for the materials involved; 7. For the replacement or enhancement of vegetation within wetlands and required vegetative buffers naturally occurring, native plant species shall be used; and 8. In other parts of the stream, naturally occurring, native plant species shall be used, unless a showing of good cause acceptable to the administrative official or designee is provided. Should good cause be shown, then self -maintaining or low -maintenance plant species compatible with the native vegetation shall be used in place of non-native and high - maintenance species. 56 May 2, 2013 DRAFT 17.09.040 Wetlands CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of the provisions protecting wetland critical areas is equivalent to the purpose and intent for YMC 17.09.030. B. Designating and Mapping 1. .. onsisLent with..WAC 1.73-LZ-03fi, e lands inhoreling'L risdiction shall be dehil atgId, t ging tk t�LQ(� dLJI a� ou tfined in th IjjjLcc� e .f d N X11 wetland defineaation man �rmal m��r. �1t�.fan��.W��f�l . aeial„watleuaawgwlat. 2. Wetlands are all areas meeting the definition for wetlands as defined in YMC 17.01.090 and are hereby designated critical areas which are subject to YMC Ch. 17.09, except the following: a. Irrigation systems that create an artificial wetlands; and, b. Areas where changes in irrigation practices have caused wetland areas to dry up. 3. The approximate location and extent of wetlands are shown on maps maintained by the City of Yakima. These maps may include information from the National Wetlands Inventory produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are to be used as a guide for the City of Yakima. C. Protection Approach. Wetlands will be protected using the Protection Approach for Hydrologically Related Critical Areas found in YMC 17.09.030.6. Wetlands and their functions will be protected using the standards found in this section andin-Section 17.09.030. D. Wetland Functions and Rating 1. Wetlands are unique landscape features that are the interface between the aquatic and terrestrial environments. Wetlands provide the following functions: a. Biogeochemical functions, which improve water quality in the watershed (such as nutrient retention and transformation, sediment retention, metals, and toxics retention and transformation). b. Hydrologic functions, which maintain the water regime in a watershed, such as: flood flow attenuation, decreasing erosion, and groundwater recharge. c. Food and habitat functions, which includes habitat for invertebrates, amphibians, anadromous fish, resident fish, birds, and mammals. Wetlands shall be rated based on categories that reflect the functions and values of each wetland and shall be based on the criteria provide in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington, revised ,u—2-Of`4Mara:,h 200 (Ecology Publication #04- 06-151 which are summarized below: Category I wetlands are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands, relatively undisturbed, and contain ecological attributes that are difficult to replace. Generally, these wetlands are not common and make up a very small percentage of the wetlands within the City of Yakima. The following types of wetlands are classified as Category I: i. Wetlands scoring 70 points or more (out of 100) in the Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System (EWWRS), May 2, 2013 57 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT ii. Alkali wetlands, iii. Natural heritage wetlands (wetlands identified by Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program scientists), and iv. Bogs. b. Category II wetlands are difficult but not impossible to replace and provide high levels of some functions. Category II wetlands include: Wetlands scoring between 51-69 points (out of 100) in the EWWRS, ii. Unassociated vernal pools, and iii. Forested wetlands. c. Category III wetlands are often smaller, less diverse, and/or more isolated from other natural resources. Category III wetlands include: Wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring between 30 -50 points) in the EWWRS, and ii. Associated vernal pools. d. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions, scoring less than 30 points in the EWWRS. Category IV wetlands are often heavily disturbed and are wetlands that should be able to be replaced. Wetlands shall be rated as they exist on the day of project application submission. Information regarding the original condition of illegally modified wetlands that cannot be discerned from aerial photographs or other reliable information sources shall use the highest appropriate points value within each missing data field of the EWWRS rating sheet to complete the rating. Consultant Note: This buffer table and other language added to this section was taken from the "Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities Eastern Washington Version" by Ecology, revised October 2012. This document, or other guidance documents prepared by Ecology, is required to be incorporated into wetland regulations applicable in shoreline jurisdiction. Note that these required buffers are smaller than the City's currently required buffers. 1. Vegetative buffers shall be measured from the edge of the wetland. The width of the buffer shall be determined according to the wetland type. The standard buffer widths are provided in Talfle 09,040-1 - below, rt,rr�facv,hr, itNr-"1i11rrtfie lwet pifffrrff�s 2. The use of the standard buffer widths reci iir the mplement tion of the meas!IL n Table 0L .,0 0 where a ) �rliral)le to jjninli w w1h rrl la m of t:he a( cent. land rrses, 3. if an kr a flicant chooses not..t�1'py 4.ht� miti dation niga ure in Table09,.040-2:then a 33 w increase in the width of all buffers is re r,aiired. p!..g j_,, x,75 foot buffer witl'r time i!it 1 g.Ew iLT ea gees would be a 1010 -foot buffer. 58 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 4. The adequacy of these standard buffer widths presumes the existence of a relatively intact native vegetative community within the buffer zone that is deemed adequate to protect the identified critical area. a. If the vegetation is degraded, then revegetation may be considered with any adjustment to the buffer width. b. Where the use is being intensified, a degraded buffer may be revegetated to maintain the standard width. nlartir)Fn fAwnty...il �e �gl Lv ent ,e�q} t...pc a� tsl...car t i l w. twent ,nin �i�i� sa u l th dt r x I�mr�t for weal ncl l i �t� ftaw`��t�on; e�ptW�e.N�e,..i�t�on-1�e-k�owa� tl�a�t,.a. faartaeaala�...�vll4dlafe s,pso+e�: r'oet-witl��r�-ti�mb��ttw-�r� t�e.�t ymeg 4 an►® Type-24fetkiwft Type4VGU 2404449 " ° Table ®1. Standard etlan Buffers May 2, 2013 59 Additional buffer Additional buffer Additional buffer Wetland t ffer width if wetlandi if wetiandwidth if wetland _Width scores 1®2 scores soor hat!L®rots itat points a i t of is Category I: 75ft Add_w1w5.ft Add 45 ft Add 75 ft Based on total ............. ............ score Category I: 75ft Add 15 ft Add 4 ft, a�, 7„ft Forested W___ Cate. ory I: 190 ft ....... _.� NA M, os Category I: 150 ft /A NA Alkali Category I: 190 wft N/A „NA w A IN tUr l I-1ertL�c Wetlands Category II: 75 ft Add 15 ft Add 45 ft Addm 75ft Based on total score Category II: 150 N A NA NA Vernal pool Category II: 75 ft Add 15 ft Add 45 ft � Add 7ft Forested Category III (all} 60 ft Add 30 ft Add,_60 ft NA May 2, 2013 59 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Wetland Standard Bufferf Categoryf 9W DRAFT TabNe 00.00 erired rreasrrrres to rinurrie irn acts to aretlard W Disturbance Bjqg1red Measures to i' ir"IfMaikze frn acts 'Lights Direc,�tgmrglrts..a�ve ..fr�on°r7 wetland els_ e_ Locate frtvttyatqt rasnot w@I-rfo�a vefaw _ifw rrranted enhance existing 4uff_e. with riati e..vegfjgtwq lantings ad'laper l: to noise source .For activftles_that �LerIerate_relatKvel cc N tunur ¢.as lot l°lt lip ®disru tNve_rao� c5. saacla_as ccwrtarn Baavy rndr.tstr° cgrinrrc establish ar_r_addrtforfal 10'_lreavul ve etated buffer strrl a rrr°frr edratel ad acerrt to flee outer wetland dfrtfr r Toxic runoff Route all n e -W f�regttewetland vadIT�ile effsua°irf wetlal� l� —td no ewatr Establish covenants_ITlimitir"f use of pesticides within 150 ft of wetland A if'fto ratcad est n ava ement Stormwater runoff Retrofit storniw at r wdetention wand tr°eatnier"nt for roads and e_xrsffn nd anemnmmt development Prevent channelized flow fronii lawns that directl i enters the buffer + Use Low Inter tt «.I � F � n1 nt t' 11iLY f C , „j �`gbfi tl n on UID, technic ues' �Change in water Infiltrate_orw4�e 4mITn� twin _gir 's i rs intg uff r neW rU noff roITr�nITITnr�� �erVIOU r Lim esurfaces and newlawns Pets andIThuman tt se .ar A ao _fe igLog,-Q-Fi-riLa_ntr' is v, netatnon to delineate t Lif fer � dgridto disturbance cfrsnNrge disturierrc o,fszrvetftion�aarercrtemfrcrvrITtlr ecareped Place wetland and its buffer n mar rtGmt9a t qr .[o ect with a conservation ease ,lent. Dust Use best fparya ernefrt ractices tocontr°ol dust ............... Maintain connections to off ite areas that are undisturbed _T5,1, ru ho f corridors or connections i estoire corridors or connections to offsite habitats b re pl�ran,t 5 _9 utt raver iiE-tLrerr atc vct't rrF fry of rwffwcr urn when rll of the folAc waft aThe wet lnd kids cr nifi antITdifferences In characteristics that affect its habitat fur~IIctigin such as a wetland wit'hi awforestedror'r a�gogtt rd� errs tc� �r ��cr ect rn�on e�tt LoLq] 2or°rent or_a "dual -rated" wetland) with a torte lo r' I sr'ea act igent to a lower -rated area. b, The bufifer.j.s_,increased...ad 1c to the,, higher functrantn area_of habitat or more- sensitfvU ortion of the wry l� nd nnocl qr cre��sed ad`acent to tfre lowver-franctign i ren, Ies s nsitr e_pS ret tr � cc r onstrate )y crLI ral nre m,)ort trc�rrr�a gkial fied�wr�,,tlai"ld prafessional, 60 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM C..Nle w r�5tat�gw�oteu rtr�L ald, 1 C +L�g.IJL,ig_Are_,quired without .; tl,, The at its n aaa° we ltajgint is never les than either Y4 of the re Irew mwidth or ` 5 feet for „ 0 tea�.raITnmc IT5ITfeet frar uate71raa° 8� w�aie;P�ever I 6. Buffer avera Jinn taw ollov ierrsraairii)le tj5e o Haat1�I �aA N,ae vrLT i°,t �l,..,w8r �1all o:f the following are met: a. There are no feasible alternatives to the _site ..detisl LnjjhatmcoUldmmITbe t�acr��� ali �a��r3 i4lr�al�t buffer a, 111, � T..N e w +a a,gLel a aN1 r, will not result in g e(atrNml the vact1�aM�d's fu n tionss��a�� v�sl'�ae.s has aidenionstratee.,L) ra � rmatiia al 1 �a.�. re �!�t'tw r rr� � d�aNifi�tiw wetland.fc�s ional. c:r... The total buffer area x.af trrir�ta�eyw-a w� eaualmto the are�uirgj withoutsy r gtia Cl,f" aaua�lAe at its narriawr� t ppi!Lt.,i riev(tless than: eitia,err `% of 011 rr„rauired width or..75 feet for attu�uufaa A �ar�tN IV � "J f act f'or fat gr~a. ry":IIrN �aNafd a_fe et for Cattegory I MvvNmawr:N Byer is greater. 7 _..._f a ff r, waeltf r ay,. ryr f rred-t areau a_a,ra acljaustarre a t raa i mpr°see fYt 4 1 ° : u^,.,^„^F *The administrative official may not approve averaging reductions to the standard buffer widths for wetlands that score medium (twenty sc through twenty- nine points) or high ( thirty through thirty-six points) for wetland habitat function, except where it can be shown that a particular wildlife species' needs within the buffer can be met with a smaller buffer. t:Al oITheruroaota.wetland buffer alwa�:LObi 1pm�tLig a rtlne:._ �Oau E. Compensatory Mitigation Requirements. Projects that propose compensation for wetland acreage and/or functions are subject to State and Federal regulations. Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall provide for a no net loss of wetland functions and values, and must be consistent with the mitigation plan requirements of YMC 17.09.010.P.13. The following documents were developed to assist applicants in meeting the above requirements. 1. Compensatory mitigation plans must be consistent with Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Guidelines for Developing Wetland Mitigation Plans and Proposals or as revised (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10; Ecology publication number 04-06-013B). 2. Compensatory mitigation application and ratios for mitigation of wetlands shall be consistent with Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands —Appendix 8-D- § 8-D3 or as revised (Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication # 05-06-008). F. Wetland Mitigation Banks 1. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved for use as compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when: May 2, 2013 61 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT a. The bank is certified under RCW Ch. 90.84 or WAC Ch. 173-700, b. The Administrative Official determines that the wetland mitigation bank can provide appropriate compensation for the authorized impacts, and c. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the bank's certification. 2. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be consistent with replacement ratios specified in the bank's certification. 3. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the bank's certification. In some cases, bank service areas may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage basin for specific wetland functions. 17.09.050 Geologically Hazardous Areas A. Purpose and Intent 1. Geologically hazardous areas include those areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events. These areas pose a threat to the health and safety of the City of Yakima's citizens when incompatible development is sited in significantly hazardous areas. When mitigation is not feasible, development within geologically hazardous areas should be avoided. 2. The purpose of this section is to: a. Minimize risks to public health and safety and reduce the risk of property damage by regulating development within geologically hazardous areas; b. Maintain natural geological processes while protecting new and existing development; and, c. Establish review procedures for development proposals in geologically hazardous areas. 3. This section does not imply that land outside mapped geologically hazardous areas or uses permitted within such areas will be without risk. This section shall not create liability on the part of the City of Yakima, any officer, or employee thereof for any damages that result from reliance on this Chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. B. Mapping and Designation 1. Geologically hazardous areas are areas that are susceptible to one or more of the following, based on WAC 365-190-09G(4- N-H:I O: a. Erosion hazards; b. Landslide hazards, which include: i. over steepened slopes, ii. alluvial fan/flash flooding, iii. avalanche, and iv. chai Iffle N a lc i 7&)n sand stream undercutting. c. Seismic hazards (referred to below as earthquake hazards); and, 62 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM d. Volcanic hazards. 2. The approximate location and extent of erosion hazard areas are shown on the City of Yakima's critical area map titled "Erosion Hazard Areas of the City of Yakima." Erosion hazard areas h-Oude areas fikely t [)ecome uu st such as ltiu))s stc is oa Lr with unconsolidated soils. _Erosion hazard areas were identified by using the "Soil Survey of Yakima County Area, Washington" and the "Soil Survey of Yakima Indian Reservation Irrigated Area, Washington, Part of Yakima County." The approximate location and extent of Geologically Hazardous Areas are shown on the City's critical area map titled "Geologically Hazardous Areas of the City of Yakima." The following geologically hazardous areas have been mapped and classified using the criteria found in WAC 365-190- 120 a. Landslide Hazard Areas (LS). These include places where landslides, debris flows, or slumps have occurred. i. High Risk (LS3) is defined as areas that are presumed to have had a landslide, debris flow, or slump within 10,000 years or less. ii. Intermediate Risk (LS2) is defined as areas where landslides, debris flows, or slumps are older than 10,000 years, but are still capable of movement. iii. Low Risk areas are defined as: Areas unlikely to fail. These areas are unlabeled and combined with other Low Risk categories. b. Over Steepened Slope Hazard Areas (OS). These include areas with slopes steep enough to create a potential problem. i. High Risk areas (OS3) are defined as having a high potential to fail, include slopes greater than 40%, and consist of areas of rock fall, creep, and places underlain with unstable materials. ii. Intermediate Risk areas (OS2) are defined as areas less likely to fail but are still potentially hazardous. This category includes slopes between 15% and 40%. iii. Low Risk areas are defined as areas unlikely to fail. These areas are unlabeled and combined with other Low Risk categories. c. Alluvial Fan/Flash Flooding Hazard Areas (AF). These areas include locations where flash floods can occur and are often associated with inundation by debris from flooding. These areas may include: i. Alluvial fans, ii. Canyons, iii. Gullies, and iv. Small streams where catastrophic flooding can occur. d;_ ...Ava Stream Undercutting Hazard Areas (SU). These areas are confined to banks near main streams and rivers where undercutting of soft materials may result. High Risk areas (SU3) include steep banks of soft material adjacent to present stream courses. May 2, 2013 63 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT ii. Intermediate Risk areas (SU2) are banks along the edge of a flood plain but away from the present river course. iii. Low Risk areas (SU1) are unlabeled and combined with other Low Risk areas on the maps. Earthquake Activity Hazard Areas (EA). Recorded earthquake activity in the City of Yakima is mostly marked by low magnitude events and thus low seismic risk. The City of Yakima's Low Risk areas are unlabeled and combined with other low risk hazards. f. Suspected Geologic Hazard Areas (SUS). These are areas for which detailed geologic mapping is deficient but preliminary data indicate a potential hazard may exist. No risk assessment (1-2-3) is given for these areas. Most are probably OS or LS hazards. Risk Unknown Hazard Areas (UNK). This category is limited to areas where geologic mapping is lacking or is insufficient to make a determination. All of these areas are associated with other classified geologic hazards. 4. Volcanic Hazard Areas are not mapped, but are defined as areas subject to pyroclastic (formed by volcanic explosion) flows, lava flows, and inundation by debris flows, mudflows or related flooding resulting from volcanic activity. Volcanic Hazard Areas in the City of Yakima are limited to pyroclastic (ash) deposits. No specific protection requirements are identified for volcanic hazard areas. C. Geologically Hazardous Areas Protection Approach. The geologically hazardous areas protection approach can be met by following the guidelines below and by implementing the appropriate sections of the Building Code as adopted in YMC Title 11. . • . « shoreline stabilization over the life of tf�g_�tit�L p pt as, aljowedui, de, YMC 1 1-. 2. Erosion Hazard Areas. Protection measures for erosion hazard areas will be accomplished by implementing the regulatory standards for erosion and drainage control required under YMC Title 11 Building Code. YMC Title 11 requirements can be met by the application of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (WDOE Publication number 04-10-076); equivalent manual adopted by the City of Yakima; or any other approved manual deemed appropriate by the Building Official. 3. Landslide Hazard Areas. Protection measures for landslide hazard areas will be accomplished through the review process of YMC 17.09.050.1) by implementing the development standards of YMC 17.09.050.E. 4. Alluvial Fan/Flash Flooding Hazard Areas. Protection measures for alluvial fan/flash flooding hazard areas will be accomplished through the review process of YMC 17.09.050.D. 5. Stream Undercutting Hazard Areas. Protection measures for stream undercutting hazard areas will be accomplished by Critical Areas review for flood hazards, streams, and Shoreline jurisdiction. 64 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 6. Oversteepened Slope Hazard Areas. Protection measures for oversteepened slope hazard areas will be accomplished through the review process of YMC 17.09.050.D, by implementing the development standards of YMC 17.09.050.E. 7. Earthquake/Seismic Hazard Area Protection Standards. Protection measures for earthquake/seismic hazard areas will be accomplished by implementing the appropriate sections of the Building Code as adopted in YMC Title 11. 8. Suspected Geologic Hazard Areas and Risk Unknown Hazard Areas. Protection measures for suspected geologic hazard areas and risk unknown hazard areas will be accomplished through the review process of YMC 17.09.050.D and by implementing the development standards of YMC 17.09.050.E. D. Development Review Procedure for Geologically Hazardous Areas 1. The Administrative Official shall make a Determination of Hazard to confirm whether the development or its associated facilities (building site, access roads, limits of grading/ excavation/ filling, retaining walls, septic drainfields, landscaping, etc.) are located: a. Within a mapped geologically hazardous area; b. Adjacent to or abutting a mapped geologically hazardous area and may result in or contribute to an increase in hazard, or pose a risk to life and property on or off the site; c. Within a distance from the base of an adjacent landslide hazard area equal to the vertical relief of said hazard area; or, d. Within the potential run -out path of a mapped avalanche hazard. 2. Developments that receive an affirmative Determination of Hazard by the Administrative Official under subsection 1 above, must conduct a Geologic Hazard Report as provided in YMC 17.09.010.Q, which may be part of a Geotechnical Report required below. a. If the Geologic Hazard Report determines that no hazard exists or that the project area lies outside the hazard, then no Geologic Hazard review is needed. b. The Administrative Official is authorized to waive further Geologic Hazard review for oversteepened slopes on the basis that the hazards identified by the Geologic Hazard Report will be adequately mitigated through the issuance of a grading or construction permit. 3. Developments that receive an affirmative Determination of Hazard, but do not meet the provisions of subsection 2a or 2b above, must: a. Obtain a Critical Areas Development Authorization under YMC 17.09.010; b. Submit a Geotechnical Report that is suitable for obtaining grading and construction permits that will be required for development; L The geo-technical report shall incorporate a submitted assessment which includes the design of all facilities; ii. A description and analysis of the risk associated with the measures proposed to mitigate the hazards; and, iii. Ensure the public safety, and protect property and other critical areas; and, May 2, 2013 65 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM c. Be consistent with YMC 17.09.050.E. E. General Protection Requirements DRAFT Grading, construction, and development and their associated facilities shall not be located in a geologically hazardous area, or any associated setback for the project recommended by the Geotechnical Report, unless the applicant demonstrates that the development is structurally safe from the potential hazard, and that the development will not increase the hazard risk onsite or off-site. Development shall be directed toward portions of parcels, or parcels under contiguous ownership, that are at the least risk of hazard in preference to lands with higher risk, unless determined to be infeasible in the Geotechnical Report. 3. The Geotechnical Report shall incorporate methods to ensure that education about the hazard and any recommended buildable area for future landowners is provided. 4. The applicable requirements of grading and construction permits for developments in hazardous areas must be included in the development proposal and Geotechnical Report. 17.09.060 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas A. Purpose and Intent 1. The Growth Management Act (RCW Ch. 36.70A) requires local jurisdictions to protect areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water or areas where drinking aquifers are vulnerable to contamination. These areas are referred to as Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA) in this section. 2. Potable water is an essential life sustaining element and much of the City of Yakima's drinking water comes from groundwater supplies. Once groundwater is contaminated it can be difficult and costly to clean. In some cases, the quality of groundwater in an aquifer is inextricably linked to its recharge area. 3. The intent of this section is to: a. Preserve, protect, and conserve the City of Yakima's CARA from contamination; and, b. Establish a protection approach that emphasizes the use of existing laws and regulations while minimizing the use of new regulations. 4. It is not the intent of this ordinance to: a. Regulate everyday activities (including the use of potentially hazardous substances that are used in accordance with State and Federal regulations and label specifications); b. Enforce or prevent illegal activities; c. Regulate land uses that use or store small volumes of hazardous substances (including in -field agricultural chemical storage facilities, which do not require permits, or are already covered under existing state, federal, or county review processes and have detailed permit review); d. Establish additional review for septic systems, which are covered under existing City of Yakima review processes; 66 May 2, 2013 DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM e. Establish additional review for stormwater control, which is covered under existing review processes and has detailed permit review; or, f. Require review for uses that do not need building permits and/or zoning review. The above items are deemed to have small risks of CARA contamination or are beyond the development review system's ability to control. B. Mapping 1. Mapping Methodology. The CARA is depicted in the map titled "Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas of the City of Yakima" located within the City of Yakima's 2006 Urban Area Comprehensive Plan 2025. The CARA map was developed through a geographic information system (GIS) analysis using the methodology outlined in the Washington Department of Ecology "Guidance Document for the Establishment of Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Ordinances" (Publication #97-30). The approximate location and extent of critical aquifer recharge areas are depicted on the above mentioned map, and are to be used solely as a guide for the City. The CARA map estimates areas of moderate, high, and extreme susceptibility of contamination, as well as, wellhead protection areas. In characterizing the hydrogeologic susceptibility of these recharge areas with regard to contamination, the following physical characteristics were utilized: a. Depth to ground water; b. Soil (texture, permeability, and contaminant attenuation properties); c. Geologic material permeability; and, d. Recharge (amount of water applied to the land surface, including precipitation and irrigation). 2. Wellhead Protection Areas. The CARA map includes those Wellhead Protection Areas for which the City of Yakima has maps. Wellhead Protection Areas are required for all Class A public water systems in the State of Washington. The determination of a wellhead protection area is based upon the time of travel of a water particle from its source to the well. Water purveyors collect site specific information to determine the susceptibility of the water source to surface sources of contamination. Water sources are ranked by the Washington State Department of Health with a high, moderate, or low susceptibility to surface contamination. Wellhead protection areas are defined by the boundaries of the ten (10) year time of ground water travel, in accordance with WAC 246-290-135. For purposes of this Chapter, all wellhead protection areas shall be considered highly susceptible. C. Protection Approach 1. Maps shall be used only as an informational resource to communicate with applicants regarding potential problems in meeting the applicable laws on a particular site. The maps indicate that areas of high susceptibility tend to be located in valley bottoms and follow along floodplain and stream corridors. Extreme susceptibility locations are located largely within floodplains and along streams and wetlands. 2. Land uses are subject to many existing, federal, state, local, or tribal laws regarding the handling of substances that may contaminate CARAs. Disclosure, educational information, and coordination of existing laws during existing review processes can accomplish the May 2, 2013 67 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT requirement to protect the CARA. Consequently, the City of Yakima's protection of the CARA shall be accomplished through normal project permit review under various Yakima Municipal Code sections, especially the stream protection standards in YMC Ch. 17.09.030 (Part Five Fish and Wildlife Habitat and the Stream Corridor System); YMC Title 11, which provides detailed construction, use, and fire/life-safety standards for the storage and handling of dangerous and hazardous substances to a greater extent than most existing state; and federal laws. The Administrative Official shall develop and maintain a list of the relevant laws noted above. This list shall be informational and it is intended to be used in coordination with development permit review. This list shall be periodically reviewed and updated so as to provide the most comprehensive list possible to inform project applicants of the requirements of other agencies. 4. The Administrative Official shall also develop and maintain a table of land uses with the potential of being subject to the relevant laws noted above. The table shall be generated and maintained using the intent stated in YMC 17.09.060.A.4. 5. The Building Official and Water/Irrigation Manager shall cooperatively develop questionnaires, to be filled out by new development permit applicants, which comprehensively establish the potential use, storage, and handling methods within the project for substances that have the potential to contaminate groundwater. The questionnaires are intended to ensure full application of existing building and construction codes related to such substances in order to forestall new regulations. 6. The Building Official and Water/Irrigation Manager shall develop technical assistance and information materials to assist landowners and developers with understanding and meeting relevant existing federal, state, and local laws relating to CARAs. 68 May 2, 2013 FOR THE RECORD / y£ ,ty Ya ima Cl, of k- SMP Update «: n rq rig f \ \\ \moi\ .�s� Meeting Goal Review & Obtain Planning Commission Direction on: Section 17.05.020 Environmental Protection Section 17.05.030 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation Chapter 17.09 Critical Areas .010—general provisions .030— fish and wildlife habitat and the stream corridor system Ir .040 - wetlands Section 17.05.060 Flood Hazard Reduction Section 17.07.030 Boating and Private Moorage Facilities Other questions on remaining sections of Chapter 17.09 or Section 17.07.150 (Shoreline Stabilization)? ��MA Principles Key principles of SMA encourage appropriate development such as docks, marinas, recreation facilities, and industries that are dependent on, related to, or enable enjoyment of shorelines provide environmental protection and restoration for shorelines promote public access riV ig os M-1 wo Provides basic guiding principles for all uses and modifications: Requirement that development or activity must achieve "no net loss of ecological functions" Requirement to use mitigation sequencing MR Requirement to develop and implementation mitigation plan for unavoidable adverse impacts �'5horelilne Vegetation Conservation Vegetation conservation standards DO NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY to existing uses and developments. New development must avoid and minimize vegetation clearing except as needed to accommodate an approved development e Adverse impacts to vegetation must be mitigated; a list of examples is included Provisions to address vegetation modifications for safety and views Removal of invasive or non-native species is encouraged Allowances for aquatic weed control L M-M .1-It!C--'%aI Areas Provi'si"ons g Removed language that is redundant with other sections of the SMP (e.g., mitigation sequencing) Removed language that is inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act or SMP Guidelines (e.g., permit processes and most exemptions) Critical WI*ldll*fe Added provisions applying to water -enjoyment uses ON Developed customized buffers by environment designation and waterbody type (stream or lake) — replaced the one -size - fits all County buffer of 100 feet. * Retained County's 100 -foot buffer for Floodway/CMZ designation per Ecology Altered the buffer reduction option to allow averaging administratively with maximum reduction of 25% in any location; further reductions require Shoreline Variance Moved wetland -specific provisions into Wetlands section W,ritical Areas - Wetlands * Most changes are derived from Ecology's 2012 "Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Eastern Washington Version)" Delineation method changed (no practical consequences) Wetland buffers updated (generally, wetland buffers are smaller than existing required buffers) Altered the buffer reduction option to allow averaging administratively with maximum reduction of 25% in any location; further reductions require Shoreline Variance Most of this new section is verbatim excerpt from the SMP Guidelines New provision added to provide greater flexibility in planning and implementing levee setback projects (regulation J) Boating and Private Moorage Facilities Minor revisions for consistency with City conditions and allowances Added specific residential dock provisions for lakes based on existing conditions (Google Earth observations) and covenants Added some standards for boat launch design Remai'ni'ng Sections Questions, clarifications, modifications? Section 17.09.020 Flood hazard areas 17 Section 17.09.050 Geologically hazardous areas Section 17.09.060 Critical aquifer recharge areas IS Section 17.07.150 Shoreline Stabilization Residential Conforming and Non -conforming Scenarios Scenario 1. Existing single-family home in the Floodway/CMZ environment. New single-family residences are prohibited in the Floodway/CMZ environment due to floodway condition per Section 17.09.020(M) (current regulation). Proposed buffer is 100 feet, the house is located at —60 feet. Q: Can a new house be constructed on the parcel? A: No. The use is prohibited in this environment. Q: Can the existing house be expanded? A: Yes, but a Conditional Use Permit is required per Section 17.11.010(8). May 13, 2013 Prepared by The Watershed Company/BERK Scenario 2. Existing single-family home in the Urban Conservancy environment. • Conforming use -single-family residences are allowed in the Urban Conservancy environment per use matrix. • Conforming structure — required buffer is 100 feet, and the house is located at —117 feet. Q: Can a new house be constructed on the parcel? A: Yes, but only in the Urban Conservancy environment (green), not the Floodway/CMZ environment (purple). Q: Can the existing house be expanded in the Urban Conservancy environment? A: Yes. The expansion would be required to be consistent with the buffer of 100 feet or a Shoreline Variance would be required. Q: IF the OHWM shifted toward the house due to migration of the channel, and the house was now located in the 100 -foot buffer, but still in the Urban Conservancy environment, could 1) a new house be constructed on the parcel? A: Yes, as a conforming use but a non -conforming structure, the expansion must be located outside of the buffer or obtain a Shoreline Variance. (See 17.11.020 (A)) 2) the existing house be expanded? A: Yes, provided that the enlargement does not increase the extent of nonconformity by further encroaching upon or extending into areas where construction or use would not be allowed for new development or uses. Per proposed 17.11.040(8) "the City shall allow redevelopment, expansion, change with the class of occupancy, or replacement of the residential structure if it is consistent with the SMP, including requirements for no net loss of shoreline ecological functions." May 13, 2013 Prepared by The Watershed Company/BERK 170R THF, It F,,('C)gym lll.) ," F1 I CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT YAKI A SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM This document provides draft regulations for the following sections of City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update: • Section 17.05.010 Archaeological and Historic Resources (all new) • Section 17.05.040 Water Quality, Stormwater, and Nonpoint Pollution (all new) • Section 17.07.010 Agriculture • Section 17.07.020 Aquaculture • Section 17.07.060 Fill • Section 17.07.090 Mining • Section 17.07.120 Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects (all new) • Section 17.07.140 Signs Typically, the base language is from the Yakima County Regional SMP, and then amended with strikeout/underline to be more consistent with City conditions or SMP Guidelines. In some cases, sections are "all new" and noted as such Mtiona� revisPons to these deaf 1't& L�q�o have been ��on h6 out l���ml ��Ll�i� �w � I� �� � u��w I�u:F l� l°�t� �u��... cVig. ornedc ,icy. Fio�o�iiu�imn...i�u. The draft sections should be read in conjunction with the following documents distributed to the Planning Commission at prior meetings: • Preliminary Shoreline Environment Designations & Use and Modification Matrix Framework (updated version distributed at 4/10 meeting) • Excerpts From Ecology's Shoreline Master Program Submittal Checklist (distributed at 3/27 meeting) • SMP Update Guidance — Consistency (distributed at 3/27 meeting) • Comment letter (dated 1/31/13) from the Yakama Nation. I) IIII'° D114 III'°°°� Cj°°°IIII ""'1111"""Iliiiiiii IIII'° °IL . "I IiiV GEMEFML RB„1111LILATIQMS 17.05.010 Archaeological and Historic Resources (All New) Consultant Note: Designed to meet WAC 173-26-221(1) and Yakama Nation comment letter to City in February 2013. A. The City shall require that permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources require a site inspection or evaluation by a professional archaeologist. Auger tests may be required before construction and representatives of the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Yakama Indian Nation may be invited to observe any tests and construction work. If auger or historical data indicate probable presence of cultural resources which may be disturbed by excavation, the City shall meet the shoreline permit applicant and may impose conditions on any shoreline permit to assure that such resources are protected, preserved or collected. B. Developers and property owners shall immediately stop work and notify the City, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the Yakama Indian Nation if archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation. Following such notification, the City may follow the provisions of Subsection C. AOai 41 , 2013 1 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT C. Where a professional archaeologist or historian, recognized by the State of Washington, has identified an area or site as having significant value, or where an area or site is listed in national, state or local historical registers, the City may require an evaluation of the resource, and appropriate conditions, which may include preservation and/or retrieval of data, proposal modifications to reduce impacts, or other mitigation authorized through the State Environmental Policy Act, or other local, state, or federal laws. 17.05.040 Water Quality, Stormwater, and Nonpoint Pollution (All New) Consultant Note: The County SMP has some jurisdiction -wide policies, but most policies are limited to critical areas and buffers and the regulations appear to be applied only to critical areas and buffers. The Consultants propose a more jurisdiction -wide set of regulations based on direction in the SMP Guidelines and relying on locally adopted manuals. Do not degrade A,YaW.FSETOw 0,3 & functions. ns,. Design, construction and operation of shoreline uses and developments shall incorporate measures to protect and maintain surface and groundwater quantity and quality in accordance with all applicable laws, sore ril�y r r l loo it ru l liryrr l i.l lrra r r...lA101()ecril—al�iaf..so-that there is no net loss of ecological functions. Do noti�,,! ralrld� w ilM P�5 arW1Y �k�i� Ie���101' �� � �� V �Vwlill�ln�, ��nwl 11 r�r���ilglr'iAnl� r1Ur 11 �1�Oa iol�ll ��f �a�Nf)lf a'IIII�,G """,,,"„ „ , s,.,."„ ", „, a ,,,",,,,",,,,",,.,",","m "","w""""w,""",",""""""""""""".","" Uses and r�nrl�IPrfur�w9EK r�V�l�i V�tl� � C��s��4 ��h&"q l��� � D.,������� ��.;r���d mah"a�Vin siIf c and a .M �.,L[ . � � o r� u r .o�ol.11r�wa�al°. luaurii� aura . rwaQu�: illr arnoll�daurr:awu�:ir aVll a rIlurairVcIlawa so SII°la� ai oruifinan� ilorr rac�a to aesthetic a r1ahtile : 1'lar:l"��������"{"�a I �arkrLLiluj1jg� do not occur'. sy,nffican "irr hn""� Ia tp_gLg ilr Tics r recreation w�r�ou�@ r ccl un, of a stormwater fe y Hfty and"" , �"urtena"nt structures such as fences or other features have the potential to iock ou fi`T199! a view of�� gu ,I a land or ��lllw���lr.�iii°il� waiglws from .... from a substantial number of residences per RC's' 0,58 320 or njw y Ali mlil 2ll ymry nrl yn n wq 2g!:g jtewnyntha die arr�and character were and iIorjr g � !!S!M_L1_ S such 2 _nnnnnningI'llnd s llluarr ui„ u"h fir,s l� rrl inn c� aag.; C. Requirements for new development. 1. New development and re -development shall manage short-term and long-term stormwater runoff to avoid and minimize potential adverse affects on shoreline ecological functions through tull�f i�st rrla�Call1 ifnPr w w �tl:wl"compliance with the latest edition of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington or approved local equivalent if applicable to the project If csu to in ihresl Gds are oinoi". e Illy s �tya Q"�apgrr m��w�wl� i W:(r ggg.t Lonwu Hance with fw �oro~ruu� ater i r nLa tmerl B" ll��ll�llw s iovied Alx.yl eguivalent,,,best cu llreu l lro-rrrl l i lr " "I' uwr lll�r" k I�GII "mslrl�" 9"ary' I " "" roy s y"u "lrrulrilillli l C t Asti«.l..adverse u u,cS. 2. When the Stormwater Management Manual applies, deviations from the standards may be approved where it can be demonstrated that off-site facilities would provide better treatment, or where common retention, detention and/or water quality facilities meeting such standards have been approved as part of a comprehensive stormwater management plan. C—. D. Sewage management. To avoid water quality degradation, sewer service is subject to the requirements outlined below. Nlrr'fiay.L 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT 1. Any existing septic system or other on-site system that fails or malfunctions will be required to connect to an existing municipal sewer service system if feasible, or make system corrections approved by Yakima Public Health. 2. Any new development, business, single-family or multi -family unit will be required to connect to an existing municipal sewer service system if feasible, or install an on-site septic system approved by Yakima Public Health. D-.E.Materials requirements. All materials that may come in contact with water shall be untreated or approved treated wood, concrete, approved plastic composites or steel, that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants or animals. F. Low Impact Development (LID). Use of the most current version of the Yakima Region Low Impact Development (LID) Stormwater Design Manual throughout the various stages of development, including site assessment, planning and design, site preparation, construction, and ongoing management, is encouraged. I RTDIMS OF °' Illh°°°1111 ""'1111""' IIII'° "J 7.07 —IIIIIIIIII IIII' IIIIIIIIII IIII F' III 14D I'WODIFICAIIGN D IIIIIIIIIIi IIIL.....A fi 17.07.010 Agriculture Consultant Note: This section amends the Regional SMP language which is more geared to rural Yakima County. Text is simplified and matched to SMP Guidelines as well as City zoning, which allows most agricultural activities except feedlots. A. For Shoreline purposes, WAC 173-26-020 (Definitions) and WAC 173-26-241(3)(a) (Agriculture) shall determine the need for shoreline review for agricultural activities. c ,eement ay lart-a.gi+Irifis br kM_wl41_ _e4e44evAP�"FGV+5-ate. hprpese. B. The provisions of this SMP do not limit or require modification of agricultural activities on agricultural lands as of the date of ado tion of the SMP. C. SMP provisions, shall) apply in the following cases: 1. new agricultural activities on land not meetin j the definition of a ricultural land- 2. ex ansion of a ricultural activities on non-agricultural lands or conversion of non-ariculural lands to agricultural activities-,, 3. conversion of agricultural lands to other uses, 4. other development on agricultural land that does not meet the definition of agricultural activities- and S, a riculturalll development and uses not specifically exempted by the Act. Ai 'iV 4M@ , 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT R, Q. Con,4nepien Concentrated animal feeding operautions. t*e are prohibited in shoreline iurisdiction.1: a nMAN w« t a - E. New agricultural activities and facilities shall utilize best management practices established by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service or other similar agency. Development in support of agricultural uses shall be consistent with the environment designation intent and management policies, located and designed to assure no net loss of ecological functions and sIhaH not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline resources and values. 17.07.020 Aquaculture The following provisions apply to any development, construction, or use of land or orate for aquacultural purposes within Shoreline jurisdiction. A. All structures located within water -bodies shall not preclude navigability of those waters at any time, and shall be clearly marked so as to provide no hazard to navigation on those waters. 3__Aquaculture facilities shall a _di avufrrued and located tea avoid significant conflict with water - dependent uses, the spreading of disease, introduction of non-native species, or impacts to shoreline aesthetic qualities. i m quaw l l ai..st,,ipppµunit f p rr4 y a r u g d l r t; ro add d jshh Sp (u . "u[ . s V, U icu r co nn ril a rn is rim°ncr pure ed , irovidg d it us n nwuq(luucted WitllNin II)e and 13, 'The yknrk �a Nlynic y1 C .fines s sioer .t.i aLns as:_°"Concentratedanirrial feedinp. o eratiorn" reams a s�ruact�rr or aeras for tl°u�e concentrated fe:e:dln, � or boldin of aniumaals on• ,or�l�frincinadin kraut: not inrn horses cattle sheeo or swine. This definition includes dairy confinement areas, sla, gh grhonasee ship pAn tun l holdiunLL)_oytr , n -d _ r ggmm ropy gd—ucx o -l- f callti�s and fur farms but does not include animal husbandry. (YMC 1S.ff.020 NApu.l.y..4 11 lien ..2, 2013 4 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT 17.07.060 Fill Consultant Note: The County SMP language was supplemented to provide more clarity about fills in sensitive areas and in non -sensitive upland areas. Text is better matched to SMP Guidelines. Much of the existing language from the County SMP is identical to material found in the City's critical areas regulations and has been retained. The redundant language will not be included in the future shoreline critical areas section (to be discussed at the 5/16 meeting). b,rw-4440,Wlntl m r tr r a l A rr t htrr It w wd, tr i r� �� u A. AH ffljs shall .. :°r.aa to q lawn roo r° �. t rr h ruria u�rtrr rI c dvu rrsie rmn 0, I wwirrrur�4ne @w�rw grrrgral 4lah.,, ^ al wrwfaat a N frra nuraala is kjq, ' 1 p. li. e"rrrrllblelrli11 wrIrrslfiv°rliire,rw IPIV�rlrh .thiiii'v ...ri....�.r.."l�Ma S l 000lIoIIo11owoee�II, Il _..._..._......o.."� or waterward tbtr� w0!,i V!,,i, iall wily � Iw: �r � �° i�� � wwa�� kirnitg�d 4ist<uo�ces for the Ifoli W4 x.21 _U 2r maiwmaroth rrrl,.Wured sw...emi9umo have frerrr trlrie 'rt. i rarrr1°°rmleuatrruuu alt�. .„site.wM_... r&!,qt .irrufr�r�lwi�ma use aryl dvk� � a loll ow that are consistent with, tha s SM,�u�.l rrr lr r�. 1 Wa r .'.laendent use t,j?,rr 11ic giccess, aInd r ieang marl graiggu g� of r�r�gl andna iwed sediments a P rt o �:�..41b.'ertaa r%r��� w ��w��� i�°p. �� u���fm¢ r a ..,.. � �_..0 ° r" and conducted i accordance i�rei��niti"m�...th 2. lai��u�h i.r.ar� rlai.rV�rurrrlerrra µrrut:ti a r o.....mm. iaraluaaar c m cm a 11 ral aaac rcmcrrnt 0 ftr r_ rri the,,kJ,5, ,nr, orry s r i la ��ra „� rSection.. 17 (27,12(3Q of :N!u 5.1 3 Lj ansion... r affi,,3,raflon of tran r �° � ion facHitiesnof stat, m id supgifica ce cur �m�w� � (i Out colla m fir a @i„r i �ie'JIIi afteilrialJves to fiH are iinfeaab e 4 c,,ott adcar re toratron or~eruimuar°rcenient whero consistent with r:r°r airtiroved re toratu rm oIl ula 5. 1° a6nte nnce or linstaH doily of flood hazard reduc in Ii7igas icesa° insn stent wid) ........... m........._.... r.rrur°r rur lrr°:rll 11 rm ii'.rr.rri i u,nlltl.i rrr rrr r r'llrlrr ll'rl ;rluuur ruur.i wr rtrr.uur ..i. �r w 4 V Ilrwrrd Vlazaird II.Ieclu..rrwtllr..rll'r. 6. ru.uter.tlur.rru r.rll a..rsill.u..uu..rll cru Ilru tr.uu u � r °�a r.rur..u...� hrr...ru irllll r... I.Il�ur, uuurr� � tr�.��„r,�ulr�p urwr...l.11rll..mr�.i Lr.,r...r..r..... r r'rturrr�ti... � .,, � �, ... ._. .. disturbance or eirosion of sit Such must be coordinated ithh truer degradation utur�l,�.. affected andia n tribesand coLnp!�M�ruth Lip n,k bu, a .lir r��rr�ttataw, rel Section ; 'i 1 of thins SMP �:...I� filli w,.i wniteiil a �d gulf trm 0...,hAl M mino t ass(mlmcli atery l with coy opic,a ar�rAstoraLiori, , �.,..... . trol or,. llrl con r,..,. li. ..a” '� �m...._ i ."... �.�._.. . �2a"rrrryr-:��ra �Ilu�rru�c�Nru"rr �„,Ill�l��uur�rp �iarriG ur r cyuur wr„�t�.rrluru urriutrrrh tl uU rrrura ...a r r h 'ler' tiKel.55,NY414 GFRIJORratio. A- itt ...e C. iii rrr�rrrrinr nlnJlthh raira�wr9rrariV tam�mar�umpr;mara uR .: r rrnasi �., 1. is con Uct �lwo uunsW a 1,211 cable buffer's galic4essjjta mutik:aH rml )we(] fin Ilwrl:al.rll r rt t al r rca rl hrgrw "lVne use or rtl"�odifi �rtr�"r�s "Y� rr4��m,Inecesa �.� IPrC��d 1-9pr�,t���!,Jon to 2. t_ d .. _ ��..o�..- rwr~�gtuaral orVlii �rar c r cic�rr�r 3. �s the r��linirplur�r°Iner rsr,,i to„imp h�pr�r4^ w i rrwwe....or rVrpldrf9wr�.11�"�r�.a AfY61, i " gt ,, 2013 CITY 0fY&KIK0A SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT 4. S. 6. Q D. Fill shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the use or purpose and shall be confined to areas having the least impact tothe Other alternatives bepreferred over fill toelevate new inthe floodplain, such as increasing foundation height +a*zeFe+rise '----------r—��~—~^---~~"-`~--'-~~~— F-.-{E._Unless site characteristics dictate otherwise, fill material within surface waters mrwetlands shall be sand, gravel, rock, orother clean material with aminimum potential 10degrade water qu8|i1 . &.E.Fill placement shall be scheduled at times having the least impact to fish spawning, nesting patterns, and other identified natural processes. methods and rev. tateo�,_ps -k.H. Projects that propose fill shall make every effort to acquire fill onsite (also known as compensatory storage) where appropriate. J-.1. Fill should not obstruct, cut off, or isolate stream corridor features. i | April Way 2,3O13 6 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT 17.07.090 Mining Consultant Note: The County SMP language was modified to indicate that post -mineral extraction processing activities are regulated as an industrial use. Much of the existing language from the County SMP is identical to material found in the City's critical areas regulations and has been retained, or tweaked to better match the City's critical areas regulations. The redundant language will not be included in the future shoreline critical areas section (to be discussed at the 5/16 meeting). The following provisions shall apply to commercial mining of grave4swithin shorelines �„g[is„ pcti app. has he on- site n- su�uw�^sw��hat sssuwliia,osite oiu� eu duo urii�u�oor ss�trr;�i��� ...ourr �.,....... sitearry mla�so l.esgs an pITc"lr l sur iW use(see Section '17.07,0701: A. Prior to the authorization of a commercial &, mining operation, the project proponent shall provide maps to scale which illustrate the following: 1. The extent to which ,!„Fav !:l excavation and processing will affect or modify existing stream corridor features, including existing riparian vegetation; 2. The location, extent and size in acreage of any pond, lake, or feature that will be created as a result of mining excavation; 3. The description, location, and extent of any proposed subsequent use that would be different than existing uses. B. l the operations and any subsequent use or uses shall not cause permanent impairment or loss of floodwater storage, wetland, or other stream corridor features. Mitigation shall provide for the feature's replacement at equal values ex let wleflands which shaU be u%ifiated acco din to l,0dLmr In the s ashinjs� i...���19M �p�:� : ����� q� II &Y's ” ��µdand M��9��ii.��.aflon �u�...Washirlgt r: �!uIjg. 14)ari:rl. anl��.s. C,w.w.w,ArryF rrr r s:rrirrrrrl allr w: rs ltl' tl� flr r may...&hall rnee lfrr joWan arr r fiD4r*,­Y&­,Q1 ,. D -.C. Except where authorized by iIlf„ a11.�Jty1r” in consultation with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Department of Ecology, the following shall apply: 1. The excavation zone lrrr.alle F up.mellal..elf gravels shall be located a minimum of one hundred feet upland from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the stream channel. 2. Equipment shall not be operated, stored, refueled, or provided maintenance within one hundred feet of the OHWM. 3. "\ ashing, reek -crushing, screening, or stockpiling of l -mined material shall not occur within one hundred feet of the OHWM. � €-D.Mining proposals shall be consistent with the Washington Department of Natural Resources Surface Mine Reclamation standards (WAC 332-18, RCW 78.44). -F-.E. Additional Shoreline Standards for Industrial Mining G�s...r��rr:�e�r� lrr�h�ap�y �rrll-r�n�lr�r: �,rr � u lwir�r� �r�:lrr mShrrre lrm�- f�,rri�lrr,lr.u.r 1. Applicants shall submit a mining and reclamation plan to the Shoreline Administrator describing the proposed site, quantity of material to be removed, method of removal, and measures that will be taken to protect lakes and streams from siltation and sedimentation. A surface mining plan or a reclamation plan judged by the S;ho�i el hiic Administratl 000 O'�Pcl is -to be insufficient for p 1. 4May.2, 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT protection or restoration of the shoreline environment shall cause denial of a � hoii°6liim2,e 2. Miningshall be sited in such a manner so as to avoid damage or loss resulting from flooding. 40- if aAg- PfOC ee a+N/.o. min imiK vi-,uc 4_ f1d a )i e rrrmfaa tri. 4.3. New mining and associated activities shall assure that proposed subsequent use of the mined property is consistent with the provisions of the environment designation and that reclamation of disturbed shoreline areas provides appropriate ecological functions consistent with the setting. 17.07.120 Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects (All New) y.i tarw4�t gr i�rrt l gde thlos�':"^ ppalliir.�all�rirttr. IlrawuarlliC.pr ir�ri�utrt ��ar'p rr�ltr�uul rm. �m r�uu�, rwrilrirti ..°°° °� r tivitie o.,;et and t.rarrrJucter E, xxi icall for the jgri 92 r rr _p t §CJs r�.,r(n io idy"'_Or nli� Pira rra� habitatw s M ii�ari y .5p �,wr�r im�ti���ar1 S� W arr �4...i�� ��� i�� url Vude h r"r�lln ml..... �. ns ° . m , a� of d�h�"utl"r-nat r"a�e o A Inv asp ve rrryii lir t� u actions il� ur�;� rvu llr rrrrr u u � i uu rr t tpttrn p °.. .°.°w.... lar lora !ine t iliz a �P�4 u���� r riedig Y rrn I id9�rr �:��yomm�l m�lr�tm 0i �r�c � +���r�r r ���1 ti -y. r.iuii� s us a Ily4II tw�u ��ttu�_�t SII°rt u�iraiV r°� rum�r�trru,. ruua� ea;ll�u4 ru�rra M ��„ wl_,;u rlrr., This section does not gal tno,a A-B.Approved plan. Restoration and enhancement shall be carried out in accordance with an approved shoreline restoration plan. &C. Protect adjacent resources. All shoreline restoration and enhancement projects shall protect the integrity of adjacent natural resources, including aquatic habitats and water quality. QD. Maintenance and monitoring. Long-term maintenance and monitoring (minimum of three years, but preferably longer) shall be arranged by the project applicant and included in restoration or enhancement proposals.,J1ggg1 infgni'r@ on to Is.r�Epyk Lic1u,4; .. qty � ..`� 46r 1)ii' 4)-.-,E,.-Adverse affects. Shoreline restoration and enhancement may be allowed if the project applicant demonstrates that no significant adverse changes to sediment transport or river current will result and that the enhancement will not adversely affect ecological processes, properties, or habitat. €-F. Use of best information and BMPs. Shoreline restoration and enhancement projects shall be designed using the best available scientific and technical information, and implemented using best management practices. F --.G. Public use of waters and lands. Shoreline restoration and enhancement shall not interfere with lands or waters dedicated specifically for public use, as determined by the Shoreline Administrator, without appropriate mitigation. For projects on state-owned aquatic lands, project proponents must coordinate with the Washington Department of Natural Resources to ensure the project will be appropriately located prior to the solicitation of permits from regulatory agencies. i W.�.°:�raartea.�. harr4�a�...a.estaa~rat��r°a� �:��grr:4..��� rata�r�°a��.i,��°a�ect,:•+�r.y°�ara�at�t. i . - l ' ", ����ir �}m,�.. ° ..�a4�r� 4"� r il��,t".a�..��ur�^��� �^^��:�^�a°��t���,W^, �•'a�,N'��r"�,i�4°��rw�r� ' Apr4..4,ivi � , 2013 8 CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT H. Relief for OHWIVI shifts. Applicants seeking to perform restoration projects are advised to work with the City to assess whether and how the proposed project is allowed relief under RCW 90.58.580, in the event that the project shifts the OHWIVI landward. 17.07.140 Signs A. Outdoor advertising signs must conform to size, spacing and lighting provisions of the Washington State Scenic Vistas Act of 1971, where applicable. B, Signs shall meet applicable City municipal code reguirements regarding size, location, lighting, and other relevant erformance standards. &C,Proosalsfor sjgngeshall including shoreline exemptions. D. The Shoreline Administrator ma condition si na ere ardin size illumination and lacement to ensure that signage isc�pati�Wewit�ha I acent shoreline environments and does not: I)significantly? obstruct visual, access to the water from public lands or a substantial number of residences per RCW 90.58.320 and shorelines hearings board case law- or 21 impair cronir vistas to the Yakima G�reenwav or Nalches River or associated lakes; or 3), imnair driver vision such as due to lines of sight, t of freguency of lighting, or other feature that has the potential to result in safet concerns. There is no definition of significant in the Shoreline Man@Aement Act but there is in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), We propose to use the-SEPA definition. "Signfficanel means a reasonable likelihood of more than a, moderate adverse ippact on environm does not lend itself to a formula or guantiflable test. The context Ma y vary with the physical setting. intensity depends, on the rn itude and duration of an Impact, The,severily of an impact should be weighed along+nth the li ke hood of its occurrence. An iLnpgg �ma be significant If its chance of occurrence is nolt Preat, but the resulting environmental imoact would be severe if it occurred. I Apf4 4\Ai iy 2, 2013 9 F'Oiu "t 11 E 14P:i',f:;f'JiuRD / MIX THE I u4 WATERSHED COMPANY 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 Intensity g �.,- High Intensi Buchanan Lake Aquatic - Buchanan Lake High Intensity - UGA Essential Public Facilities L.] Shoreline Residential Essential Public Facilities - Buchanan Lake 0 Shoreline Residential - UGA Potentially Associated Wetland Parcels - light grey outline N City Limit 1-1 UGA Original Scale: 1:51,000 @ MIT Please scale accordingly. Data source: City of Yakima, FWS Date: 5/16/2013 Name: Environment—designation Essential Public Facilities - UGA Urban Conservancy Floodway/CMZ Urban Conservancy - Buchanan Lake Floodway1CMZ - UGA Urban Conservancy - UGA Potentially Associated Wetland Parcels - light grey outline N City Limit 1-1 UGA Original Scale: 1:51,000 @ MIT Please scale accordingly. Data source: City of Yakima, FWS Date: 5/16/2013 Name: Environment—designation Tt i-, E WATERSHED „W COMPANY 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 jj�j High Intensity f Aquatic M High Intensity - Buchanan Lake Aquatic - Buchanan Lake High Intensity - UGA Essential Public Facilities Shoreline Residential Essential Public Facilities - Buchanan Lake ® Shoreline Residential - UGA Essential Public Facilities - UGA Urban Conservancy Floodway/CMZ Urban Conservancy - Buchanan Lake Floodway/CMZ - UGA Urban Conservancy - UGA �! Potentially Associated Wetland �� mime Parcels - light grey outline City Limit I_ I UGA Original Scale: 1:16,800 @ 11x17. Please scale accordingly. Data source: City of Yakima, FWS Date: 5/16/2013 Name: Environment—designation I Tt u, WATERSHED COM PAM s 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 10 High Intensity Aquatic High Intensity - Buchanan Lake Aquatic- Buchanan Lake High Intensity - UGA Essential Public Facilities _. Shoreline Residential Essential Public Facilities - Buchanan Lake ® Shoreline Residential - UGA Potentially Associated Wetland Parcels - light grey outf/rye City Limit I,I UGA Original Scale: 1:16,800 @ 11x17, Please scale accordingly. Data source: City of Yakima, FWS Date: 5/16/2013 Name: Environment_designation Essential Public Facilities - UGA Urban Conservancy Floodway/CMZ Urban Conservancy - Buchanan Lake Floodway/CMZ - UGA Urban Conservancy - UGA Potentially Associated Wetland Parcels - light grey outf/rye City Limit I,I UGA Original Scale: 1:16,800 @ 11x17, Please scale accordingly. Data source: City of Yakima, FWS Date: 5/16/2013 Name: Environment_designation ,d WATERSHED � a 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 M High Intensity Aquatic WA High Intensity - Buchanan Lake Aquatic - Buchanan Lake MI High Intensity - UGA Essential Public Facilities [.._] Shoreline Residential Essential Public Facilities - Buchanan Lake ® Shoreline Residential - UGA Potentially Associated Wetland Parcels - light grey outline 13 City Limit 1-1 UGA Original Scale: 1:16,800 @ 11x17. Please scale accordingly. Data source: City of Yakima, FWS Date: 5/16/2013 Name: Environment designation Essential Public Facilities - UGA C ',� Urban Conservancy MI Floodway/CMZ 2g Urban Conservancy - Buchanan Lake IM Floodway/CMZ - UGA E2 Urban Conservancy - UGA Potentially Associated Wetland Parcels - light grey outline 13 City Limit 1-1 UGA Original Scale: 1:16,800 @ 11x17. Please scale accordingly. Data source: City of Yakima, FWS Date: 5/16/2013 Name: Environment designation W—EFm9iiii DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGYState of Washington ! 4. Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities Eastern Washington Version January 2010 Publication No. 10-06-001 (1St Revision July 2011) (2nd Revision October 2012) Publication and Contact Information This report is available on the Department of Ecology's website at pLtj .:�S tY(" wad �5 / ::"'l �pll !. !j �Slli ���V.N���rna, , y "�� ... 0��00 p r�_ �.... ... For more information contact: Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Phone: 360-407-6600 Washington State Department of Ecology-✓„✓„✓.;„au,.r:.'..: o Headquarters, Olympia 360-407-6000 o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000 o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia 360-407-6300 o Central Regional Office, Yakima 509-575-2490 o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400 To ask about the availability of this document in a format for the visually impaired, call the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program at 360-407-6600. Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833- 6341. Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities Eastern Washington Version By Donna Bunten, Andy McMillan, Rick Mraz, and Jeremy Sikes Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington January 2010 Publication No. 10-06-001 (1st Revision July 2011) (2nd Revision October 2012) This page is purposely left blank Table of Contents Summary of October 2012 Revisions ........................................... I Introduction....................................................................................1 Guidance on the Science of Wetland Protection ......................... 2 Relationship of GMA and SMA ................................................... 3 Policy Discussion for Your Wetlands Chapter ........................... 3 PURPOSE.......................................................................................................................... 3 DEFINITIONS.................................................................................................................... 3 IDENTIFYING, DESIGNATING, AND RATING WETLANDS ................................................... 3 REGULATED USES AND ACTIVITIES................................................................................. 6 EXEMPTIONS................................................................................................................... 6 FOREST PRACTICES......................................................................................................... 8 AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES............................................................................................ 8 Strategies for Protecting Wetlands from Impacts ...................... 8 WETLANDS INVENTORY.................................................................................................. 8 ABCs.............................................................................................................................. 9 BUFFERS........................................................................................................................ 10 BUFFER AVERAGING..................................................................................................... 11 MITIGATION.................................................................................................................. 11 MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................... 12 MITIGATIONBANKING.................................................................................................. 13 IN -LIEU FEE (ILF)...................................................................................................... 13 OFF-SITE MITIGATION................................................................................................. 13 ADVANCEMITIGATION................................................................................................. 14 Conclusion....................................................................................14 Appendix A — Sample Wetland Chapter Appendix B — Wetland Definitions Summary of July 2011 Revisions Several important changes have occurred since this guidance was originally released in January 2010. These include: • Change in requirements for wetland delineation • Development of an additional "credit -debit" method for calculating mitigation ratios • Expiration of the moratorium on adoption of new critical area regulations with respect to agriculture The July 2011 revisions also include: • Sample CAO language on monitoring that was inadvertently omitted from the original document • Guidance on reducing mitigation ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement when used in combination with 1:1 replacement through creation or reestablishment, consistent with the recommendations in the joint mitigation guidance • Criteria to be considered when approving alternative mitigation plans • Correction of several formatting errors If you have a paper copy of the January 2010 document, you should recycle it and use the July 2011 revision, which will be available on line only. Summary of October 2012 Revisions The second revision of this guidance document includes: • Updated criteria for using credits from an in -lieu fee program for mitigation. • Removing the "preservation only" column from the mitigation ratio table and revising the rehabilitation ratio for Category I bogs to case by case (from 6:1). • Adding language for protection of the mitigation site. • Reorganizing the sections on mitigation preference and location. • Correction of several formatting errors. If you have a printed copy of either the January 2010 or July 2011 document, you should recycle it and use the October 2012 revision, which will be available on line only. Introduction This document is intended to provide guidance and tools useful in developing a wetland protection program for small cities and towns that are in the process of updating their critical areas ordinances (CAOs) to meet the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements. Wetlands are one of the five types of critical areas identified in the GMA. We recognize that many local governments lack the planning staff and resources necessary to develop and implement wetland standards that are both locally appropriate and based on best available science (BAS). Nonetheless, they must comply with the GMA requirement to designate and protect wetlands. The first part of this document describes the important topics that should be addressed in the wetlands section of your CAO. It includes recommendations for wetland protection based on BAS. Appendix A is a sample CAO chapter for wetlands that incorporates these recommendations into a format similar to that found in many local CAOs. (Please note that the sample CAO will need to be tailored to your jurisdiction's naming and numbering system. There are several generic "XX" references throughout the text.) Appendix B contains definitions that are commonly used in wetlands regulations. This document does not include the more general provisions typically found in regulations related to all critical areas. These can be found in Appendix A of the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook published by the Washington State Department of Commerce (formerly the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development) in November 2003 (1ztt; //www coy -yip,yicic, wa,.gc /,5Jt /745/defa Jt „as„a). This document revises the wetland -specific provisions in the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook. The recommendations in this document and the sample ordinance may not be appropriate for use by rural county governments. Factors to consider are the county's rate of growth, the nature and intensity of land uses in the county, the wetland resources at risk, and the ability of the county to implement its CAO. We suggest that you contact us to determine whether this guidance is applicable to your county. Please use the following link to find Ecology's wetland specialist for your area: bttP://www.ccy.w...g/,.n/c/;vctt]„/ccti. tct„zt:tt. Wetlands Guidance for Small Cities Eastern Washington Version Page 1 Guidance on the Science of Wetland Protection Ecology has produced several different tools that can help local governments develop a comprehensive wetlands protection program for their jurisdictions. The Washington Departments of Ecology (Ecology) and Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have published a two -volume guidance document to help local governments protect and manage wetlands: 0 Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication 405-06-006, Olympia, WA, March 2005). This volume is the result of an extensive search of over 15,000 scientific articles and synthesizes over 1,000 peer-reviewed works relevant to the management of Washington's wetlands. 0 Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication 4 05-06-008, Olympia, WA, April 2005). This volume was developed with the assistance of local government planners and wetland consultants. It can be used to craft regulatory language that is based on the best available science (BAS). We recommend that you review Chapter 8 and its appendices as you begin to work on updating your existing regulations. Ecology, in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has also developed a two-part guidance document aimed at improving the quality and effectiveness of compensatory mitigation in Washington State: e Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1). (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication 406-06-011 a, Olympia, WA, March 2006). Part 1 provides a brief background on wetlands, an overview of the factors that go into the agencies' permitting decisions, and detailed guidance on the agencies' policies of wetland mitigation, particularly compensatory mitigation. It outlines the information the agencies use to determine whether specific mitigation plans are appropriate and adequate. e Wetland Mitigation in Washington State —Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1). (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication 406-06-01 lb, Olympia, WA, March 2006). Part 2 provides technical information on preparing plans for compensatory mitigation. Ecology has also developed a wetland ratings system for eastern Washington. The rating system is a useful tool for dividing wetlands into groups that have similar needs for protection. e Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington — Revised (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication 4 04-06-15, Olympia, WA, August 2004, annotated March 2007). Wetlands Guidancefor Small Cities Western Washington Version Page 2 Links to all of these documents can be found at: ztt//www.ccy.w ... c V/,. I nis/sea/weflatids/gj 1.gJtide Igtn..J,.. Relationship of GMA and SMA You may be planning to adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that will rely on the CAO for protection of wetlands and other critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction. Ecology does not have an approval role in the CAO adoption process; our role is advisory. The SMP, however, is a joint document of Ecology and the local government requiring Ecology approval. Before the SMP can be approved by Ecology, the CAO must meet the "no net loss of ecological functions" requirement (WAC 173-26-186(8)(b)(i)). You should be aware that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) may preclude or alter the administration of your CAO. For example, certain activities exempted under the CAO will not qualify for exemption under the SMP. In addition, activities allowed under the CAO may require permits under the SMP. For assistance with CAO/SMP integration, please use the following link to find the shoreline planner for your area: b.IIP://www.ccy.w ...t"g ZRjgg, c / �-na/contacts/Jtidex:..Iit���..1. Policy Discussion for Your Wetlands Chapter Your wetlands chapter will exist as one of several in your critical areas ordinance. Below we describe some of the important subsections in the wetlands chapter and include our recommendations for protecting wetlands based on the best available science. Purpose The chapter typically begins with a purpose statement, followed by designation criteria, which include a definition of wetlands and the methods by which they are identified and rated and other details listed below. The purpose statement may also state that this chapter is intended to be consistent with the requirements of 36.70A RCW and to implement the goals and policies of your Comprehensive Plan for protecting wetlands. Definitions Your wetlands chapter may include a separate list of definitions, or the definitions may be included in the general definitions section of the CAO. Appendix B is a list of definitions relevant to your wetlands chapter. This list includes terms identified in state law and agency guidance documents. Clarity and consistency in the use of these terms will make ordinance implementation easier. Identifying, Designating, and Rating Wetlands The first steps in regulating wetlands are to define what is being regulated and specify how these areas will be identified. The GMA requires the use of the following definition of wetlands and specifies how to identify and delineate them. Wetlands Guidancefor Small Cities Eastern Washington Version Page 3 In designating wetlands for regulatory purposes, counties and cities are required to use the definition of wetlands in RCW 36.70A.030 (21): "Wetland" or "wetlands" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland areas created to mitigate conversion ofwetlands. Wetlands are subject to a local government's regulatory authority if they meet the criteria in this definition. This includes Prior Converted Croplands (PCCs) and isolated wetlands. These wetlands provide critical functions and habitat and should be regulated. The GMA does not allow flexibility in adopting a modified definition of wetlands. Irrigation practices, such as the Columbia Basin Project, can result in human -created, artificial wetlands. More frequently, however, irrigation practices may augment natural sources of water to a wetland. Wetlands that form along irrigation ditches that were intentionally created in uplands may be exempted from regulation. However, if a wetland is the unintentional by-product of irrigation activities, the wetland should be regulated. If a wetland disappears as the result of a change in irrigation practice, it will not be regulated in the future. However, most wetlands will not disappear completely as a result of local changes in irrigation practices because of natural sources of water or regional irrigation influences. Please see 1111p for more information on how Ecology regulates irrigation -influenced wetlands. Ecology is most concerned about those changes in land use that would eliminate wetlands as the result of fill or grading, such as a conversion to commercial or residential use. These activities should be regulated by the CAO, and appropriate protection standards (such as buffers and mitigation) should be required in order to prevent the loss of wetland area and function. Many jurisdictions use the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) to determine whether wetlands exist within their boundaries. Since the NWI is based on photographs that are over 30 years old and provides only a general approximation of wetland location, it cannot be used alone to designate wetlands. Wetlands are those areas that meet the above definition of "wetland." Wetlands are also dynamic systems that change over time. It is important to adopt the GMA definition and to have regulations in place to protect wetland Wetlands Guidance for Small Cities Western Washington Version Page 4 functions and values, should wetlands that do not currently appear on the NWI or other maps be identified in the future. State laws require that wetlands protected under the Growth Management Act and the Shoreline Management Act be delineated using a manual that is developed by Ecology and adopted into rules (:Ilia_ W 3( 70A, 75211ZC W,9.0...55.380). The Department of Ecology adopted a wetland delineation manual in 1997 OKAL 1 7 3C 9) that was based on the original 1987 Corps of Engineers manual and subsequent Regulatory Guidance Letters. During the last few years the Army Corps of Engineers has updated and expanded their delineation manual with regional supplements. To maintain consistency between the state and federal delineations of wetlands, Ecology has repealed /;;A C 7 22 Q 9 (the state delineation manual) and replaced it with a revision of WA C 7..:..22 03 .. that states delineations should be done according to the currently approved federal manual and supplements. The changes became effective March 14, 2011. The Growth Management Act states that "wetlands regulated under development regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be delineated in accordance with the manual adopted by the department pursuant to IIZ 90,58,380." RCW 90.58.380 allows ._..... the Department of Ecology to adopt rules that incorporate changes to the manual. Therefore, the currently approved federal manual and supplements should be used for delineating wetlands in GMA jurisdiction. See: h.,I P://www.ec .wa. �c�v/�rc��rams/se�lweta����ds/deli���eat:zc����.i��tml. Local governments are not required to rate or classify wetlands when regulating them. However, methods that classify, categorize, or rate wetlands help target the appropriate level of protection for particular types of wetlands and avoid the "one -size -fits -all" approach. If a local government uses a wetland rating system, it must consider the criteria described in WAC 365-190-090(3). The Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington - Revised (Ecology Publication 404-06-015, August 2004, annotated March 2007) is a useful tool for dividing wetlands into groups that have similar needs for protection. The revised rating system represents the best available science, as it is based on a better understanding of wetland functions, ways to evaluate them, and what is needed to protect them. It provides a quick "snapshot" characterization of a particular wetland. In many cases, it will provide enough information about existing wetland functions to allow adequate plan review and land use decisions to be made without the additional expense of a separate wetland functional assessment. While local governments are not required to use Ecology's revised rating system, we strongly encourage you to adopt wetland regulations that require its use. Most qualified wetland specialists are using the revised rating system. In cases where state and federal permits are required, the use of this rating system would benefit applicants by eliminating the need to rate wetlands according to a different local standard. If you Wetlands Guidance for Small Cities Eastern Washington Version Page 5 choose not to use the state's wetland rating system, you must provide a rationale for this decision according to WAC 365-190-090(3). We recommend that you include language that describes the four categories of wetlands. This text is different for eastern and western Washington jurisdictions. Please refer to Appendix A, Section XX.020.B.1-4 for the specific category descriptions. Regulated Uses and Activities Your wetland section should list those uses and activities that are regulated under the critical areas ordinance. Some of these items include: removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of material of any kind, draining, flooding, or disturbing of the wetland, water level or water table, the construction, demolition, or expansion of any structure, etc. More extensive examples are provided in the sample ordinance. Wetlands are often impacted by unauthorized clearing and grading that takes place before application for development permits. You should make sure your CAO adequately regulates clearing and grading. If it doesn't, you should adopt a separate clearing and grading ordinance. The Department of Commerce (formerly Community, Trade and Economic Development) recently published technical guidance on developing a clearing and grading ordinance. Qztt //www,,,. cis �� cc v gc /:::: C TII /dc�cumetit�/qD 2062 :a�:u�i�licat;i,c�tis.p;j). Most forest practices (as defined in RCW 76.09) are exempted from the provisions of a wetlands chapter in the CAO. However, those forest practices that are Class IV general should be regulated. These activities constitute a conversion from forestry to some other use. As such, buffers and wetland protections are appropriate. Exemptions Your wetlands section should identify those activities in or near wetlands that are regulated and those that are exempt from regulation. Exemptions include activities that will have little or no environmental effect or are an emergency that threatens public health or safety. In the case of emergency response activities that affect wetlands and buffers, the responsible parry should be required to obtain after -the -fact permits, and to rectify impacts. Some jurisdictions place the exemptions or exceptions in a general exemptions section near the front of the CAO. However, some exemptions or exceptions may apply only to wetlands, so it may be more practical to have these specific exemptions in the wetlands section. Exempt activities should be limited to those that will not have a significant impact on a wetland's structure and function (including its water, soil, or vegetation) and those which are expected to be very short term. Local governments should, however, also consider the cumulative impacts from exempted activities. They can result in a loss of wetland acreage and function that are not replaced through compensatory mitigation. The scope, coverage, and applicability of a critical areas ordinance should capture the full range of activities that are detrimental to wetland functions. Therefore, exemptions Wetlands Guidance for Small Cities Western Washington Version Page 6 should be supported by the scientific literature and be carefully crafted to minimize the potential for adverse impacts. However, a local government should not assume that an exemption is appropriate in the absence of science to refute the exemption. The language should clearly state whether a given exemption is from applicable standards in the code or whether it is exempt from needing a permit but still must comply with the code. Exemptions should be limited and construed narrowly. For more information on this topic please refer to Chapter 8 of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands (Ecology Publication # 05-06-008, Olympia, WA, April 2005, !zttiswlibI.catiotis/sLini�s acs/0506�C :.iizt� ). The GMA, in RCW 36.70A.030(21), requires local governments to regulate wetlands that meet the definition of biological wetlands (see the definition of "wetland" in the following section). This includes Prior Converted Croplands (PCCs) and hydrologically isolated wetlands, two types of wetlands that have been exempt from federal regulation at times. PCCs are wetlands that have been ditched and drained for active agricultural use before December 23, 1985. Isolated wetlands are those wetlands that have no surface hydrologic connection to waters of the United States. These wetlands must be regulated by your CAO. EPA and the Corps sent draft 2011 Guidance to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that would reportedly "clarify Clean Water Act responsibilities." The 2011 Guidance apparently will not address CWA jurisdiction over waste treatment systems or prior converted croplands, contentious issues that the agencies intend to address in future agency guidance documents. Please see 111tfor more information on how the state of Washington currently regulates isolated wetlands. The scientific literature does not support exempting wetlands that are below a certain size. While we recognize an administrative desire to place size thresholds on wetlands that are to be regulated, you need to be aware that it is not possible to conclude from size alone what functions a particular wetland may be providing. Ecology has developed a strategy for exempting small wetlands when additional criteria are considered. This language is present in the sample ordinance. However, impacts to small wetlands are NOT exempt from the requirement to provide compensatory mitigation for those impacts. If an In -Lieu Fee (ILF) program or a mitigation bank is available in your area (page Error! Bookmark not defined.), these mitigation alternatives can help prevent loss of wetland function from impacts to small wetlands in your jurisdiction. Exceptions are typically addressed in a CAO in the context of reasonable use of property. For more information about this regulatory tool, see Section VII of the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook published by the Washington State Department of Commerce (//www,c�t ce gg 51ta ,,, , ). You should keep in mind that the Shoreline Management Act does not allow reasonable use exceptions, providing instead a variance pathway to afford regulatory relief. If you decide to incorporate your CAO Wetlands Guidance for Small Cities Eastern Washington Version Page 7 into your SMP when the latter document is updated, you will need to address this potential inconsistency. Forest Practices Class I, II, and III forest practices should be exempted from the wetlands section of your CAO. These activities are regulated through RCW 76.09, the Forest Practices Act. Agricultural Activities The moratorium on the adoption of new critical areas regulations with respect to agriculture provided by a 2007 law (SSB 5284) expired on July 1, 2011. Governor Gregoire signed ESHB 1886 in May 2011, which went into effect on July 22, 2011. This legislation creates the Voluntary Stewardship Program at the Conservation Commission, an alternative program for counties to protect critical areas on agricultural lands. For more information on this program, see .1 //www.sc , vagg / cjjq� t jy. Lt:cwardssh Z,,. For small cities, Ecology encourages the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), farm conservation plans, and incentive -based programs to improve agricultural practices in and near wetlands. The goal of the BMPs should be to ensure that ongoing agricultural activities minimize their effects on water quality, riparian ecology, salmonid populations, and downstream resources. "Existing and ongoing agricultural activities" should not include removing trees, diverting or impounding water, excavation, ditching, draining, culverting, filling, grading, and similar activities that introduce new adverse impacts to wetlands or other aquatic resources. Maintenance of agricultural ditches should be limited to removing sediment in existing ditches to a specified depth at date of last maintenance. Conversion of wetlands that are not currently in agricultural use to a new agricultural use should be subject to the same regulations that govern new development. Strategies for Protecting Wetlands from Impacts Wetlands Inventory You may wish to pursue accurate identification and rating of all wetlands in your planning area based on the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington - Revised Ecology Publication 404-06-015, August 2004, annotated March 2007) and the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. These documents can be downloaded at: • l(rating systems) • l(delineation manual and supplements) Wetlands Guidance for Small Cities Western Washington Version Page 8 While this approach may initially be more labor intensive and expensive, such information will allow rapid review of development proposals and can help the City prioritize areas for preservation or acquisition. This approach is consistent with best available science (BAS). It can help with the development of a landscape analysis approach to protecting wetlands in the City. Landscape analysis for critical areas facilitates and informs long-range planning. The City of Aberdeen used this approach in their CAO update. (See Section XX.050.13 in the sample ordinance.) ABCs The most basic approach to protecting wetland functions and values can be summarized as the A -B -C Approach, or; Avoid, Buffer, Compensate. This means that a CAO should contain language to ensure that: 1. Wetlands impacts are avoided to the extent practicable. 2. Wetlands are buffered to protect them from adjacent land use impacts. 3. Unavoidable impacts are compensated, or replaced. Your CAO should provide requirements on how to reduce the severity of impacts to wetlands. When an alteration to a wetland is proposed, impacts should be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following sequential order of preference: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or 6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Wetlands Guidancefor Small Cities Eastern Washington Version Page 9 Buffers Establishing standards for wetland buffers is usually the most challenging part of developing a CAO. However, developing a predictable, reasonable approach for establishing buffers that includes the best available science is not as difficult as it may seem. The scientific literature is unequivocal that buffers are necessary to protect wetland functions and values. The literature consistently reports that the primary factors to evaluate in determining appropriate buffer widths are: 1. The wetland type and functions needing protection (buffers filter sediment, nutrients, or toxics; screen noise and light; provide forage, nesting, or resting habitat for wetland -dependent species; etc.). 2. The types of adjacent land use and their expected impacts. 3. The characteristics of the buffer area (slope, soils, vegetation). The widths of buffers needed vary widely, depending on these three factors. For example, providing filtration of coarse sediment from residential development next to a low -quality wetland would require only a relatively flat buffer of dense grasses or forest/shrub vegetation in the range of 20 to 30 feet. However, providing forage and nesting habitat for common wetland -dependent species such as waterfowl, herons, or amphibians in a high-quality wetland adjacent to residential development would require a buffer vegetated with trees and shrubs in the range of 200 to 300 feet. This illustrates the necessity of using an approach to buffers that incorporates wetland type and functions (based on an appropriate rating system), types of land use, and the environmental characteristics of the existing buffer. Your CAO should require buffers for activities that will impact wetland functions. Ecology's buffer recommendations are presented in Appendix 8-D of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2. We recommend using the table shown in the sample ordinance. It is derived from the more detailed tables in Volume 2. It is a single table, is easy to use, and is based on BAS. This alternative provides the important balance of predictability and flexibility. Determination of buffer size is simply a matter of applying the results of the wetland rating system score to the buffer matrix, based on the wetland category and wildlife habitat score. It generally requires smaller buffers for those wetlands that do not have much wildlife use. The simpler table does not consider land - use intensity in the buffer calculation, since it is presumed that most urban land uses will be high or moderate intensity. However, if your city has an activity that can be considered low intensity, such as a passive recreation area or nature park with undeveloped trails, you may wish to prescribe a smaller buffer for that area only. The buffer for an area should be no less than 75% of the otherwise required buffer. Such a "low -intensity" buffer is not appropriate for residential, commercial, or industrial uses. Wetlands Guidancefor Small Cities Western Washington Version Page 10 Some wetland types listed in the buffer table may not be present in your city (e.g. coastal lagoons, bogs, interdunal wetlands, etc.). If you are certain that these wetlands do not occur within your jurisdiction and would not be introduced by future annexations, you may remove those wetland types from the buffer table. You may wish to adopt an even simpler approach to wetland buffers, one based only on wetland category. In this case, buffers must be large enough to protect the most -sensitive wetlands from the most damaging land use impacts. Please refer to Appendix 8-D of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2 for these examples. Ecology's buffer recommendations are based on a moderate -risk approach to protecting wetland functions. This means that there is a moderate risk that wetland functions will be impacted. Adopting smaller buffers represents a high-risk approach, and you need to be prepared to justify why such an approach is necessary and to offer alternative means of protecting wetland functions that help reduce the risk. Ecology's buffer recommendations are also based on the assumption that the buffer is well vegetated with native species appropriate to the ecoregion. If the buffer does not consist of vegetation adequate to provide the necessary protection, then either the buffer area should be planted or the buffer width should be increased. Buffer Averaging Local governments often wish to allow buffer widths to be varied in certain circumstances. This may be reasonable if your standard buffers are adequate. The width of buffers may be averaged if this will improve the protection of wetland functions, or if it is the only way to allow for reasonable use of a parcel. We recommend that a request for buffer averaging include a wetland report. The report should be prepared by a qualified professional describing the current functions of the wetland and its buffer and the measures that will be taken to ensure that there is no loss of wetland function due to the buffer averaging. The width of the buffer at any given point after averaging should be no smaller than 75% of the standard buffer. If you choose to adopt small standard buffer widths, then further reductions to the buffer width should not be allowed under any circumstances. Mitigation Unavoidable impacts to wetlands should be offset by compensatory mitigation. Your CAO should include standards for the type, location, amount, and timing of the mitigation. It should also include clear guidance on the design considerations and reporting requirements for mitigation plans. Ecology's recommendations for the amount of mitigation (ratios) are based on wetland category, function, and special characteristics. Requiring a greater area helps offset both the risk that compensatory mitigation will fail and the temporal loss of functions that may occur. We recommend using the ratio table shown in the sample ordinance. It is derived Wetlands Guidancefor Small Cities Eastern Washington Version Page 11 from the more detailed tables in Part 1 of the joint agency guidance on mitigation: Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Parts I and 2, Ecology Publications #06-06- 011a & b, March 2006). As an alternative to the mitigation ratios found in the joint guidance, Ecology has developed a tool for calculating when a proposed wetland mitigation project adequately replaces the functions and values lost when wetlands are impacted. The tool is designed to provide guidance for both regulators and applicants during two stages of the mitigation process: 1. Estimating the functions and values lost when a wetland is altered, and 2. Estimating the gain in functions and values that result from the mitigation. The Department of Ecology, however, does not require the use of this method. This current guidance provides one method for determining the adequacy of compensatory wetland mitigation. It does not set any new regulatory requirements. The document and worksheets can be downloaded at �ztt;p //w v;w.e ; .w =c; /��� t;%g t c��/, ed4de it;;;;, cc mmetit:s.litin 1. ....................................................................................................... In 2008 the Corps and the EPA issued a rule governing compensatory mitigation. The rule establishes performance standards and criteria to improve the quality and success of compensatory mitigation, mitigation banks, and in -lieu fee programs. For more information on the federal rule, see: �ztt:p://www.e�ct /owow/wet] tidy/p�1/wetlatids jjjtjg lJoti ficial ILl e 4 :�.O ...:..p By adopting mitigation standards based on the state and federal guidance and rules, you will be providing consistency for applicants who must also apply for state and federal permits. Mitigation Alternatives Various options are available for mitigation, in addition to the traditional on-site concurrent option. These options include placing the mitigation away from the project site (off-site mitigation), building mitigation in advance of project impacts, and using third -parry mitigation providers such as wetland banks and in -lieu -fee programs. Deciding which option should be used depends on what works best for the applicant and for the environment. Some of these options may not be available in your area at this time. However, we recommend that your CAO allow these options. They can be effective and valuable tools in preventing a net loss of wetland functions. Some project applicants may propose mitigation that is consistent with sound ecological principles but is located outside of your jurisdiction. You may wish to include language in your CAO that enables your government to establish interlocal agreements or similar instruments with other jurisdictions to allow for such mitigation opportunities. Wetlands Guidancefor Small Cities Western Washington Version Page 12 In addition to the following options, you might want to consider allowing transfer of development rights (TDR) as a tool for protecting wetlands. The Department of Commerce is working with four Puget Sound counties in a pilot TDR program. For more information, contact the Commerce planner for your jurisdiction or see: lett:://www.cc�mme�:ce.wa. �c�v/sit:e/tCtECt/�e1`ault:.as �. Mitigation Banking A mitigation bank is a site where wetlands, streams, or other aquatic resource area have been restored, established, enhanced, or (in certain circumstances) preserved for the purpose of providing compensation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. A mitigation bank may be created by a government agency, corporation, nonprofit organization, or other entity. The bank sells its credits to permittees who are required to compensate for wetland impacts. Mitigation banks allow a permittee to simply write a check for their mitigation obligation. It is the bank owner who is responsible for the mitigation success. Mitigation banks require a formal agreement with the Corps, Ecology, and the local jurisdiction to be used for federal or state permits. Ecology adopted the final Wetland Mitigation Banks Rule (WAC 173-700) in 2009. The purpose of the rule is to provide a framework for the certification, operation and monitoring of wetland mitigation banks. To learn more about wetland banking and the rule, see Ecology's website at ztt//www.ccy.w ... c /,. �1 / c /; vct t�„ s/� iti,g tj.o i/b tikitig iti ;ex lain::... In -Lieu Fee (ILF) In this approach to mitigation, a permittee pays a fee to a third party in lieu of conducting project -specific mitigation or buying credits from a mitigation bank. ILF mitigation is used mainly to compensate for impacts to wetlands when better approaches to compensation are not available or practicable, or when the use of an ILF is in the best interest of the environment. An ILF represents the expected costs to a third party of replacing the wetland functions lost or degraded as a result of the permittee's project. Fees are typically held in trust until sufficient funds have been collected to finance a mitigation project. Only a nonprofit organization such as a local land trust, private conservation group, or government agency with demonstrated competence in natural resource management may operate an ILF program. All ILF programs must be approved by the Corps to be used for Section 404 permits. To learn more about ILF programs, see Ecology's website at b.IIP_//www.ccy.w ...t"2JDJtig�t%,ci��/illJ:zt�Yt . Off -Site Mitigation This refers to compensatory mitigation that is not located at or near the project that generates impacts to wetlands. Off-site mitigation is generally allowed only when on-site mitigation is not practicable or environmentally preferable. Ecology, the Corps of Engineers, and EPA have developed guidance to help applicants select potential off-site mitigation sites. To download a copy of Selecting Wetland Wetlands Guidance for Small Cities Eastern Washington Version Page 13 Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Eastern Washington), (Ecology Publication 410-06-007, November 2010), please see �zttps://lc ..ress.w cv/ccy ��b:cdo..blicatiotisj00. 007:pff. .:.s... Advance Miti ag tion When compensatory mitigation is implemented before, and in anticipation of, future known impacts to wetlands, it is referred to as "advance mitigation." Advance mitigation has been used mostly for large mitigation projects that are constructed in distinct phases where the impacts to wetlands are known. Advance mitigation lets an applicant provide all of the compensation needed for the entire project affecting wetlands at one time, which may result in more favorable mitigation ratios. Although similar to mitigation banking, advance mitigation is different in several ways. Most importantly, advance mitigation is used only to compensate for a specific project (or projects) with pre -identified impacts to wetlands. Wetland banks provide mitigation for unknown future impacts within a specific "service" or market area. Ecology, WDFW, and the Corps of Engineers are developing guidance for advance mitigation. This guidance will be available by mid -2013. To obtain a copy after it is released, please see �ttp://www.ec .wa. �cw/ 1 t%-�atzc��/-qui aticc„l�tn�]: Conclusion We hope you find this information helpful_ If you have questions about this document or need additional assistance with the wetlands section of your critical areas ordinance update, please call Donna Bunten at 360 407-7172 or email ctiti.1��titc�� .............................................................................................,..............., You may also contact one of Ecology's regional wetland specialists. They are available to work with you during your update process. For example, they can offer presentations to elected officials and planning commissions. They can also provide technical assistance including help with wetland delineation, wetland rating, ordinary high water mark determination, and project review. Please use the following link to find the wetland specialist for your area: ��ttp://www.ec .wa. �c�v/,prc��ran�s/sealwetla���ds/cc����tacts.l�tn�. For assistance with other aspects of your critical areas ordinance update, please contact the Department of Commerce (formerly Community, Trade, and Economic Development) at (360) 725-3000. Wetlands Guidance for Small Cities Western Washington Version Page 14