HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-28-13 YPC Packeti':"OMMII 1 "1° 1M "ia;` ,O P1 Er T' DEPARTA .^,". ""i"
TMiawemg D&Mamm
Phone 5��75��6183 0 Fax
City of Yakima Planning Commission
PUBLIC HEARING
City Hall Council Chambers
Wednesday August 28, 2013
3:30 pm - 5:00 pm
YPC Members:
Chair Ben Shoval, Co -Chair Dave Fonfara, Ron Anderson, Al Rose,
Scott Clark, Paul Stelzer, Bill Cook
Ci Planning Staff:
Steve Osguthorpe, Community Development Director/Planning Manager, Jeff Peters, Associate
Planner; Chris Wilson, Assistant Planner; and Rosalinda Ibarra, Administrative Assistant
Agenda
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Staff Announcements
IV. General Audience Participation Not Associated with an Item on the Agenda
V. PUBLIC HEARING:
Shoreline Master Program update (TXT#003-13, SEPA#013-13)
(This packet is available online at: www.vakimawa.Ltov/service§lanningI under
Quick Links)
VI. Other Business
VII. Adjourn to September 4, 2013 at 2:00 pm in the Council Chambers
CITY OF YAKIMA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2013 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
August 28, 2013
Open Record Public Hearing ) Staff Report
Concerning Amendment to the ) Staff Contact: Jeff Peters,
City of Yakima's Shoreline Master ) Associate Planner
Program and Comprehensive Plan ) 575-6163
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends to the Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) that the following
proposed amendments to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and 2025
Comprehensive Pan be forwarded to the Yakima City Council with an endorsement for
their approval.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:
1. Under the state Shoreline Management Act, the City must prepare and adopt a
shoreline master program that is based on state guidelines, but tailored to the
specific needs and characteristics of the City. Since 1974, the City of Yakima
has utilized Yakima County's SMP, which has never been formally adopted by
the City or codified (meaning organized into the municipal code).
2. From approximately 2004 to 2008, the City of Yakima worked cooperatively with
Yakima County and the other jurisdictions of Yakima County to develop a
regional SMP. A "Best Available Science" (BAS) document was cooperatively
produced, as well as a draft SMP. Unfortunately, due to procedural issues at the
time, the City of Yakima could not adopt the draft SMP along with the rest of the
jurisdictions in the valley. Following the County adopting their SMP, multiple
agencies and citizen groups appealed the County's SMP to the Growth
Management Hearings Board, and the City of Yakima made the decision not to
adopt or update its SMP until all appeals were addressed.
3. In late 2011-2012, the City of Yakima was reminded of its obligation to update its
SMP by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Due to the City's
participation in the Yakima County Regional SMP process, the City was given
credit and allowed to utilize the Yakima County Regional SMP and all of its
associated BAS to develop and tailor its SMP.
4. This SMP is a comprehensive vision of how shoreline areas can be used and
provides the policy basis; regulations to govern shoreline development, public
access, and environmental preservation; and relies heavily on the science and
work conducted in creating Yakima County's SMP. It is a state program
prepared and implemented by the local jurisdiction (City of Yakima) with state
oversight.
5. Typically, SMPs combine policies, designations and development regulations in
an overall program. This approach has been modified by the Growth
Management Act (GMA), which provides that goals and policies contained in
local SMPs shall be considered an element of the local jurisdiction's
comprehensive plan, and the regulations and maps are considered part of the
jurisdiction's development regulations. It is for this reason that the goals and
policies of the City's draft SMP are proposed to be incorporated into the City of
Yakima's 2025 Comprehensive Plan's Natural Element chapter, and the
regulations of the draft SMP are proposed to be incorporated into the City's
municipal code as Title 17.
REGULATORY REVIEW CRITERIA
1. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (RCW 90.58)
a) The Washington State Legislature passed the Shoreline Management Act in
1971 and it was adopted by voters in 1972 for the purpose of preventing "the
inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's
shoreline". In adopting the Shoreline Management Act, the legislature
acknowledged the need to balance various interests affecting the shorelines
of the state.
b) Pursuant to RCW 90.58.020, it is the policy of the state to provide for the
management of the shorelines by planning for and fostering all reasonable
and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of
these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of
rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the
public interest. This policy contemplates protection against adverse effects to
the public health, the land and its vegetation, wildlife, the waters of the state
and their aquatic life, while generally protecting the public's rights of
navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto.
The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be
paramount in the management of shorelines of statewide significance
[including the Yakima and Naches Rivers], and local government, in
developing master programs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall
give preference to uses in the following order of preference which:
a) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
b) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
c) Result in long term over short term benefits;
d) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
e) Increased public access to publically owned areas or the shoreline;
f) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; and
g) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed
appropriate or necessary.
c) RCW 90.58.050 establishes a cooperative program between state and local
governments in managing shorelines. Local governments have the primary
responsibility for initiating planning and administering the regulatory program
while Ecology acts primarily in supportive and review capacity. Pursuant to
2
RCW 90.58.090, master programs and amendments thereto do not go into
effect until approved by Ecology.
d) Pursuant to RCW 90.58.100, "In preparing the master program, Ecology and
the City shall to the extent feasible:
a. Utilize a systematic interdisciplinary approach which will insure the
integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environment
design arts;
b. Consult with and obtain the comments of any federal, state, regional,
or local agency having any special expertise with respect to any
environmental impacts;
c. Consider all plans, studies, surveys, inventories, and systems of
classification made or being made by federal, state, regional, or local
agencies, by private individuals, or by organizations dealing with
pertinent shorelines of the state;
d. Conduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and
interviews as are deemed necessary;
e. Utilize all available information regarding hydrology, geography,
topography, ecology, economics, and other pertinent data;
f. Employ, when feasible, all appropriate modern scientific data
processing and computer techniques to store index, analyze and
manage the information gathered."
e) Pursuant to RCW 90.58.080, the City is required to adopt a master program
consistent with WAC 173-26 on or before December 1, 2013. Following the
update, the City is required to review the master program every eight years.
If the City fails to obtain approval of its SMP, Ecology is authorized through
rule making to adopt a master program for the City.
2. WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (WAC 173-26)
a) WAC 173-26, Part III contains the guidelines for development of a master
program for regulation of uses and development in the shoreline. The
guidelines are guiding parameters, standards, and review criteria for local
master programs. The guidelines allow local governments' substantial
discretion to adopt master programs reflecting local circumstances and other
local regulatory and non -regulatory programs related to the policies and goals
of the Shoreline Management Act and provided in the policy statements of
RCW 90.58.020.
b) WAC 173-26-186 articulates the foundation concepts that underpin the
guidelines that the City's SMP must comply with. These include:
a) The guidelines are subordinate to the act.
b) The guidelines are intended to reflect the policy goals of the act.
c) All relevant policy goals must be addressed in the planning policies of
master programs.
d) The planning policies of master programs may be achieved by a
number of means, only one of which is the regulation of development.
e) The policy goals of the act, implemented by the planning policies of
master programs, may not be achievable by development regulation
3
alone. Planning policies should be pursued through the regulations of
development of private property only to an extent that is consistent
with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations on the
regulations of private property.
f) The territorial jurisdictions of the master program's planning function
and regulatory function are legally distinct. Goals and policies must
look beyond the jurisdiction while regulations are limited to the
jurisdiction.
g) The planning policies and regulatory provisions of master programs
and the comprehensive plans and development regulations, adopted
under the Growth Management Act, shall be integrated and
coordinated.
h) The principles regarding protecting shoreline ecological systems are
accomplished by these guidelines in several ways. These include:
Local government is guided in its review so that it uses a
process that identifies, inventories, and ensures meaningful
understanding of current and potential ecological functions
provided by affected shorelines.
• Local master programs shall include policies and regulations
designed to achieve no net loss of ecological function.
Local master programs shall include regulations and
mitigation standards ensuring that each permitted use or
development will not cause a net loss of ecological functions
of the shoreline within constitutional constraints on the
regulation of private property.
i) For counties and cities containing any shorelines with impaired
ecological functions, master programs shall include goals and policies
that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological functions.
j) Local master programs shall evaluate and consider cumulative
impacts of reasonably foreseeable development on shoreline
ecological functions and other shoreline functions fostered by the
policy goals of the act.
k) To the extent consistent with the policy and use preference of RCW
90.58.020, local governments have reasonable discretion to balance
the various policy goals of WAC 173-26, in light of other relevant local,
state, and federal regulatory and non -regulatory programs, and to
modify master programs to reflect changing circumstances.
c) In addition, WAC 173-27 contains the Shoreline Management Permit and
Enforcement Procedures.
3. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (RCW 36.70A)
a. The state legislature found that it is in the public interest that citizens,
communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and
coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning. The
Act sets forth thirteen planning goals. The City of Yakima has adopted its
2025 Comprehensive Plan that implements the goals of the Growth
Management Act.
b. RCW 36.70A.480 adopts the goals and policies of the Shoreline
Management Act (RCW 90.58.020) as a goal of the Growth Management
4
Act. The goals and policies of the City of Yakima's Shoreline Master
Program are considered an element of the City's 2025 Comprehensive
Plan, and are proposed to be amended with this update.
The City's Critical Area regulations adopted under the Growth Management
Act (YMC 15.27) continue to apply to shoreline areas until a comprehensive
SMP is adopted. After which critical area regulations adopted under the
Shoreline Management Act shall apply to shoreline areas. Additionally,
shoreline master programs are required to provide a level of protection of
critical areas located within shorelines that assures no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as
defined by Ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
1. Public Participation:
The City of Yakima provided extensive opportunities for the public to participate
and comment on the development of the SMP. The following is a summary of
these opportunities:
Meetings:
• From 2002 to July 2007, the City of Yakima participated in the
development and public participation process for the Yakima County
Regional SMP, which consisted of numerous stakeholder and advisory
group meetings comprised of both agencies/cities and citizens/affected
business. This process included 36 meetings with interest groups, five
public open houses, six meetings with city and town elected officials (the
Countywide Planning Policy Committee), eight city and town staff
meetings, 36 Planning Commission Study Sessions, and eight
Stakeholder Roundtable Meetings, followed by public hearings before the
Yakima County Planning Commission, and public hearings before the
Yakima County Board of County Commissioners. Completion of this
process rendered adoption of an updated SMP, BAS document, shoreline
inventory and analysis, cumulative impact analysis, and restoration plan
on July 31, 2007.
• On February 25 — 26, 2013, the City and its consultants contacted all of
the private interest groups, government agencies, and/or private property
owners who had large holdings of land along the Yakima and Naches
Rivers, or four private lakes, and conducted individual meetings to
ascertain the needs and concerns of the groups.
From November 2012 to June 2013, the City of Yakima's Planning
Commission held 12 public meetings to review the various components of
the City's draft SMP.
Notices:
• On November 13, 2012, the City of Yakima sent out a letter to all property
owners within the proposed shoreline jurisdictional area inviting them to a
kick off meeting for the City's SMP update, and directing them to the
City's website where all shoreline review materials would be posted.
On January 31, 2013, the City of Yakima decided to pre -designate the
shoreline areas within its Urban Growth Area (UGA). A letter was mailed
to all property owners outside the City limits, but within the City's UGA,
inviting them to participate in the City's SMP update process, and
directing them to the City's website where all shoreline review materials
would be posted.
On July 10, 2013, the City of Yakima mailed the required 60 -day Notice of
Intent to adopt to the Washington State Department of Commerce.
All meeting material was posted on the City of Yakima's Shorelines web
page at litlE://www.y
li relines-i'Tiaste�•-[Li qui i„ual . e .
A Notice of Application, Notice of Public Hearing and Determination of
Non -Significance regarding the City's draft SMP was mailed on July 9,
2013, to all affected property owners, environmental agencies, private
interest groups, and parties of record. This notice also provided for 20
days of public comment, which ended on July 29, 2013.
0 PUBLIC NOTICE PROVIDED FOR HEARING Date Accomplished
Notice of Application
Legal Ad Publication
Notice of Public Hearing
July 9, 2013
2. Environmental Review:
On July 9, 2013, the City of Yakima issued a Notice of Application,
Environmental Review, Public Hearing, and Determination of Non -Significance
for this project.
Six public comments were received during the required 20 -day public comment
period where all interested parties and agencies had the right to comment. The
City of Yakima subsequently made some minor amendments to the draft
ordinance addressing some of the commenters concerns, and issued a Notice of
Retention Regarding its Determination of Non -Significance for SEPA File #013-
13, on August 2, 2013. The 14 -day appeal period for this environmental
determination lapsed on August 19, 2013, with no appeals filed.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED (as of August 2, 2013).
Who Comments Received
Phil Ri9don: Yakama Nation Jul 22, 2013
......._ _............__ .........
Joel Freudenthal: Yakima County Public Services, Surface July 29, 2013
Water Management Division
Enc..artrand: State Department ofFis....h and Wildlife July 29, 2013
......
Paul Gonseth, P.E.: Washington State Department of August 1, 2013
Al
STAFF ANALYSIS
APPROACH TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
The City of Yakima as previously stated in this report is required to update its
SMP to meet the 2003 WSDOE Shoreline Master Program Guidelines. Due to
the fact that the City participated in the Yakima County Regional SMP update
process, and has adopted all of the supporting environmental documents of the
County update, the WSDOE has allowed the City of Yakima to utilize all of the
County's SMP documents to update its SMP. The only stipulations are that:
1) the City must provide an addendum to the County Cumulative Impact Analysis
and Restoration Plan identifying the changes the City made from the County
SMP and their impacts, 2) that the City could not modify the Floodplain/Channel
Migration Zone environment designation or standards, and 3) that the City could
not modify the shoreland extent with respect to incorporation of certain portions
of floodplains that are greater than the minimum requirement.
Based upon the two above restrictions, the City's general philosophy for the
update has been to:
a. Review the Yakima County Regional SMP and Shoreline Inventory
against:
i. the WSDOE SMP Guidelines;
ii. the 2012 WSDOE Appendix 8-D: Guidance on Widths of Buffers
and Ratios for Compensatory Mitigation for Use with the Eastern
Washin ton Wetland Rating System. In Wetlands in Washington
State Volume 2; and
iii. the existing characteristics of the City's shorelines.
b. Revise the environment designations, shoreline buffer widths, uses, and
regulations based upon the City's local conditions, SMP Handbook
guidance on shoreline buffers, and the WSDOE wetland regulations
guidance document, and;
c. Modify the SMP regulations and application process to more closely
follow the requirements of state law, the SMP guidance documents, and
the use of the shoreline by private property owners.
INVENTORY
2. The City of Yakima's shoreline inventory has changed minimally since the City's
adoption of Yakima County's 1974 SMP, with approximately 1,263 acres of
shoreline areas in the City of Yakima and its Urban Growth Area. All of the City's
shoreline private lakes are either built out with residential, commercial, industrial,
or recreational uses. The properties abutting the two rivers, the Naches and
Yakima, are generally encumbered by Interstate or the Yakima Greenway, and
Federal levee providing the citizens of Yakima with flood protection.
3. The City has re-evaluated key existing condition elements as part of assessing
the need for unique environment designations and shoreline buffers. Section
7
3.2.1 of the Cumulative Impact Analysis provides a summary of conditions for
those areas for which environment designations and shoreline buffers were
altered from the County SMP. The following tables summarize the distribution of
environment designations by ownership and waterbody within the City's shoreline
jurisdiction and UGA.
Table 1.
Shoreline Jurisdiction Acreage Distribution by Ownership and
Environment Desi nation
(percent).
Floodway
High
Shoreline
Urban
Total % by
Owner
Aquatic
/ CMZ
Intensity
Residential
Conservancy
Onershi
Private
84.4
20.4
94.5
78.0
47.6
41.4
City
.....................
0.1
9.8
_ ...
0.1
18.6
16.6
10.0
County _...
7.8
27.7
0.9
�.......
0.0
118
18.8
.....................m
Federal3.5
4.5
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.4
........
_...WSDOT
.� .. 0.�6
� 15.6"�...
3.6 ..............
0.0
mw _0.0
_
� ...
�..�����
4.0 ..
rv.,,....
� ....
9.9
W D FW ...._........�
0.5
. _.. .... 1.6 ....�.,
0.0
..._.
0.1
1.0
..,. i. _
WA State
0.0
.m.13..0 ....._......
0.2....
0.0
13.2
9.9
..� �
_-_m�
...............�
........
��_
............
_Parks
Other State
0.0
� 2.4
0.0
0.0
....
0.0
.......
1.4
.......
... Greenway
3.1
� 4�..
.7
0.0
0.0
3.4
3.6
Canal/
0.3
3.5
0.0
0.3
Irrigation
Railroad
0 0
0.3 '.
0.4...
0.0
�..........
0.3
-
�s
3
0.. mm
Total % by
_
9.5
57.0
7.5
7.3
18.7
Designation
Table 2.
Shoreline Jurisdiction
Acreage Distribution by Ownership,
Environment
Designation and Waterbody (percent).
c c
Waterbody
(Acres of
shoreline
Floodway
High
p 'y
s m
&.
C
O
°,urisdiction
Owner
Aquatic
/ CMZ
Intensity
N
D v
Total
Berglund
County
1
1
��.........._........
Lake......����
Private
99
..__..__..m
99
12.5 acres
City
0
0
Buchanan
�
Private
8585
..... _________.
Lake......
City
__....._
.......
3
3
(62.8 acres)
Private
11
1
12
Cowiche
Canal/
0
4
4
Creek
Irrigation
_-___._.__----- .�....
_�
(.75.1 acres)
City
0
23._
23
Waterbody
(Acres of
shoreline
jurisdiction)
Lake Aspen
36.8 acres
Owner
Private
Private
Aquatic
40
Floodway
/ CMZ
High
IntensityN
7
L '
s d
w
66
60
v
N
o
D v
Total
73
100
County
65
65
Private
4
................_.._
__........._..._...
............................ __....—
4
Myron Lake
WDFW
4
4
(14.2 acres)Ya
....
kima
_._...m
Greenway
27
27
Foundation
City
0
11
8
19
Naches
w..
59
River
Private
1
7
0
7
15
(181.0
Railroad.....................���..��..........
�.�
0
O ,
acres)
�� w
00
�����
_.........��.......�.....�
.......... ..
Greenway
_....� ..��
..................................2_
�........_ ...�........... 0 .
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
w
3
6
Willow Lake
Private
37
62
1
99
(52.2 acres)
WDFW
_.............................................................................................
......_..._
._......_
1
1
Canal/
0
0
0
0
Cl..at.!.on.................................................................................
�_.
0
6
3
9
County
12
0
2.............................��_.
Federal
... __� 1............................................_._.��...
..............................
4
1
5 .
Yakima
Private
0
16..
-------- 6_
................... ............._..._....._....__.....__.............w___--
12
34
River
(828.5
Railroad
......�.......................
0
0
0
........ 0
acres)
State
2
2
WSDOT
0
14
0
1
15
_.-- ..._.___.
WDFW
1
1
WA State
11
0
4
Parks
15
Greenway
4
0
0
4
The figures below graphically illustrate the distribution of overall shoreline jurisdiction by
owner and the distribution of ownership just within the Floodway/CMZ environment.
Percent Ownership for Entire
Shoreline Jurisdiction - General
a Freers
W ftbhc
wawhv
Percent Ownership by
Environment
Designation -
Floodway/CMZ, General
0.4
Private
0 W Public
„; Other
Percent Ownership by
Environment Designation -
Floodway/CMZ, Specific
0.4
0 Private
11K State
o),, Greenway
Federal
C . ,0
4.7
City
4. Public access to the City of Yakima's shorelines can mainly be found along the
Yakima Greenway, which borders the Yakima and Naches Rivers.
SHORELINE POLICIES
5. The proposed shoreline policies apply to shoreline uses and development
activities. They address general shoreline goals, environment designations and
management criteria, and shoreline uses and modifications. These goals and
policies are consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and are proposed to
be adopted as a section within the City of Yakima's 2025 Comprehensive Plan
Natural Element chapter.
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS
6. Shoreline master programs are required to contain a system that classifies
shoreline areas into specific environment designations. Classification is based
on the existing use pattern, the biological and physical character of the shoreline,
and the goals and aspirations of the community as expressed through the
comprehensive plan. The proposed shoreline environments for the City of
Yakima are: Shoreline Residential, High Intensity, Essential Public Facilities,
Aquatic, Floodway/CMZ, and Urban Conservancy.
7. Classification criteria for environment designations are set forth in WAC 173-26-
211.
10
a. Shoreline Residential is assigned to lands that are predominantly
single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned
and platted for residential development.
The two shoreline areas that include Shoreline Residential
designations occur along Willow Lake and Lake Aspen.
b. High Intensity is assigned to shorelands that presently support or are
planned to accommodate commercial, industrial, urban recreational,
transportation, or high-intensity water -oriented uses. Areas
designated as High Intensity include:
a. Willow Lake: Several developed and vacant industrially zoned
parcels that range in size from 5 to 14 acres are located on the
south and western portions ;
b. Lake Aspen: Developed properties along the eastern side of
the lake;
c. Buchanan Lake: The north side of Buchanan Lake;
Yakima River — Terrace Heights Drive;
e. Yakima River — Keyes Road;
f. Yakima River — West Birchfield Road;
g. Blue Slough: The lands along the Blue Slough.
c. Essential Public Facilities is assigned to shorelands containing state
or regional transportation facilities and waste water handling facilities.
d. The Aquatic designation applies to areas waterward of the ordinary
high water mark of shoreline lakes.
e. The Floodway/CMZ and Urban Conservancy designations continue
from the Regional SMP process. The Floodway/CMZ designation is
assigned to shoreline areas that are within a mapped Channel
Migration Zone and/or within a designated FEMA Floodway. The
Urban Conservancy designation is intended to protect and restore
ecological functions of open space, floodplain and other sensitive
lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing
a variety of compatible uses.
SHORELINE USE TABLE
8. The use table set forth in Section 17.03.070 identifies allowed and prohibited
uses applicable to each shoreline environment designation. The listings in the
table are based on state guidelines for certain uses, and zoning code for other
uses.
11
The City has allowed a few specific uses not identified in the County's SMP.
These allowed uses and the rationale for changes from the County SMP are as
follows:
• Non-commercial aquaculture: This allows for conservation hatchery
facilities, and other facilities that benefit shoreline functions.
• Public, community, and commercial boat launches, as well as private
boat launches in the High Intensity ED: Boat launches are needed to
improve access for river rescue safety and public access. Few boat
launches would be anticipated, and they would need to follow mitigation
sequencing to avoid impacts.
Piers and docks in the High Intensity, Shoreline Residential, and Aquatic
EDs: Piers and docks are only allowed on lake shorelines, and this
allowance is consistent with existing conditions.
• Expansion of roads, highways, bridges, and railroads: Any expansion of
transportation infrastructure would need to follow mitigation sequencing
to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for effects on shoreline functions.
• Allowing maintenance plans comprehensively addressing maintenance
and repair and related activities for roads, parks, wastewater treatment,
lake water quality plans, etc.
SHORELINE SETBACKS AND BUFFERS
9. WAC 173-26-211 requires environment designations to include standards for
shoreline setbacks/buffers. Proposed shoreline buffers are found in Table
09.030-1 and proposed wetland buffers are found in Table 09.040-1. Prior to the
current draft SMP, the City of Yakima's 1974 SMP allowed for setbacks of 50 to
100 feet depending upon shoreline use.
10. The 100 -foot buffer is maintained from the County's SMP in the Essential Public
Facilities, Urban Conservancy, and Floodway/CMZ environment designations.
Proposed buffers are reduced in the new Shoreline Residential and High
Intensity designations based on City -specific existing conditions in those
developed areas. Proposed buffers in the High Intensity and Shoreline
Residential designations are expected to maintain existing ecological functions.
11. The City updated the County's SMP regulations for protection of wetlands
consistent with Ecology's Guidance for Small Cities Eastern Washington Version,
revised October 2012.
MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS
12. WAC 173-26-211 requires Residential environmental designations to include
standards for density or minimum water frontages widths. The City of Yakima
addresses this requirement through application of both the density standards of
12
the underlying property's zoning district and zoning ordinance minimum lot
frontage requirements. Minimum lot frontage requirements can be found in
Section 17.03.080.
LOT COVERAGE LIMITATIONS
13. WAC 173-26-211 requires Residential environment designations to include a
standard for lot coverage limitations. The City of Yakima's Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance (UAZO) Title 15 Table 5-1 Development Standards were utilized to
meet this requirement.
USE SPECIFIC SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
14. Use specific development standards are general requirements that apply to all
types of use regardless of the underlying environment designation.
15. WAC 173-26-241 requires master programs to have standards for recreational
development. Key requirements for pubic recreational facilities include that they
must be designed and operated in a manner consistent with the environment
designation and that no net loss of ecological functions occurs. The recreational
requirements of this master program were developed to be consistent with the
policies supporting pedestrian and bicycle pathways and connections, the
Yakima Greenway, and other recreational opportunities in and along the Yakima
and Naches Rivers. The recreational standards of this SMP may be found in
Section 17.07.100.
16. WAC 173-26-241 requires master programs to have standards for boating
facilities. Boating facilities are distinguished from individual properties in that
these are community, public, commercial or industrial in nature. Boating facilities
requirements may be found in Section 17.07.030. Docks are prohibited in free-
flowing streams and rivers and are only allowed in the lakes. Only
public/community/commercial boat launches are allowed on the river shores to
meet public recreation or safety needs. Boat launches deemed shall be
designed and constructed using methods/technology that as been recognized
and approved by state and federal resource agencies.
17. The requirements for Essential Public Facilities may be found in Section
17.03.040, which requires no net loss of ecological function, environmental
cleanup and restoration of shoreline areas, and mitigation sequencing.
18. WAC 173-26-241 requires master programs to have standards for transportation,
parking, and utilities. The proposed SMP provides standards for Transportation
and Parking under section 17.07.150, and Utilities under section 17.07.160.
PRIVATE PIERS, DOCKS AND BOAT LAUNCHES
19. WAC 173-26-231 defines docks associated with single-family residences as a
water -dependent use provided it is designed for access to watercraft. Piers and
docks are required to be the minimum size necessary to meet the need of the
single-family residence, along with the other standards of meeting no net loss of
ecological function, and the requirement for new residential development of two
or more dwellings to provide a shared pier or dock rather than individual.
13
20. The proposed SMP limits the size of private docks and piers in both Lakes Aspen
and Willow in accordance with the covenants and restrictions of those private
lakes and/or consistent with the existing conditions. These standards may be
found in section 17.07.030.
21. The inventory for docks and piers, as determined by Google Earth photo
examination, for all the shorelines of the City of Yakima is as follows:
Lake Aspen: approximately 53 residential moorage structures
Willow Lake: approximately 17 residential moorage structures
Most of the residential properties have a structure for boat moorage; there is little
potential for new structures.
SHORELINE STABILIZATION
22. The regulations for shoreline stabilization may be found in section 17.07.130.
This section of the SMP is based almost entirely on state guidelines which
require that:
a. Shoreline stabilization projects are only allowed 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. A geotechnical analysis must estimate time frames and rates of erosion
and urgency of the erosion control;
c. New hard shoreline stabilization solutions are not allowed for primary
structures unless there is a significant possibility that such structure will
be damaged within three years;
d. New development shall be located and designed to avoid the need for
future shoreline stabilization;
e. Stabilization projects shall be developed under the supervision of, or in
consultation with, agencies or professionals with appropriate expertise;
and
f. Soft stabilization standards are preferred over hardened stabilization.
SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS
23. One of the primary goals of the Shoreline Management Act is to increase public
access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. WAC 173-26-221 requires
master programs to have policies and regulations that protect and enhance both
physical and visual public access to the shorelines. Single-family residences not
part of planned developments of four or fewer properties are exempt, in addition
to where it can be demonstrated to be infeasible due to reasons of incompatibly,
safety, impact to the shoreline environment, or due to legal or constitutional
limitations.
24. The development standards for Public Access can be found in section 17.05.050
of the draft SMP. To meet the above state requirements, the City relies almost
entirely on access to its shorelines through the trails and pathways of the Yakima
Greenway which provides 9.77 lineal miles of pathway that follow the Yakima
and Naches Rivers and Rotary Lake. While direct access to the shorelines of
14
Lakes Aspen, Willow, and Buchanan is not allowed due to private ownership, the
Yakima Greenway does provide visual access to these shoreline areas.
25. Due to the close proximity of the Yakima Greenway to the City's shoreline rivers
and lakes, the City has proposed development standards that allow applicants for
shoreline conditional and substantial development permits to be excepted from
site by site public access standards when:
a. Reasonable, safe, and convenient public access to the shoreline is
accessible within one-quarter mile of the site, and the City's adopted
parks and recreation plans do not indicate a need for a trail or access at
the property;
b. The site is within or part of an overall development which has previously
provided public access through other application processes;
c. The economic cost of proving for public access upon the site is
unreasonable disproportionate to the long term economic value of the
proposed use, activity or development... ;
d. The proposed use, activity or development has security requirements that
are not feasible to address through the application of alternative design
features or other measures...
e. See other exceptions and provisions at 17.05.050.
GENERAL SHORELINE REGULATIONS
26. No net loss of shoreline ecological functions is one of the key standards for
updating master programs. This standard is designed to stop the introduction of
new impacts to shoreline ecological functions resulting from new uses or
development authorized by local jurisdictions' SMPs. Where the shoreline
master program provides specific standards, it is assumed that compliance with
"no net loss" is achieved. Where site-specific standards are not provided, a
"mitigation sequencing" analysis is required to demonstrate that ecological
functions have not been lost.
27. Mitigation sequencing is required pursuant to WAC 173-26.201 (2)(e)(i), and is
provided in section YMC 17.05.020.0 and D.
28. WAC 173-26-231 contains requirements for dredging (17.07.050), fill (17.07.060)
breakwaters, jetties, groins and weirs (17.07.080), and archeological resources
(17.05.010). The City's draft SMP contains provisions for these development
standards, and some of the standards for archeological resources were further
modified to address comments provided by the Yakama Nation.
29. WAC 173-26-221(5) establishes principles and general standards for vegetation
conservation that are required in the master program. In developing the
vegetation standards of 17.05.030, the City of Yakima worked with the Yakima
Flood Control Zone District and Yakima Greenway to provide regulations which
provide for removal of non-native and dangerous vegetation while reducing or
eliminating the chance of "net loss of ecological functions".
30. In developing regulations for non -conforming uses, structures and lots found in
sections 17.11.010, 020, and 030, the City of Yakima followed the requirements
15
of YMC 15.19 and WAC 173-27-080 providing for the continuation, expansion,
and reconstruction of damaged or destroyed non -conforming uses, structures,
and lots. The City also opted to include standards that recognize pre-existing
legal residential uses per RCW 90.58.620.
CRITICAL AREAS
31. State law requires critical area within shoreline area to be regulated by the
shoreline master program. In 2008, the City of Yakima modified and adopted the
Yakima County Regional SMP's Critical Areas ordinance to meet its state GMA
requirements. In 2009, Yakima County's Critical Areas ordinance was appealed
to the Growth Management Hearings Board and amended to be compliant in
2010. As a result of these changes, the City of Yakima has utilized Yakima
County's 2010 Critical Area Ordinance Critical Aquifer Recharge Area standards
in the development of its SMP Critical Area requirements.
32. In crafting the critical area regulations for shoreline areas, RCW 90.58.090(4)
requires shoreline critical areas regulations to provide at least equal protection as
the City's adopted critical area regulations. In addition, the shoreline critical area
regulations must provide a level of protection to ensure no net loss of ecological
functions (WAC 173-26-221(2)). WAC 173-266-201 (2)(a) requires that the most
current, accurate, and complete scientific, and technical information available be
used. By utilizing both the City's adopted critical area ordinance, the latest
Ecology wetland guidance documents, and revised county Critical Aquifer
Recharge Area standards, the City ensures that the shoreline regulations will
provide the appropriate level of protection.
AREAS OF DIVERGENCE FROM YAKIMA COUNTY'S REGIONAL SMP
33. Shoreline Jurisdiction Cowiche Creek: The City's SMP excludes Cowiche
Creek from shoreline jurisdiction based on the shoreline criteria found in the Act,
and the combined weight of stream gauge data which does not include 10
consecutive years, and United States Geologic Survey (USGS) modeling.
Ecology concurred with this assessment on May 22, 2013.
Consistent with the Yakima County Regional SMP, Washington Department of
Ecology's GIS data set shows that the Yakima and Naches Rivers are Shorelines
(20 cfs or greater), and further are Shorelines of Statewide Significance (200 cfs
or greater). Cowiche Creek is also noted in Yakima County's current SMP as a
Shoreline. However, Cowiche Creek is not identified in Ecology's suggested
shoreline data set as a Shoreline (See Cumulative Impacts Analysis for complete
explanation).
During the SEPA comment period for the draft SMP, the Yakama Nation
submitted data that showed much higher mean annual flow rates for Cowiche
Creek during relatively short periods of time, and suggested that Cowiche Creek
be included in shoreline jurisdiction. To address the wide range and accuracy of
the available data, the City of Yakima has submitted all scientific
information/studies on the issue to the WSDOE to determine the stream's
jurisdiction. Should the stream be found to meet the requirements to be included
in jurisdiction, the City will adopt a stand-alone addendum to its SMP to address
Cowiche Creek.
16
34. Regulations for Shoreline Use Modifications: In developing the regulations
for shoreline use and modifications, the City of Yakima generally relied on the
guidance of the state RCWs and WACs that pertain to SMP development and
less on the specific standards developed by Yakima County during their SMP
update process. The following table provides a summary of the changes in the
proposed City of Yakima SMP compared to the Yakima County Regional SMP.
Table 1. Summary of changes in the proposed City of Yakima SMP compared to
the Yakima County Regional SMP and the anticipated effect on ecological
functions.
General Regu
Environmental
Protection -
17.05.020
Changes in City SMI" compared to
Count "s a ional SMP
ions
New section that applies ll
to allr areas in
shoreline jurisdiction, not just critical
areas and their buffers.
Requires no net loss of functions (A).
Requires mitigation sequencing and
preparation of a mitigation plan for any
shoreline use or modification that is not
entirely addressed by specific,
objective standards in the proposed
SMP (C -E).
Sh—ore )ine....... ...........................mm
New section that applies in and outside
Vegetation
of critical areas within shoreline
Conservation-
jurisdiction.
17.05.030
# Requires mitigation for adverse
impacts resulting from vegetation
removal._
Water Quality,Added
a general I standard that
Stormwater, and
development shall maintain surface
Non -Point
and groundwater quantity and quality,
Pollution-
and maintain no net loss of ecological
17.05.040f
unctions (A).
• Added standards that new
development and redevelopment must
comply with the latest edition of the
Stormwater Management Manual for
Eastern Washington, and best
management practices must be
employed, even if the Manual's
thresholds (e.g., area of disturbance)
met C)(1).
Public Access-
_arenot
Section consolidated from many areas of
17.05.050
the Regional SMP and added provisions
consistent with the SMP Guidelines.
Flood Hazard
New section that establishes uses and
Reduction-
standards for modifications within the
17.05.060
channel migration zone (CMZ) and
17
Effect on I
Functions
Maintains- provisions
protect ecological functions
Maintains- provisions
require mitigation
sequencing for vegetation
removal
Maintains- implementation
of BMPs will help maintain
water quality functions
Maintains- limits potential
new
restrictions/obstructions on
the CMZ and floodway
Changes in City SMP compared to Effect on Ecological
County's Regional SMP I Functions ._ ........... _.._._
Only development and subdivision in
the floodway or CMZ that will not
require structural shoreline stabilization
measures is allowed (F).
Prohibits flood hazard reduction
measures that will channelize stream
flows, interfere with hydraulic
processes, or undermine existing
structures or downstream banks (E)..
Shoreline Uses and Modification
Agriculture-
Added provision prohibiting concentrated
Maintains- concentrated
17.07.010
animal feeding operations (D).
feedlots are prohibited
�c
underpCity's zoning
Aquaculture -
ourages
Add standard that encourages c
Maintains/Improves-
17.07.020
aquaculture that promotes recovery of
potential to bolster listed
closely respond to SMP Guidelines for
listed species or public recreation (C)
species recovery _
Boating Facilities
Adds standards for boat ramps to ensure
Maintains- Boat ramps will
and Private
that they minimize the effect on channel
be required to minimize
Moorage
form and hydraulics (G)(1).
(and mitigate) for impacts
Facilities-
per Environmental
17.07.030
Protection standards
(17.05.020)
Commercial- Added provision that mixed-use Improves- provides
17.07.040 commercial development in shoreline incentive for restoration.
jurisdiction must provide public benefit Consistent with WAC 173 -
such as ecological restoration and public 26-241(3)(d).
access (C).
Dredge and • Added standards that new
Dredge development shall be sited and
Disposal- designed to avoid or, if that is not
17.07.050 possible, to minimize the need for new
and maintenance dredging (A).
• Add standard that where dredging is
permitted, mitigation sequencing must
be followed (B).
Fill- 17.07.060 1 • Fills shall meet no net loss of
In
Maintains- Development will
not exacerbate the need for
dredging, and dredging will
require mitigation
sequencing
Maintains- provides
standards to ensure that fill
does not affect ecological
functions
NA
Maintains- Standards
maintain functions and
ecological function (A)
• Establishes allowed applications of fill
in sensitive areas and upland areas (B-
C)
• Erosion control measures and BMPs
must be implemented Gmmmmm
Industrial-
mmmmm_ITITIT�
Refinements to language made to more
17.07.070
closely respond to SMP Guidelines for
conditions under which non -water -
oriented uses are allowed.
In -Water
New Section
Structures-
• New standard that in -water structures
In
Maintains- Development will
not exacerbate the need for
dredging, and dredging will
require mitigation
sequencing
Maintains- provides
standards to ensure that fill
does not affect ecological
functions
NA
Maintains- Standards
maintain functions and
19
Changes in City SMP compared to
Effect on Ecological
....17.07._______ ____.�......._...
Count Is Regional SMP �,..�........._._...._..__...._.__
Functions, _
080
do not degrade water quality (C).
...�..._ .�.._.
processes
. New standard requiring in -water
structures to provide for the protection
and preservation of ecosystem -wide
processes, ecological functions, and
cultural resources F .
Mining-
No substantive change
NA
17.07.090
Recreation-
Addedrovision that recreational uses es
Maintains- ensures no net
17.07.100
shall not result in a net loss of ecosystem
loss
functions.__
Residential-
Added provision to ensure that ..�_
shoreline
Maintains- minimizes
17.07.110
stabilization and flood control structures
occurrence of new
are not necessary to protect proposed
stabilization features and
residences (C).
encourages adequate
shoreline setbacks
Shoreline Habitat
New section to provide standards to m
...maximizes ..........................................
mmImproves-
and Natural
ensure that shoreline enhancement is
benefits of shoreline
System
based on the best available science and
enhancement
Enhancement-
that they are maintained and monitored
7.07..120
inabi
for long-term sustality~„
...._. -� ...........
Shoreline
__
No substantive change
.... ..... � � ....._
NA
Stabilization -
1707130
Transportation-
_
Added provision requiring new that
new oor
�.
Maintains- limits potential
17.07.150
expanded transportation and parking
effect of new pollutant
facilities be designed and located to
generating impervious
have the least possible adverse effect on
surfaces on water quality
unique or fragile shoreline features, and
and quantity, as well as
that they will not result in a net loss of
habitat connectivity
shoreline ecological functions (B) m_...........................
Utilities-
Added provision prohibiting new or
Maintains- minimizes
17.07.160
expanded non -water -oriented utilities
habitat fragmentation
within shoreline jurisdiction unless no
resulting from new utility
....
feasible alternative exists (B).
corridors.
Rede... p
veto ment,
.._...
Section added to provide a process for
.....___................................... . .................................._.....
Maintains- provides
Repair, and
multi-year management plans for
administrative clarity on
Maintenance-
maintenance and repair for:
exempt development.
17.07.170
1. Dredging
Exempt development must
2. Private development and facilities on
still meet SMP provisions.
private lakes
Application criteria include
3. Public Parks and Recreation
providing information
4. Transportation facilities
regarding:
5. Utility facilities, including, but not
# aquatic habitat protection
limited to wastewater and water
measures
systems
• riparian and wetland
protection measures
stormwater management
19
Changes in City SMP compared to Effect on Ecological
Counter's Regional SMP Functions
practices
• erosion and sediment
control practices
• re -vegetation or
restoration activities
• chemical and nutrient use
and containment practices
Existing Uses, Amends standards to be consistent with NA
Structures and WAC requirements for existing
Lots- 17.11 residential development.
35. Shoreline Buffer Widths: The proposed regulations establish allowed and
prohibited uses within hydrologically related critical areas, as well as vegetative
buffer standards for streams and lakes. Unlike the County SMP, which
established a 100 -foot buffer for all shoreline streams and lakes, the City's SMP
proposes regulations based on existing conditions, environment designations,
and stream typing. The 100 -foot buffer is maintained in the Essential Public
Facilities, Urban Conservancy, and Floodway/CMZ EDs. Proposed buffers are
reduced in the Shoreline Residential and High Intensity EDs, as indicated in
Table 2. Proposed buffers in the High Intensity and Shoreline Residential EDs
are consistent with, and are expected to maintain, existing functions (see
Cumulative Impact Analysis for complete explanation).
Table 2. Proposed shoreline buffer widths in the High Intensity and Shoreline
Residential environment designations.
Proposed
Buffer
Streams 1 75 feet
Lakes II 50 feet
Hiah
Existing Conditions
• City and UGA on
Yakima River: High
intensity
development is
separated from the
shoreline by the
Yakima Greenway
Trail and a levee.
Shoreline vegetation
is limited
• UGA on Blue Slough:
30-100 feet of intact
vegetation separates
Blue Slough from low
intensity industrial
uses.
• City: 0-50 foot
setback for high
20
Shoreline Residential
Proposed
Buffer
NA
Existing Conditions
City: NA
20 feet Fully developed residential
development with
Hiah Intens
Existing Conditions
Shoreline Residential
Proposed Existing Conditions
Buffer
intensity industrial structural setbacks ranging
areas from 0-50 feet, most
Three large vacant commonly in the range of
lots. One large lot 15-25 feet. Vegetation
has approved commonly consists of
industrial maintained lawn extending
development to the water's edge.
extending within 37
feet of Willow Lake
(Grette 2012).
36. Net Effect on Ecological Function: The City's Addendum to the Yakima
County Regional CIA indicates that the proposed City of Yakima SMP is
expected to maintain existing shoreline functions within the City of Yakima while
accommodating the reasonably foreseeable future shoreline development. As
discussed in the City's Cumulative Impact Analysis, the areas of divergence from
the County's Regional SMP fall into five general categories:
1) shoreline jurisdiction, 2) environment designations and allowed uses,
3) regulations for shoreline uses and modifications, 4) critical area regulations,
and 5) voluntary components of the shoreline restoration plan. A summary of the
areas of divergence and the effect on shoreline ecological functions are identified
in Table 3 of the Cumulative Impact Analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
1. No adverse impacts have been identified by the approval of this Shoreline Master
Program.
2. The draft SMP is consistent with the City of Yakima's Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance, and is supported by and will amend the City's Yakima Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan 2025 to include a Shorelines goals and policies section
within the plan's Natural Environment Chapter.
3. The City of Yakima followed the state Shoreline Master Program Guidelines
pursuant to WAC 173-26-171(3) "which allows local governments substantial
discretion to adopt master program reflecting local circumstances and other local
regulatory and non -regulatory program related to the policy goals of Shoreline
Management..."
4. The City utilized the scientific information from the Shoreline Analysis Report and
local information gathered after the analysis report to draft the proposed updated
Shoreline Master Program.
5. The City has provided extensive opportunity for public involvement and comment
as required by its Shorelines public participation plan and described in this report.
21
6. The City's Cumulative Impact Analysis has been prepared and concluded that
the updated shoreline program should protect and improve shoreline jurisdiction
within the City of Yakima while accommodating the reasonably foreseeable
future shoreline development, and result in no net loss of shoreline ecological
function, and may improve ecological functions over time.
7. Supporting documents to this staff report include the Cumulative Impact Analysis
and Restoration Plan Addendum.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community and Economic Development recommends APPROVAL
of the foregoing Draft Shoreline Master Program and Cumulative Impact and Restoration
Plan Addendum.
22
�i
W=��fiiqffilul
j
CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECOMMENDATION
City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program Update: (a) Repeal of the City's Existing
Shoreline Master Program; (b) Adoption of the Updated Shoreline Master Program in
Accordance with RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26; (c) Adoption of Yakima County's
Cumulative Impact Analysis and Restoration Plan; (d) Adoption of the City of Yakima's
Addendum to Yakima County's Cumulative Impact Analysis and Restoration Plan; and (e)
Amendment to the City of Yakima's Comprehensive Plan 2025 Adding a Shoreline Element
to the Natural Environment Section
August 28, 2013
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima, hereafter referred to as the "City," pursuant to RCW
36.70A.040 is required to plan under the provisions of the Growth Management Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.130(1), the City is
required to take legislative action to review and revise its comprehensive plan and development
regulations in accordance with the Growth Management Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.020, goals are set forth to guide the development
and adoption of comprehensive plans and adoption of development regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City has utilized Yakima County's 1974 Shoreline Master Program,
hereafter referred to as "SMP," since 1974 to present which was never formally adopted, but
accepted by the Washington State Department of Ecology, hereafter referred to as "WSDOE";
and
WHEREAS, the State of Washington passed the Shoreline Management Act of 1971
governing the adoption of SMP's, as currently set forth in Chapter 90.58 RCW, and subject to the
WSDOE's administrative rules contained within Chapter 173-26 of the Washington Administrative
Code (WAC); and
WHEREAS, in 2003, the WSDOE adopted new rules (Shoreline Master Program
Guidelines), pursuant to RCW 90.58.200, to carry out the provisions of the Shoreline
Management Act; and
WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.080 directs local governments to develop or amend their
shoreline master programs to be consistent with the required elements of the new rules adopted
by the WSDOE; and
WHEREAS, from approximately 2004 to 2008, the City of Yakima worked cooperatively
with Yakima County and the other jurisdictions of Yakima County to develop a regional SMP and
other supporting scientific documents; and
WHEREAS, in 2008 due to a procedural issue, the City was not able to adopt the Yakima
County Regional SMP; and
WHEREAS, in late 2011 thru 2012, due to the City's participation in the County Regional
SMP process, the WSDOE allowed the City to utilize the County's Regional SMP and all of its
supporting documentation in the development of its SMP; and
Findings of Fact by the City of Yakima Planning Commission regarding City of Yakima SMP 1
WHEREAS, the City applied for and was awarded a Shoreline Management Act grant
(No. G1200051) from the WSDOE in July 1, 2011 to assist in the preparation and adoption of a
SMP consistent with the new guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2013, the City submitted a Text amendment and State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist application, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Ordinance #2004-14, RCW 36.70A.130 (2), and the WSDOE
SMP guidance documents, the City followed its adopted public participation program, which
included the following:
1. From 2002 to July 2007, the City of Yakima participated in the development and public
participation process for the Yakima County Regional SMP, which consisted of
numerous stakeholder and advisory group meetings comprised of both agencies/cities
and citizens/affected business. There was a total of 36 interest group meetings, 5 public
open houses, 6 meetings with city and town elected officials, 8 city and town staff
meetings, 36 Planning Commission study secessions, 8 stakeholder meetings, and 2
public hearings;
2. November 13, 2012: Notice was provided to property owners inviting them to a kick off
meeting for the City's SMP update.
3. January 31, 2013: A public notice was provided to property owners within the City's
Urban Growth Area and Shoreline areas, but outside the City limits, indicating that the
City would be pre -designating the shoreline areas and inviting them to participate in the
update process;
4. February 25 — 26, 2013: The City conducted meetings with all private interest groups,
government agencies, and/or private property owners who had large holdings of land
along the Yakima and Naches Rivers, or four private shoreline lakes;
5. November 2012 to June 2013: The City Planning Commission, hereafter referred to as
"YPC," held 12 public meetings to review the various components of the City's draft
SMP;
6. July 9, 2013: A Notice of Application, Notice of Public Hearing, and Determination of
Non -Significance was mailed to all affected property owners, environmental agencies,
private interest groups, and parties of record with 20 days of public comment starting
July 9, 2013, and ending on July 29, 2013;
7. July 9, 2013: Posting on the City of Yakima's web site of the draft zoning amendments;
and
8. July 9, 2013: Published notice in a local newspaper of general circulation, issued a press
release to local media, and posted notices at the Planning Division; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, notice of all amendments to the City's
development regulations was sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce prior to the
amendments being considered for adoption on July 10, 2013; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2013 thru August 24, 2013, the YPC held multiple study sessions
to review the proposed zoning amendments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) WAC 197-11 and YMC
6.88, and prior to the Commission's hearing, the City issued a Determination of Non -significance
(DNS) on the proposed zoning ordinance amendments on July 9, 2013, and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2013, pursuant to SEPA WAC 197-11 and YMC 6.88, the City's
Planning Division retained its DNS on the proposed amendments, and
Findings of Fact by the City of Yakima Planning Commission regarding City of Yakima SMP 2
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A and YMC 15.23.020, the YPC is authorized to make a
recommendation to the Yakima City Council, hereafter referred to as the "Council," for their
review, consideration and adoption of development regulation amendments; and
WHEREAS, an open record public hearing regarding the proposed SMP occurred on August
28, 2013, where all persons desiring to comment on the proposed amendments were given a full
and complete opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Commission following public comment and deliberation reviewed and
revised staff's recommended amendments, and those proposed revisions were approved by staff;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that, in making the herein
above recommendation, these proposed amendments to the YMC, City Comprehensive Plan
2025, and associated scientific documents have been sufficiently considered, and the
Commission hereby enters the following Findings of Fact:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 36.70 and 36.70B RCW, the Commission has
the legal authority to make a recommendation concerning the adoption of official
controls that implement comprehensive plans.
2. The State of Washington has mandated that the City update its SMP, which
establishes policy, regulates structures and uses waterward and a minimum of 200
feet landward from the ordinary high water mark of its four lakes and two rivers, and
establishes plans for restoration of the shoreline.
3. Structures and uses in shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by a wide variety of
Federal and State agencies, in addition to the regulations in the Shoreline
Management Act and the City's SMP, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
4. The state Shoreline Master Program Guidelines, pursuant to WAC 173-26-171(3),
"allow local governments substantial discretion to adopt master programs reflecting
local circumstances and other local regulatory and none -regulatory programs related
to the policy goals of Shoreline Management...".
5. The City utilized the scientific information from the Yakima County Best Available
Science Document, Yakima County Shoreline Master Program, Cumulative Impact
Analysis, Restoration Plan, WSDOE Guidelines, 2012 WSDOE Guidance for Small
Cities Eastern Washington Version
6. Throughout the SMP process, the City has made a concerted effort to generate
public involvement including multiple public notices and study sessions from
November 2012, through June 2013, regarding the draft ordinance.
Findings of Fact by the City of Yakima Planning Commission regarding City of Yakima SMP 3
7. In accordance with the City's SMP public participation plan, all notices, public
meeting schedule, meeting materials, and SMP materials were posted on the City of
Yakima's website.
8. Both during and after completion of the Planning Commission's 12 public meetings,
City Planning staff continued to incorporate suggested changes to the draft
ordinance to address the concerns of commenting environmental agencies which
were incorporated prior to the required public hearing on August 28, 2013.
9. The Commission held the required public hearing on the above specified date and
approved the proposed SMP and supporting documents.
10. The Commission finds that the City prepared a Cumulative Impact Analysis and
concluded that the updated SMP should protect and maintain shoreline ecological
functions within the City of Yakima while accommodating the reasonably foreseeable
future shoreline development, result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function,
and may improve ecological functions over time through implementation of the
Restoration Plan.
11. The Commission finds that the City provided timely public participation in
consideration of the proposed amendments, consistent with RCW 36.70A.140, WAC
365-195-600, and its adopted Public Participation Program Guidelines.
12. The Commission considered public testimony related to the proposed amendment.
13. The Commission concurs with the Determination of Non -significance (DNS) that was
issued on July 9 and retained on August 2, 2013, for the proposed amendments.
14. The Commission finds it necessary to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan 2025
goals and policies adding a Shoreline section to the 2025 Comprehensive Plan
Natural Element.
15. The Commission finds it necessary to recommend adoption of the following
documents in support of the SMP update process:
a. Yakima County's Cumulative Impact Analysis;
b. Yakima County's Restoration Plan; and
c. City of Yakima's Addendum to Yakima County's Cumulative Impact Analysis
and Restoration Plan
16. Due to new scientific information regarding flows in Cowichee Creek, the
Commission finds it necessary to direct staff to prepare amendment/addendum
documents which provide for the inclusion of Cowichee Creek in the City's SMP, and
schedule a separate public hearing to review the proposed changes.
17. The Commission members present voted unanimously to recommend approval of
the SMP and supporting documents as amended to include minor changes to
address the concerns of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
set forth in Attachment "A".
RECOMMENDATION
Findings of Fact by the City of Yakima Planning Commission regarding City of Yakima SMP 4
It is for the above reasons that the Commission recommends that Council adopt the City
of Yakima's SMP and supporting documents, and amend the City's 2025 Comprehensive
Plan Natural Environment goals and policies, as identified in Attachment "A".
Motion
Based upon the findings outlined above, it was moved and seconded that the City of Yakima
Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of the submitted SMP and supporting
documents. The motion was carried by a unanimous vote.
Benjaminoval, Chairman Date
Yaki�-7 �C'ommission
.._........ 3
Findings of Fact by the City of Yakirna Planning Commission regarding City of Yakima SMP
CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECOMMENDATION
City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program Update: (a) Repeal of the City's Existing
Shoreline Master Program; (b) Adoption of the Updated Shoreline Master Program
in Accordance with RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26; (c) Adoption of Yakima County's
Cumulative Impact Analysis and Restoration Plan; (d) Adoption of the City of
Yakima's Addendum to Yakima County's Cumulative Impact Analysis and
Restoration Plan; and (e) Amendment to the City of Yakima's Comprehensive Plan
2025 Adding a Shoreline Element to the Natural Environment Section
August 28, 2013
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima, hereafter referred to as the "City," pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.040 is required to plan under the provisions of the Growth Management
Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A. 1 30(l), the
City is required to take legislative action to review and revise its comprehensive plan and
development regulations in accordance with the Growth Management Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.020, goals are set forth to guide the
development and adoption of comprehensive plans and adoption of development
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City has utilized Yakima County's 1974 Shoreline Master
Program, hereafter referred to as "SMP," since 1974 to present which was never
formally adopted, but accepted by the Washington State Department of Ecology,
hereafter referred to as "WSDOE"; and
WHEREAS, the State of Washington passed the Shoreline Management Act of
1971 governing the adoption of SMP's, as currently set forth in Chapter 90.58 RCW, and
subject to the WSDOE's administrative rules contained within Chapter 173-26 of the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC); and
WHEREAS, in 2003, the WSDOE adopted new rules (Shoreline Master Program
Guidelines), pursuant to RCW 90.58.200, to carry out the provisions of the Shoreline
Management Act; and
WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.080 directs local governments to develop or amend
their shoreline master programs to be consistent with the required elements of the new
rules adopted by the WSDOE; and
WHEREAS, from approximately 2004 to 2008, the City of Yakima worked
cooperatively with Yakima County and the other jurisdictions of Yakima County to
develop a regional SMP and other supporting scientific documents; and
Findings of Fact by the City of Yakima Planning Commission regarding City of Yakima SMP
WHEREAS, in 2008 due to a procedural issue, the City was not able to adopt the
Yakima County Regional SMP; and
WHEREAS, in late 2011 thru 2012, due to the City's participation in the County
Regional SMP process, the WSDOE allowed the City to utilize the County's Regional
SMP and all of its supporting documentation in the development of its SMP; and
WHEREAS, the City applied for and was awarded a Shoreline Management Act
grant (No. G1200051) from the WSDOE in July 1, 2011 to assist in the preparation and
adoption of a SMP consistent with the new guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2013, the City submitted a Text amendment and State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist application, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Ordinance #2004-14, RCW 36.70A.130 (2), and the
WSDOE SMP guidance documents, the City followed its adopted public participation
program, which included the following:
1. From 2002 to July 2007, the City of Yakima participated in the development and
public participation process for the Yakima County Regional SMP, which
consisted of numerous stakeholder and advisory group meetings comprised of
both agencies/cities and citizens/affected business. There was a total of 36
interest group meetings, 5 public open houses, 6 meetings with city and town
elected officials, 8 city and town staff meetings, 36 Planning Commission study
secessions, 8 stakeholder meetings, and 2 public hearings;
2. November 13, 2012: Notice was provided to property owners inviting them to a
kick off meeting for the City's SMP update.
3. January 31, 2013: A public notice was provided to property owners within the
City's Urban Growth Area and Shoreline areas, but outside the City limits,
indicating that the City would be pre -designating the shoreline areas and inviting
them to participate in the update process;
4. February 25 — 26, 2013: The City conducted meetings with all private interest
groups, government agencies, and/or private property owners who had large
holdings of land along the Yakima and Naches Rivers, or four private shoreline
lakes;
5. November 2012 to June 2013: The City Planning Commission, hereafter
referred to as "YPC," held 12 public meetings to review the various components
of the City's draft SMP;
6. July 9, 2013: A Notice of Application, Notice of Public Hearing, and
Determination of Non -Significance was mailed to all affected property owners,
environmental agencies, private interest groups, and parties of record with 20
days of public comment starting July 9, 2013, and ending on July 29, 2013;
7. July 9, 2013: Posting on the City of Yakima's web site of the draft zoning
amendments; and
8. July 9, 2013: Published notice in a local newspaper of general circulation, issued
a press release to local media, and posted notices at the Planning Division; and
Findings of Fact by the City of Yakima Planning Commission regarding City of Yakima SMP 2
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, notice of all amendments to the City's
development regulations was sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce
prior to the amendments being considered for adoption on July 10, 2013; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2013 thru August 24, 2013, the YPC held multiple study
sessions to review the proposed zoning amendments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) WAC 197-11
and YMC 6.88, and prior to the Commission's hearing, the City issued a Determination
of Non -significance (DNS) on the proposed zoning ordinance amendments on July 9,
2013, and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2013, pursuant to SEPA WAC 197-11 and YMC 6.88, the
City's Planning Division retained its DNS on the proposed amendments, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A and YMC 15.23.020, the YPC is authorized to
make a recommendation to the Yakima City Council, hereafter referred to as the
"Council," for their review, consideration and adoption of development regulation
amendments; and
WHEREAS, an open record public hearing regarding the proposed SMP occurred
on August 28, 2013, where all persons desiring to comment on the proposed
amendments were given a full and complete opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Commission following public comment and deliberation reviewed
and revised staff's recommended amendments, and those proposed revisions were
approved by staff; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that, in making the
herein above recommendation, these proposed amendments to the YMC, City
Comprehensive Plan 2025, and associated scientific documents have been sufficiently
considered, and the Commission hereby enters the following Findings of Fact:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 36.70 and 36.70B RCW, the
Commission has the legal authority to make a recommendation concerning
the adoption of official controls that implement comprehensive plans.
2. The State of Washington has mandated that the City update its SMP, which
establishes policy, regulates structures and uses waterward and a minimum
of 200 feet landward from the ordinary high water mark of its four lakes and
two rivers, and establishes plans for restoration of the shoreline.
3. Structures and uses in shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by a wide variety
of Federal and State agencies, in addition to the regulations in the Shoreline
Findings of Fact by the City of Yakima Planning Commission regarding City of Yakima SMP
Management Act and the City's SMP, including the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
4. The state Shoreline Master Program Guidelines, pursuant to WAC 173-26-
171(3), "allow local governments substantial discretion to adopt master
programs reflecting local circumstances and other local regulatory and none -
regulatory programs related to the policy goals of Shoreline
Management...".
5. The City utilized the scientific information from the Yakima County Best
Available Science Document, Yakima County Shoreline Master Program,
Cumulative Impact Analysis, Restoration Plan, WSDOE Guidelines, 2012
WSDOE Guidance for Small Cities Eastern Washington Version
6. Throughout the SMP process, the City has made a concerted effort to
generate public involvement including multiple public notices and study
sessions from November 2012, through June 2013, regarding the draft
ordinance.
7. In accordance with the City's SMP public participation plan, all notices, public
meeting schedule, meeting materials, and SMP materials were posted on the
City of Yakima's website.
8. Both during and after completion of the Planning Commission's 12 public
meetings, City Planning staff continued to incorporate suggested changes to
the draft ordinance to address the concerns of commenting environmental
agencies which were incorporated prior to the required public hearing on
August 28, 2013.
9. The Commission held the required public hearing on the above specified
date and approved the proposed SMP and supporting documents.
10. The Commission finds that the City prepared a Cumulative Impact Analysis
and concluded that the updated SMP should protect and maintain shoreline
ecological functions within the City of Yakima while accommodating the
reasonably foreseeable future shoreline development, result in no net loss of
shoreline ecological function, and may improve ecological functions over
time through implementation of the Restoration Plan.
11. The Commission finds that the City provided timely public participation in
consideration of the proposed amendments, consistent with RCW
36.70A.140, WAC 365-195-600, and its adopted Public Participation
Program Guidelines.
12. The Commission considered public testimony related to the proposed
amendment.
Findings of Fact by the City of Yakima Planning Commission regarding City of Yakima SMP 4
13. The Commission concurs with the Determination of Non -significance (DNS)
that was issued on July 9 and retained on August 2, 2013, for the proposed
amendments.
14. The Commission finds it necessary to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan
2025 goals and policies adding a Shoreline section to the 2025
Comprehensive Plan Natural Element.
15. The Commission finds it necessary to recommend adoption of the following
documents in support of the SMP update process:
a. Yakima County's Cumulative Impact Analysis;
b. Yakima County's Restoration Plan; and
c. City of Yakima's Addendum to Yakima County's Cumulative Impact
Analysis and Restoration Plan
16. The Commission members present voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the SMP and supporting documents as set forth in Attachment
„A„
RECOMMENDATION
It is for the above reasons that the Commission recommends that Council adopt
the City of Yakima's SMP and supporting documents, and amend the City's 2025
Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment goals and policies, as identified in
Attachment "A".
Motion
Based upon the findings outlined above, it was moved and seconded that the City of
Yakima Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of the submitted SMP and
supporting documents. The motion was carried by a unanimous vote.
Benjamin W. Shoval, Chairman
Yakima Planning Commission
Findings of Fact by the City of Yakima Planning Commission regarding City of Yakima SMP
Date
Don Flcreh
Director STATE OF WASHI CTO
WASHINGTONSTATE PARKS AND RECREATIONCOMMISSION
1111 Israel Road SW - RO, Box 42650 - Olympia, Washington 98504-2650
(360) 902-5500 - Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at (800) 833-6368
www.parks.wa.gov
August 27, 2013
City of Yakima Planning Commission
129 N 2"d Street
Yakima, Washington 98901
RE: Draft Shoreline Master Program Comments
Dear Yakima County Planning Commission:
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Washington State Parks) appreciates
the opportunity to comment on the City's draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP). We also
appreciate the early opportunity to share with your City's Planning staff and consultants
information about property that Washington State Parks owns and operates that will be regulated
by this program. We own the Yakima Sportsman State Park, consisting of 247 acres, including
approximately 26 acres of natural and developed Yakima River shoreline. The park property
extends approximately 150 feet east of the levee and 200 feet on either side of the Blue Slough,
currently in Yakima County but within the city's urban growth area. This park is served by the
Terrace Heights Sewer District.
This important public recreation area provides public shoreline access, as well as a developed
campground, restrooms, parking areas and shoreline dike trails. The park offers 67 campsites, 37
utility and 30 standard sites, three picnic shelters, two residences, a shop, two bathrooms with
showers and one trailer dump station. Fishing and biking are popular recreational activities here,
as well as horse -back riding on the Dike and Island Trails.
Washington State Parks agrees with that any future development within this environment
designation would follow mitigation sequencing to avoid environmental impacts. Our
Commission's Natural Resource Management Policy (73-03-1) says, in part:
New park facility developments shall not be built in critical areas except where the
theme, character, quality or other park planning provides overriding justification for
development in such areas, and appropriate mitigation can be provided
Our future plans may involve the development of a loop trail system within the park and may
connect the park and its trails to a regional trail system through the Yakima Valley Greenway
trail system. We also are considering constructing a designed boat launch on the Yakima River
within the city's Floodway/CMZ designation. We support the SMPs conditions for this.
Page Two
City of Yakima Planning Commission
Washington State Parks Comments, Draft SMP
We believe these recreational shoreline uses will be important for recreationalists. Below is a
planning diagram of our future trail development for this area:
Washington State Parks would like to work with the city and others in acquiring and developing
a future regional shoreline trail system that would provide shoreline views for trail users. All
trails and facilities will be consistent with the "Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood
Hazard Management Plan" and the updated City of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program. If
there is future levee relocation, this would depend upon subsequent environmental analysis
Page Three
City of Yakima Planning Commission
Washington State Parks Comments, Draft SMP
and actual proposals being developed and permitted according to your Critical Area Ordinance
and SMP.
Washington State Parks supports the city's efforts to reduce flood hazards provided in Section
17.05.060 C. of the SMP, whereby the city authorizes new, expansion or redevelopment of levee
trails as an allowed use within the Channel Migration Zone (CMZ). While a careful evaluation
of alternatives for levees is a prudent approach for the construction of new levees with trails,
trails themselves should not have to go through costly studies in order to make a decision about
their location if the trail is to be located on top of the new or expanded levee. As trails
constructed on top of levees is a secondary value/use that is allowed as a result of levee
construction, perhaps acknowledging this and waiving the alternative evaluation of "trail" cost,
design, permitting, construction and long-term maintenance or repair should be considered. The
additional costs associated with permitting and design time from this evaluation process could
place public funding of existing or future levee trails at a disadvantage for limited grant or public
funding. Also, the city should consider adding a category of "trails" to its Shoreline Use or
Modification Table under the Recreational Development category to ensure that the public or
public entities are aware of the type of trails and trail design criteria identified in the City's
critical area ordinance.
Washington State Parks supports Section 17.07.170 that provides a process for multi-year
management plans for maintenance and repair of existing uses and developments located within
the shoreline environments. Exempting these actions from a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit, but not the standards of the SMP, makes sense and will help streamline our maintenance
and redevelopment activities at our park.
Thank you for considering our comments as you move forward with your SMP update process.
We look forward to working with the city once this area is annexed into the city.
Sincerely,
Clwiii ne parlonj
Christine Parsons AICP
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
Cc: Mark Shultz, Eastern Region Washington State Parks
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — PROPOSED CHAPTER 17
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
TXT#003-13, SEPA#013-13
Yakima Planning Commission
Open Record Public Hearing
August 28, 2013
EXHIBIT LIST
Applicant: City of Yakima Planning Division
File Numbers: TXT#003-13, SEPA4013-13
Site Address: Citywide
Staff Contact: Jeff Peters, Associate Planner
Table of Contents
CHAPTER A
Staff Report
CHAPTER B
Draft Shoreline Master Program
CHAPTER C
Addendum to the Yakima County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
CHAPTER D
Comprehensive Plan: Shoreline Element
CHAPTER E
MAPS - Shoreline Jurisdiction & Environment Designations
CHAPTER F
SEPA Checklist
CHAPTER G
Public Notices
CHAPTER H
Public Comments & Response to Comments
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — PROPOSED CHAPTER 17
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
TXT#003-13, SEPA#013-13
EXHIBIT LIST
CHAPTER A
Staff Report
CITY OF YAKIMA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2013 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
August 28, 2013
Open Record Public Hearing ) Staff Report
Concerning Amendment to the ) Staff Contact: Jeff Peters,
City of Yakima's Shoreline Master ) Associate Planner
Program and Comprehensive Plan ) 575-6163
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends to the Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) that the following
proposed amendments to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and 2025
Comprehensive Pan be forwarded to the Yakima City Council with an endorsement for
their approval.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:
1. Under the state Shoreline Management Act, the City must prepare and adopt a
shoreline master program that is based on state guidelines, but tailored to the
specific needs and characteristics of the City. Since 1974, the City of Yakima
has utilized Yakima County's SMP, which has never been formally adopted by
the City or codified (meaning organized into the municipal code).
2. From approximately 2004 to 2008, the City of Yakima worked cooperatively with
Yakima County and the other jurisdictions of Yakima County to develop a
regional SMP. A "Best Available Science" (BAS) document was cooperatively
produced, as well as a draft SMP. Unfortunately, due to procedural issues at the
time, the City of Yakima could not adopt the draft SMP along with the rest of the
jurisdictions in the valley. Following the County adopting their SMP, multiple
agencies and citizen groups appealed the County's SMP to the Growth
Management Hearings Board, and the City of Yakima made the decision not to
adopt or update its SMP until all appeals were addressed.
3. In late 2011-2012, the City of Yakima was reminded of its obligation to update its
SMP by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Due to the City's
participation in the Yakima County Regional SMP process, the City was given
credit and allowed to utilize the Yakima County Regional SMP and all of its
associated BAS to develop and tailor its SMP.
4. This SMP is a comprehensive vision of how shoreline areas can be used and
provides the policy basis; regulations to govern shoreline development, public
access, and environmental preservation; and relies heavily on the science and
work conducted in creating Yakima County's SMP. It is a state program
prepared and implemented by the local jurisdiction (City of Yakima) with state
oversight.
5. Typically, SMPs combine policies, designations and development regulations in
an overall program. This approach has been modified by the Growth
Management Act (GMA), which provides that goals and policies contained in
local SMPs shall be considered an element of the local jurisdiction's
comprehensive plan, and the regulations and maps are considered part of the
jurisdiction's development regulations. It is for this reason that the goals and
policies of the City's draft SMP are proposed to be incorporated into the City of
Yakima's 2025 Comprehensive Plan's Natural Element chapter, and the
regulations of the draft SMP are proposed to be incorporated into the City's
municipal code as Title 17.
REGULATORY REVIEW CRITERIA
1. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (RCW 90,58)
a) The Washington State Legislature passed the Shoreline Management Act in
1971 and it was adopted by voters in 1972 for the purpose of preventing "the
inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's
shoreline". In adopting the Shoreline Management Act, the legislature
acknowledged the need to balance various interests affecting the shorelines
of the state.
b) Pursuant to RCW 90.58.020, it is the policy of the state to provide for the
management of the shorelines by planning for and fostering all reasonable
and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of
these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of
rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the
public interest. This policy contemplates protection against adverse effects to
the public health, the land and its vegetation, wildlife, the waters of the state
and their aquatic life, while generally protecting the public's rights of
navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto.
The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be
paramount in the management of shorelines of statewide significance
[including the Yakima and Naches Rivers], and local government, in
developing master programs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall
give preference to uses in the following order of preference which:
a) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
b) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
c) Result in long term over short term benefits;
d) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
e) Increased public access to publically owned areas or the shoreline;
f) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; and
g) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed
appropriate or necessary.
c) RCW 90.58.050 establishes a cooperative program between state and local
governments in managing shorelines. Local governments have the primary
responsibility for initiating planning and administering the regulatory program
while Ecology acts primarily in supportive and review capacity. Pursuant to
2 g
RCW 90.58.090, master programs and amendments thereto do not go into
effect until approved by Ecology.
d) Pursuant to RCW 90.58.100, "In preparing the master program, Ecology and
the City shall to the extent feasible:
a. Utilize a systematic interdisciplinary approach which will insure the
integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environment
design arts;
b. Consult with and obtain the comments of any federal, state, regional,
or local agency having any special expertise with respect to any
environmental impacts;
c. Consider all plans, studies, surveys, inventories, and systems of
classification made or being made by federal, state, regional, or local
agencies, by private individuals, or by organizations dealing with
pertinent shorelines of the state;
d. Conduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and
interviews as are deemed necessary;
e. Utilize all available information regarding hydrology, geography,
topography, ecology, economics, and other pertinent data;
f. Employ, when feasible, all appropriate modern scientific data
processing and computer techniques to store index, analyze and
manage the information gathered."
e) Pursuant to RCW 90.58.080, the City is required to adopt a master program
consistent with WAC 173-26 on or before December 1, 2013. Following the
update, the City is required to review the master program every eight years.
If the City fails to obtain approval of its SMP, Ecology is authorized through
rule making to adopt a master program for the City.
2. WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (WAC 173-26)
a) WAC 173-26, Part III contains the guidelines for development of a master
program for regulation of uses and development in the shoreline. The
guidelines are guiding parameters, standards, and review criteria for local
master programs. The guidelines allow local governments' substantial
discretion to adopt master programs reflecting local circumstances and other
local regulatory and non -regulatory programs related to the policies and goals
of the Shoreline Management Act and provided in the policy statements of
RCW 90.58.020.
b) WAC 173-26-166 articulates the foundation concepts that underpin the
guidelines that the City's SMP must comply with. These include:
a) The guidelines are subordinate to the act.
b) The guidelines are intended to reflect the policy goals of the act.
c) All relevant policy goals must be addressed in the planning policies of
master programs.
d) The planning policies of master programs may be achieved by a
number of means, only one of which is the regulation of development.
e) The policy goals of the act, implemented by the planning policies of
master programs, may not be achievable by development regulation
alone. Planning policies should be pursued through the regulations of
development of private property only to an extent that is consistent
with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations on the
regulations of private property.
f) The territorial jurisdictions of the master program's planning function
and regulatory function are legally distinct. Goals and policies must
look beyond the jurisdiction while regulations are limited to the
jurisdiction.
g) The planning policies and regulatory provisions of master programs
and the comprehensive plans and development regulations, adopted
under the Growth Management Act, shall be integrated and
coordinated.
h) The principles regarding protecting shoreline ecological systems are
accomplished by these guidelines in several ways. These include:
• Local government is guided in its review so that it uses a
process that identifies, inventories, and ensures meaningful
understanding of current and potential ecological functions
provided by affected shorelines.
• Local master programs shall include policies and regulations
designed to achieve no net loss of ecological function.
• Local master programs shall include regulations and
mitigation standards ensuring that each permitted use or
development will not cause a net loss of ecological functions
of the shoreline within constitutional constraints on the
regulation of private property.
i) For counties and cities containing any shorelines with impaired
ecological functions, master programs shall include goals and policies
that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological functions.
j) Local master programs shall evaluate and consider cumulative
impacts of reasonably foreseeable development on shoreline
ecological functions and other shoreline functions fostered by the
policy goals of the act.
k) To the extent consistent with the policy and use preference of RCW
90.58.020, local governments have reasonable discretion to balance
the various policy goals of WAC 173-26, in light of other relevant local,
state, and federal regulatory and non -regulatory programs, and to
modify master programs to reflect changing circumstances.
c) In addition, WAC 173-27 contains the Shoreline Management Permit and
Enforcement Procedures.
3. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (RCW 36.70A)
a. The state legislature found that it is in the public interest that citizens,
communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and
coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning. The
Act sets forth thirteen planning goals. The City of Yakima has adopted its
2025 Comprehensive Plan that implements the goals of the Growth
Management Act.
b. RCW 36.70A.480 adopts the goals and policies of the Shoreline
Management Act (RCW 90.58.020) as a goal of the Growth Management
DOC.
4 INDEX
Act. The goals and policies of the City of Yakima's Shoreline Master
Program are considered an element of the City's 2025 Comprehensive
Plan, and are proposed to be amended with this update.
The City's Critical Area regulations adopted under the Growth Management
Act (YMC 15.27) continue to apply to shoreline areas until a comprehensive
SMP is adopted. After which critical area regulations adopted under the
Shoreline Management Act shall apply to shoreline areas. Additionally,
shoreline master programs are required to provide a level of protection of
critical areas located within shorelines that assures no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as
defined by Ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060,
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
1. Public Participation:
The City of Yakima provided extensive opportunities for the public to participate
and comment on the development of the SMP. The following is a summary of
these opportunities:
Meetings:
• From 2002 to July 2007, the City of Yakima participated in the
development and public participation process for the Yakima County
Regional SMP, which consisted of numerous stakeholder and advisory
group meetings comprised of both agencies/cities and citizens/affected
business. This process included 36 meetings with interest groups, five
public open houses, six meetings with city and town elected officials (the
Countywide Planning Policy Committee), eight city and town staff
meetings, 36 Planning Commission Study Sessions, and eight
Stakeholder Roundtable Meetings, followed by public hearings before the
Yakima County Planning Commission, and public hearings before the
Yakima County Board of County Commissioners. Completion of this
process rendered adoption of an updated SMP, BAS document, shoreline
inventory and analysis, cumulative impact analysis, and restoration plan
on July 31, 2007.
On February 25 — 26, 2013, the City and its consultants contacted all of
the private interest groups, government agencies, and/or private property
owners who had large holdings of land along the Yakima and Naches
Rivers, or four private lakes, and conducted individual meetings to
ascertain the needs and concerns of the groups.
From November 2012 to June 2013, the City of Yakima's Planning
Commission held 12 public meetings to review the various components of
the City's draft SMP.
Notices:
• On November 13, 2012, the City of Yakima sent out a letter to all property
owners within the proposed shoreline jurisdictional area inviting them to a
5
kick off meeting for the City's SMP update, and directing them to the
City's website where all shoreline review materials would be posted.
On January 31, 2013, the City of Yakima decided to pre -designate the
shoreline areas within its Urban Growth Area (UGA). A letter was mailed
to all property owners outside the City limits, but within the City's UGA,
inviting them to participate in the City's SMP update process, and
directing them to the City's website where all shoreline review materials
would be posted.
• On July 10, 2013, the City of Yakima mailed the required 60 -day Notice of
Intent to adopt to the Washington State Department of Commerce.
• All meeting material was posted on the City of Yakima's Shorelines web
page at: tt:llwvvvinr.yakima�va.c�ovlsrvices/rslannin fcit-o®vai a®
shorelines -master -oro rim-uodatel.
• A Notice of Application, Notice of Public Hearing and Determination of
Non -Significance regarding the City's draft SMP was mailed on July 9,
2013, to all affected property owners, environmental agencies, private
interest groups, and parties of record. This notice also provided for 20
days of public comment, which ended on July 29, 2013.
• PUBLIC NOTICE PROVIDED FOR HEARING Date Accomplished
Notice of Application
Legal Ad Publication
Notice of Public Hearing
July 9, 2013
2. Environmental Review:
On July 9, 2013, the City of Yakima issued a Notice of Application,
Environmental Review, Public Hearing, and Determination of Non -Significance
for this project.
Six public comments were received during the required 20 -day public comment
period where all interested parties and agencies had the right to comment. The
City of Yakima subsequently made some minor amendments to the draft
ordinance addressing some of the commenters concerns, and issued a Notice of
Retention Regarding its Determination of Non -Significance for SEPA File #013-
13, on August 2, 2013. The 14 -day appeal period for this environmental
determination lapsed on August 19, 2013, with no appeals filed.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED (as of August 2, 2013).
Who
Comments Received
Phil Ri don: Yakama Nation
July 22, 2013
Joel Freudenthal: Yakima County Public Services, Surface
Water Management Division
July 29, 2013
Eric Bartrand: State Department of Fish and Wildlife
July 29, 2013
Paul Gonseth, P.E.: Washington State Department of
August 1, 2013
Who Comments Received
Transportation
Jesse Heaverlo: Heaverlo Properties LLC July 22, 2013
Larry Meeks, Director: Yakima County Dike District #1 July 29, 2013
STAFF ANALYSIS
APPROACH TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
The City of Yakima as previously stated in this report is required to update its
SMP to meet the 2003 WSDOE Shoreline Master Program Guidelines. Due to
the fact that the City participated in the Yakima County Regional SMP update
process, and has adopted all of the supporting environmental documents of the
County update, the WSDOE has allowed the City of Yakima to utilize all of the
County's SMP documents to update its SMP. The only stipulations are that:
1) the City must provide an addendum to the County Cumulative Impact Analysis
and Restoration Plan identifying the changes the City made from the County
SMP and their impacts, 2) that the City could not modify the Floodplain/Channel
Migration Zone environment designation or standards, and 3) that the City could
not modify the shoreland extent with respect to incorporation of certain portions
of floodplains that are greater than the minimum requirement.
Based upon the two above restrictions, the City's general philosophy for the
update has been to:
a. Review the Yakima County Regional SMP and Shoreline Invento
0
C.
INVENTORY
against: ry
i. the WSDOE SMP Guidelines;
ii. the 2012 WSDOE Appendix 8-D: Guidance on Widths of Buffers
and Ratios for ComDensatory Mitigation for Use with the Eastern
Washington Wetland Rating System. In Wetlands in Washington
State Volume 2; and
iii. the existing characteristics of the City's shorelines.
Revise the environment designations, shoreline buffer widths, uses, and
regulations based upon the City's local conditions, SMP Handbook
guidance on shoreline buffers, and the WSDOE wetland regulations
guidance document, and;
Modify the SMP regulations and application process to more closely
follow the requirements of state law, the SMP guidance documents, and
the use of the shoreline by private property owners.
2. The City of Yakima's shoreline inventory has changed minimally since the City's
adoption of Yakima County's 1974 SMP, with approximately 1,263 acres of
shoreline areas in the City of Yakima and its Urban Growth Area. All of the City's
shoreline private lakes are either built out with residential, commercial, industrial,
or recreational uses. The properties abutting the two rivers, the Naches and
Yakima, are generally encumbered by Interstate or the Yakima Greenway, and
Federal levee providing the citizens of Yakima with flood protection.
3. The City has re-evaluated key existing condition elements as part of assessing
the need for unique environment designations and shoreline buffers. Section
7 DOC,
INDEX
,,,,,
3.2.1 of the Cumulative Impact Analysis provides a summary of conditions for
those areas for which environment designations and shoreline buffers were
altered from the County SMP. The following tables summarize the distribution of
environment designations by ownership and waterbody within the City's shoreline
jurisdiction and UGA.
Table 1. Shoreline Jurisdiction Acreage Distribution by Ownership and
Environment Designation (percent).
Owner
Aquatic
Floodway
1 CMZ
High
Intensity
Shoreline
Residential
Urban
Conservancy
Total % by
Ownership
Private
84.4
20.4
94.5
78.0
47.6
41.4
City
0.1
9.8
0.1
18.6
16.6
10.0
County
7.8
27.7
0.9
0.0
11.8
18.8
Federal
3.5
4.5
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.4
WSDOT
0.6
15.6
3.6
0.0
4.0
9.9
WDFW
0.5
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
...................
1.0
WA State
Parks
0.0
13.0
0.2
0.0
13.2
.........................
9.9
Other State
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
Greenway
3.1
4.7
0.0
0.0
3.4
3.6
Canal/
Irrigation
0.0
0.1
0.3
3.5
0.0
0.3
Railroad
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.3
Total % by
Designation
9.5
57.0
7.5
7.3
18.7
Table 2. Shoreline Jurisdiction Acreage Distribution by Ownership, Environment
Designation and Waterbody (percent).
DOC.
INDEX
# _-
a
M
Waterbody
c
(Acres ofo
shoreline
Floodway
High
a
t m
o
jurisdiction)
Owner
Aquatic
1 CMZ_
Intensity
N
M V
Total
Berglund
County
1
1
Lake
(12.5 acres
private
99
99
City
0
0
Buchanan
Private
85
$5
Lake
City
3
3
(62.8 acres)
Private
11
1
12
Cowiche
Canal/
0
4
4
Creek
Irrigation
(75.1 acres)
City
0
23
23
DOC.
INDEX
# _-
The figures below graphically illustrate the distribution of overall shoreline jurisdiction by
owner and the distribution of ownership just within the Floodway/CMZ environment.
IIS
INDEX
A•••••' i nnnn.mimm
v
e�
� w
c
Waterbody
d
Z
�,
(Acres of`o
shoreline
Floodway
High
H
t 0
c
p
jurisdiction)
Owner
Aq uatic
1 CMZ
Intensity
N O�
v
Total
Private
7
66
73
Lake Aspen
36.8 acres
Private
40
60
100
County
65
65
Private
4
4
Myron Lake
WDFW
4
4
(14.2 acres)
Yakima
Greenway
27
27
Foundation
City
0
11
8
19
Naches
County
54
0
5
59
Private
1
7
0
7
15
River
(181.0
Railroad
0
0
acres)
WDFW
0
0
Greenway
2
0
3
6
Willow Lake
Private
37
62
1
99
(52.2 acres)
WDFW
1
1
Canal/
Irri ation
0
0
0
0
City
0
6
3
..........
9
County
12
0
2
...............
15
Federal
1
4
1
,,,...........
5
Yakima
Private
0
16
6
12
34
River
(828 5
Railroad
0
0
0
0
State
2
2
acres)
WSOOT
0
14
0
1
15
WDFW
1
.......................
1
WA State
Parks15
11
0
4
Greenway
4
0
0
4
The figures below graphically illustrate the distribution of overall shoreline jurisdiction by
owner and the distribution of ownership just within the Floodway/CMZ environment.
IIS
INDEX
A•••••' i nnnn.mimm
0
Percent Ownership for
Entire Shoreline
Jurisdiction - Specific
1.7
h Private
iuuuState
10 0 Greenway
3.4 ■ Federal
3.6 iyti _.
it City
Percent
Ownership
Environment
Designation
r,,
0.4
ua Priva to
IJJJJJ Public
i �� Other
Percent Ownership b
.,Specific
0.4
Pnvate
ustale
i
126reenway
Wederat
4.5
11111111city
4.7
4. Public access to the City of Yakima's shorelines can mainly be found along the
Yakima Greenway, which borders the Yakima and Naches Rivers.
SHORELINE POLICIES
5. The proposed shoreline policies apply to shoreline uses and development
activities. They address general shoreline goals, environment designations and
management criteria, and shoreline uses and modifications. These goals and
policies are consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and are proposed to
be adopted as a section within the City of Yakima's 2025 Comprehensive Plan
Natural Element chapter.
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS
6. Shoreline master programs are required to contain a system that classifies
shoreline areas into specific environment designations. Classification is based
on the existing use pattern, the biological and physical character of the shoreline,
and the goals and aspirations of the community as expressed through the
comprehensive plan. The proposed shoreline environments for the City of
Yakima are: Shoreline Residential, High Intensity, Essential Public Facilities,
Aquatic, Floodway/CMZ, and Urban Conservancy.
7. Classification criteria for environment designations are set forth in WAC 173-26-
211.
DOC.
10 ADEX
a. Shoreline Residential is assigned to lands that are predominantly
single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned
and platted for residential development.
The two shoreline areas that include Shoreline Residential
designations occur along Willow Lake and Lake Aspen.
b. High Intensity is assigned to shorelands that presently support or are
planned to accommodate commercial, industrial, urban recreational,
transportation, or high-intensity water -oriented uses. Areas
designated as High Intensity include:
a. Willow Lake: Several developed and vacant industrially zoned
parcels that range in size from 5 to 14 acres are located on the
south and western portions ;
b. Lake Aspen: Developed properties along the eastern side of
the lake;
c. Buchanan Lake: The north side of Buchanan Lake;
d. Yakima River — Terrace Heights Drive;
e. Yakima River -- Keyes Road;
f. Yakima River —West Birchfield Road;
g. Blue Slough: The lands along the Blue Slough.
c. Essential Public Facilities is assigned to shorelands containing state
or regional transportation facilities and waste water handling facilities.
d. The Aquatic designation applies to areas waterward of the ordinary
high water mark of shoreline lakes.
e. The Floodway/CMZ and Urban Conservancy designations continue
from the Regional SMP process. The FloodwaylCMZ designation is
assigned to shoreline areas that are within a mapped Channel
Migration Zone and/or within a designated FEMA Floodway. The
Urban Conservancy designation is intended to protect and restore
ecological functions of open space, floodplain and other sensitive
lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing
a variety of compatible uses.
SHORELINE USE TABLE
8. The use table set forth in Section 17.03.070 identifies allowed and prohibited
uses applicable to each shoreline environment designation. The listings in the
table are based on state guidelines for certain uses, and zoning code for other
uses.
DOC.
11 INDEX
The City has allowed a few specific uses not identified in the County's SMP.
These allowed uses and the rationale for changes from the County SMP are as
follows:
• Non-commercial aquaculture: This allows for conservation hatchery
facilities, and other facilities that benefit shoreline functions.
• Public, community, and commercial boat launches, as well as private
boat launches in the High Intensity ED: Boat launches are needed to
improve access for river rescue safety and public access. Few boat
launches would be anticipated, and they would need to follow mitigation
sequencing to avoid impacts.
• Piers and docks in the High Intensity, Shoreline Residential, and Aquatic
EDs: Piers and docks are only allowed on lake shorelines, and this
allowance is consistent with existing conditions.
• Expansion of roads, highways, bridges, and railroads: Any expansion of
transportation infrastructure would need to follow mitigation sequencing
to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for effects on shoreline functions.
• Allowing maintenance plans comprehensively addressing maintenance
and repair and related activities for roads, parks, wastewater treatment,
lake water quality plans, etc.
SHORELINE SETBACKS AND BUFFERS
9. WAC 173-26-211 requires environment designations to include standards for
shoreline setbacks/buffers. Proposed shoreline buffers are found in Table
09.030-1 and proposed wetland buffers are found in Table 09.040-1. Prior to the
current draft SMP, the City of Yakima's 1974 SMP allowed for setbacks of 50 to
100 feet depending upon shoreline use.
10. The 100 -foot buffer is maintained from the County's SMP in the Essential Public
Facilities, Urban Conservancy, and Floodway/CMZ environment designations.
Proposed buffers are reduced in the new Shoreline Residential and High
Intensity designations based on City -specific existing conditions in those
developed areas. Proposed buffers in the High Intensity and Shoreline
Residential designations are expected to maintain existing ecological functions.
11. The City updated the County's SMP regulations for protection of wetlands
consistent with Ecology's Guidance for Small Cities Eastern Washington Version,
revised October 2012.
MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS
12. WAC 173-26-211 requires Residential environmental designations to include
standards for density or minimum water frontages widths. The City of Yakima
addresses this requirement through application of both the density standards of
12
the underlying property's zoning district and zoning ordinance minimum lot
frontage requirements. Minimum lot frontage requirements can be found in
Section 17.03.080.
LOT COVERAGE LIMITATIONS
13. WAC 173-26-211 requires Residential environment designations to include a
standard for lot coverage limitations. The City of Yakima's Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance (UAZO) Title 15 Table 5-1 Development Standards were utilized to
meet this requirement.
USE SPECIFIC SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
14. Use specific development standards are general requirements that apply to all
types of use regardless of the underlying environment designation.
15. WAC 173-26-241 requires master programs to have standards for recreational
development. Key requirements for pubic recreational facilities include that they
must be designed and operated in a manner consistent with the environment
designation and that no net loss of ecological functions occurs. The recreational
requirements of this master program were developed to be consistent with the
policies supporting pedestrian and bicycle pathways and connections, the
Yakima Greenway, and other recreational opportunities in and along the Yakima
and Naches Rivers. The recreational standards of this SMP may be found in
Section 17.07.100.
16. WAC 173-26-241 requires master programs to have standards for boating
facilities. Boating facilities are distinguished from individual properties in that
these are community, public, commercial or industrial in nature. Boating facilities
requirements may be found in Section 17.07.030. Docks are prohibited in free-
flowing streams and rivers and are only allowed in the lakes. Only
public/community/commercial boat launches are allowed on the river shores to
meet public recreation or safety needs. Boat launches deemed shall be
designed and constructed using methods/technology that as been recognized
and approved by state and federal resource agencies.
17. The requirements for Essential Public Facilities may be found in Section
17.03.040, which requires no net loss of ecological function, environmental
cleanup and restoration of shoreline areas, and mitigation sequencing,
18. WAC 173-26-241 requires master programs to have standards for transportation,
parking, and utilities. The proposed SMP provides standards for Transportation
and Parking under section 17.07.150, and Utilities under section 17.07.160.
PRIVATE PIERS, DOCKS AND BOAT LAUNCHES
19. WAC 173-26-231 defines docks associated with single-family residences as a
water -dependent use provided it is designed for access to watercraft. Piers and
docks are required to be the minimum size necessary to meet the need of the
single-family residence, along with the other standards of meeting no net loss of
ecological function, and the requirement for new residential development of two
or more dwellings to provide a shared pier or dock rather than individual.
13
INDEX
L..,
20. The proposed SMP limits the size of private docks and piers in both Lakes Aspen
and Willow in accordance with the covenants and restrictions of those private
lakes and/or consistent with the existing conditions. These standards may be
found in section 17.07.030.
21. The inventory for docks and piers, as determined by Google Earth photo
examination, for all the shorelines of the City of Yakima is as follows:
Lake Aspen: approximately 53 residential moorage structures
Willow Lake: approximately 17 residential moorage structures
Most of the residential properties have a structure for boat moorage; there is little
potential for new structures.
SHORELINE STABILIZATION
22. The regulations for shoreline stabilization may be found in section 17.07.130.
This section of the SMP is based almost entirely on state guidelines which
require that:
a. Shoreline stabilization projects are only allowed 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. A geotechnical analysis must estimate time frames and rates of erosion
and urgency of the erosion control;
c. New hard shoreline stabilization solutions are not allowed for primary
structures unless there is a significant possibility that such structure will
be damaged within three years;
d. New development shall be located and designed to avoid the need for
future shoreline stabilization;
e. Stabilization projects shall be developed under the supervision of, or in
consultation with, agencies or professionals with appropriate expertise;
and
f. Soft stabilization standards are preferred over hardened stabilization.
SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS
23. One of the primary goals of the Shoreline Management Act is to increase public
access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. WAC 173-26-221 requires
master programs to have policies and regulations that protect and enhance both
physical and visual public access to the shorelines. Single-family residences not
part of planned developments of four or fewer properties are exempt, in addition
to where it can be demonstrated to be infeasible due to reasons of incompatibly,
safety, impact to the shoreline environment, or due to legal or constitutional
limitations.
24. The development standards for Public Access can be found in section 17.05.050
of the draft SMP. To meet the above state requirements, the City relies almost
entirely on access to its shorelines through the trails and pathways of the Yakima
Greenway which provides 9.77 lineal miles of pathway that follow the Yakima
and Naches Rivers and Rotary Lake. While direct access to the shorelines of
14
Lakes Aspen, Willow, and Buchanan is not allowed due to private ownership, the
Yakima Greenway does provide visual access to these shoreline areas.
25. Due to the close proximity of the Yakima Greenway to the City's shoreline rivers
and lakes, the City has proposed development standards that allow applicants for
shoreline conditional and substantial development permits to be excepted from
site by site public access standards when:
a. Reasonable, safe, and convenient public access to the shoreline is
accessible within one-quarter mile of the site, and the City's adopted
parks and recreation plans do not indicate a need for a trail or access at
the property;
b. The site is within or part of an overall development which has previously
provided public access through other application processes;
c. The economic cost of proving for public access upon the site is
unreasonable disproportionate to the long term economic value of the
proposed use, activity or development... ;
d. The proposed use, activity or development has security requirements that
are not feasible to address through the application of alternative design
features or other measures...
e. See other exceptions and provisions at 17.05.050.
GENERAL SHORELINE REGULATIONS
26. No net loss of shoreline ecological functions is one of the key standards for
updating master programs. This standard is designed to stop the introduction of
new impacts to shoreline ecological functions resulting from new uses or
development authorized by local jurisdictions' SMPs. Where the shoreline
master program provides specific standards, it is assumed that compliance with
"no net loss" is achieved. Where site-specific standards are not provided, a
"mitigation sequencing" analysis is required to demonstrate that ecological
functions have not been lost.
27. Mitigation sequencing is required pursuant to WAC 173-26.201 (2)(e)(i), and is
provided in section YMC 17.05.020.0 and D.
28. WAC 173-26-231 contains requirements for dredging (17.07.050), fill (17.07.060)
breakwaters, jetties, groins and weirs (17.07.080), and archeological resources
(17.05.010). The City's draft SMP contains provisions for these development
standards, and some of the standards for archeological resources were further
modified to address comments provided by the Yakama Nation.
29. WAC 173-26-221(5) establishes principles and general standards for vegetation
conservation that are required in the master program. In developing the
vegetation standards of 17.05.030, the City of Yakima worked with the Yakima
Flood Control Zone District and Yakima Greenway to provide regulations which
provide for removal of non-native and dangerous vegetation while reducing or
eliminating the chance of "net loss of ecological functions".
30. In developing regulations for non -conforming uses, structures and lots found in
sections 17.11.010, 020, and 030, the City of Yakima followed the requirements
DOC
15 INDEX
of YMC 15.19 and WAC 173-27-080 providing for the continuation, expansion,
and reconstruction of damaged or destroyed non -conforming uses, structures,
and lots. The City also opted to include standards that recognize pre-existing
legal residential uses per RCW 90.58.620.
CRITICAL AREAS
31. State law requires critical area within shoreline area to be regulated by the
shoreline master program. In 2008, the City of Yakima modified and adopted the
Yakima County Regional SMP's Critical Areas ordinance to meet its state GMA
requirements. In 2009, Yakima County's Critical Areas ordinance was appealed
to the Growth Management Hearings Board and amended to be compliant in
2010. As a result of these changes, the City of Yakima has utilized Yakima
County's 2010 Critical Area Ordinance Critical Aquifer Recharge Area standards
in the development of its SMP Critical Area requirements.
32. In crafting the critical area regulations for shoreline areas, RCW 90.58.090(4)
requires shoreline critical areas regulations to provide at least equal protection as
the City's adopted critical area regulations. In addition, the shoreline critical area
regulations must provide a level of protection to ensure no net loss of ecological
functions (WAC 173-26-221(2)). WAC 173-266-201 (2)(a) requires that the most
current, accurate, and complete scientific, and technical information available be
used. By utilizing both the City's adopted critical area ordinance, the latest
Ecology wetland guidance documents, and revised county Critical Aquifer
Recharge Area standards, the City ensures that the shoreline regulations will
provide the appropriate level of protection.
AREAS OF DIVERGENCE FROM YAKIMA COUNTY'S REGIONAL SMP
33. Shoreline Jurisdiction Cowiche Creek: The City's SMP excludes Cowiche
Creek from shoreline jurisdiction based on the shoreline criteria found in the Act,
and the combined weight of stream gauge data which does not include 10
consecutive years, and United States Geologic Survey (USGS) modeling.
Ecology concurred with this assessment on May 22, 2013.
Consistent with the Yakima County Regional SMP, Washington Department of
Ecology's GIS data set shows that the Yakima and Naches Rivers are Shorelines
(20 cfs or greater), and further are Shorelines of Statewide Significance (200 cfs
or greater). Cowiche Creek is also noted in Yakima County's current SMP as a
Shoreline. However, Cowiche Creek is not identified in Ecology's suggested
shoreline data set as a Shoreline (See Cumulative Impacts Analysis for complete
explanation).
During the SEPA comment period for the draft SMP, the Yakama Nation
submitted data that showed much higher mean annual flow rates for Cowiche
Creek during relatively short periods of time, and suggested that Cowiche Creek
be included in shoreline jurisdiction. To address the wide range and accuracy of
the available data, the City of Yakima has submitted all scientific
information/studies on the issue to the WSDOE to determine the stream's
jurisdiction. Should the stream be found to meet the requirements to be included
in jurisdiction, the City will adopt a stand-alone addendum to its SMP to address
Cowiche Creek.
16
34. Regulations for Shoreline Use Modifications: In developing the regulations
for shoreline use and modifications, the City of Yakima generally relied on the
guidance of the state RCWs and WACs that pertain to SMP development and
less on the specific standards developed by Yakima County during their SMP
update process. The following table provides a summary of the changes in the
proposed City of Yakima SMP compared to the Yakima County Regional SMP.
Table 1. Summary of changes in the proposed City of Yakima SMP compared to
the Yakima County Regional SMP and the anticipated effect on ecological
functions.
Changes in City SMP compared to
County's Regional SMP
General Regulations
Effect on Ecological
Functions
Environmental
New section that applies to all areas in
Maintains- provisions
Protection-
shoreline jurisdiction, not just critical
protect ecological functions
17.05.020
areas and their buffers.
• Requires no net loss of functions (A).
• Requires mitigation sequencing and
preparation of a mitigation plan for any
shoreline use or modification that is not
entirely addressed by specific,
objective standards in the proposed
SMP C -E .
Shoreline
New section that applies in and outside
Maintains- provisions
Vegetation
of critical areas within shoreline
require mitigation
Conservation-
jurisdiction,
sequencing for vegetation
17.05.030
. Requires mitigation for adverse
removal
impacts resulting from vegetation
removal.
Water Quality,
• Added a general standard that
Maintains- implementation
Stormwater, and
development shall maintain surface
of BMPs will help maintain
Non -Point
and groundwater quantity and quality,
water quality functions
Pollution-
and maintain no net loss of ecological
17.05.040
functions (A).
• Added standards that new
development and redevelopment must
comply with the latest edition of the
Stormwater Management Manual for
Eastern Washington, and best
management practices must be
employed, even if the Manual's
thresholds (e.g., area of disturbance)
are not met (C)(1).
Public Access-
Section consolidated from many areas of
NA
17.05.050
the Regional SMP and added provisions
consistent with the SMP Guidelines,
Flood Hazard
New section that establishes uses and
Maintains- limits potential
Reduction-
standards for modifications within the
new
17.05.060
channel migration zone (CMZ) and
restrictions/obstructions on
floodwa .
the CMZ and floodwa
17 D10C.
[NIDE'
A ..
Changes in City SMP compared to
Effect on Ecological
County's Regional SMP
Functions
• Only development and subdivision in
the floodway or CMZ that will not
require structural shoreline stabilization
measures is allowed (F).
• Prohibits flood hazard reduction
measures that will channelize stream
flows, interfere with hydraulic
processes, or undermine existing
structures or downstream banks (E).
Shoreline Uses and
Modifications
Agriculture-
Added provision prohibiting concentrated
Maintains- concentrated
17.07.010
animal feeding operations (D).
feedlots are prohibited
under City's zoning
Aquaculture-
Add standard that encourages
Maintainsllmproves-
17.07.020
aquaculture that promotes recovery of
potential to bolster listed
listed species or public recreation C
species recover
Boating Facilities
Adds standards for boat ramps to ensure
Maintains- Boat ramps will
and Private
that they minimize the effect on channel
be required to minimize
Moorage
form and hydraulics (G)(1).
(and mitigate) for impacts
Facilities-
per Environmental
17.07.030
Protection standards
17.05.020
Commercial-
Added provision that mixed-use
Improves- provides
17.07.040
commercial development in shoreline
incentive for restoration.
jurisdiction must provide public benefit
Consistent with WAC 173 -
such as ecological restoration and public
26-241(3)(d).
access (C).
Dredge and
• Added standards that new
Maintains- Development will
Dredge
development shall be sited and
not exacerbate the need for
Disposal-
designed to avoid or, if that is not
dredging, and dredging will
17.07.050
possible, to minimize the need for new
require mitigation
and maintenance dredging (A).
sequencing
• Add standard that where dredging is
permitted, mitigation sequencing must
be followed (B).
Fill- 17.07.060
• Fills shall meet no net loss of
Maintains- provides
ecological function (A)
standards to ensure that fill
• Establishes allowed applications of fill
does not affect ecological
in sensitive areas and upland areas (B-
functions
C)
• Erosion control measures and BMPs
must be implemented G
Industrial-
Refinements to language made to more
NA
17.07.070
closely respond to SMP Guidelines for
conditions under which non -water -
oriented uses are allowed.
In -Water
New Section
Maintains- Standards
Structures-
• New standard that in -water structures
maintain functions and
Changes in City SMP compared to
Effect on Ecological
County's Regional SMP
Functions
17.07.080 do not degrade water quality (C).
processes
• New standard requiring in -water
structures to provide for the protection
and preservation of ecosystem -wide
processes, ecological functions, and
cultural resources (F).
Mining-
No substantive change _
_
NA
17.07.090
Recreation-
Added provision that recreational uses
Maintains- ensures no net
17.07.100
shall not result in a net loss of ecosystem
loss
functions.
Residential-
Added provision to ensure that shoreline
Maintains- minimizes
17.07.110
stabilization and flood control structures
occurrence of new
are not necessary to protect proposed
stabilization features and
residences (C).
encourages adequate
shoreline setbacks
Shoreline Habitat
New section to provide standards to
Improves- maximizes
and Natural
ensure that shoreline enhancement is
benefits of shoreline
System
based on the best available science and
enhancement
Enhancement-
that they are maintained and monitored
17,07.120
for long-term sustainability.
Shoreline
No substantive change
NA
Stabilization -
17.07.130
Transportation-
Added provision requiring that new or
Maintains- limits potential
17 07.150
expanded transportation and parking
effect of new pollutant
facilities be designed and located to
generating impervious
have the least possible adverse effect on
surfaces on water quality
unique or fragile shoreline features, and
and quantity, as well as
that they will not result in a net loss of
habitat connectivity
shoreline ecological functions (B).
Utilities-
Added provision prohibiting new or
Maintains- minimizes
17.07.160
expanded non -water -oriented utilities
habitat fragmentation
within shoreline jurisdiction unless no
resulting from new utility
feasible alternative exists (B).
corridors.
Redevelopment,
Section added to provide a process for
Maintains- provides
Repair,,, and
multi-year management plans for
administrative clarity on
Maintenance-
maintenance and repair for:
exempt development.
17.07 170
1, Dredging
Exempt development must
2. Private development and facilities on
still meet SMP provisions.
private lakes
Application criteria include
3. Public Parks and Recreation
providing information
4. Transportation facilities
regarding:
S. Utility facilities, including, but not
. aquatic habitat protection
limited to wastewater and water
measures
systems
• riparian and wetland
protection measures
• stormwater management
19
INDEX
1
Existing Uses,
Structures and
Lots- 17.11
Changes in City SNIP compared to Effect on Ecological
County's Regional SMP Functions
practices
• erosion and sediment
control practices
• re -vegetation or
restoration activities
• chemical and nutrient use
and containment practice:
Amends standards to be consistent with NA
WAC requirements for existing
residential development.
35. Shoreline Buffer Widths: The proposed regulations establish allowed and
prohibited uses within hydrologically related critical areas, as well as vegetative
buffer standards for streams and lakes. Unlike the County SMP, which
established a 100 -foot buffer for all shoreline streams and lakes, the City's SMP
proposes regulations based on existing conditions, environment designations,
and stream typing. The 100 -foot buffer is maintained in the Essential Public
Facilities, Urban Conservancy, and Floodway/CMZ EDs. Proposed buffers are
reduced in the Shoreline Residential and High Intensity EDs, as indicated in
Table 2. Proposed buffers in the High Intensity and Shoreline Residential EDs
are consistent with, and are expected to maintain, existing functions (see
Cumulative Impact Analysis for complete explanation).
Table 2. Proposed shoreline buffer widths in the High Intensify and Shoreline
Residential environment designations.
High
Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Proposed
Buffer
Existing Conditions
Proposed
Buffer
Existing Conditions
Streams
75 feet
• City and UGA on
NA
City: NA
Yakima River: High
intensity
development is
separated from the
shoreline by the
Yakima Greenway
Trail and a levee.
Shoreline vegetation
is limited
• UGA on Blue Slough:
30-100 feet of intact
vegetation separates
Blue Slough from low
intensity industrial
uses.
Lakes
50 feet*
City: 0-50 foot
20 feet
Fully developed residential
setback for high
development with
20 DOC'
IINDEX
High Intensity
Proposed Existing Conditions
Buffer
Shoreline Residential
Proposed
rm..rfe. I Existing Conditions
36. Net Effect on Ecological Function: The City's Addendum to the Yakima
County Regional CIA indicates that the proposed City of Yakima SMP is
expected to maintain existing shoreline functions within the City of Yakima while
accommodating the reasonably foreseeable future shoreline development. As
discussed in the City's Cumulative Impact Analysis, the areas of divergence from
the County's Regional SMP fall into five general categories:
1) shoreline jurisdiction, 2) environment designations and allowed uses,
3) regulations for shoreline uses and modifications, 4) critical area regulations,
and 5) voluntary components of the shoreline restoration plan. A summary of the
areas of divergence and the effect on shoreline ecological functions are identified
in Table 3 of the Cumulative Impact Analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
1. No adverse impacts have been identified by the approval of this Shoreline Master
Program.
2. The draft SMP is consistent with the City of Yakima's Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance, and is supported by and will amend the City's Yakima Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan 2025 to include a Shorelines goals and policies section
within the plan's Natural Environment Chapter.
3. The City of Yakima followed the state Shoreline Master Program Guidelines
pursuant to WAC 173-26-171(3) "which allows local governments substantial
discretion to adopt master program reflecting local circumstances and other local
regulatory and non -regulatory program related to the policy goals of Shoreline
Management..."
4. The City utilized the scientific information from the Shoreline Analysis Report and
local information gathered after the analysis report to draft the proposed updated
Shoreline Master Program.
5. The City has provided extensive opportunity for public involvement and comment
as required by its Shorelines public participation plan and described in this report.
21
IND,,,,,
intensity industrial
structural setbacks ranging
areas
from 0-50 feet, most
• Three large vacant
commonly in the range of
lots. One large lot
15-25 feet. Vegetation
has approved
commonly consists of
industrial
maintained lawn extending
development
to the water's edge.
extending within 37
feet of Willow Lake
(Grette 2012).
36. Net Effect on Ecological Function: The City's Addendum to the Yakima
County Regional CIA indicates that the proposed City of Yakima SMP is
expected to maintain existing shoreline functions within the City of Yakima while
accommodating the reasonably foreseeable future shoreline development. As
discussed in the City's Cumulative Impact Analysis, the areas of divergence from
the County's Regional SMP fall into five general categories:
1) shoreline jurisdiction, 2) environment designations and allowed uses,
3) regulations for shoreline uses and modifications, 4) critical area regulations,
and 5) voluntary components of the shoreline restoration plan. A summary of the
areas of divergence and the effect on shoreline ecological functions are identified
in Table 3 of the Cumulative Impact Analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
1. No adverse impacts have been identified by the approval of this Shoreline Master
Program.
2. The draft SMP is consistent with the City of Yakima's Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance, and is supported by and will amend the City's Yakima Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan 2025 to include a Shorelines goals and policies section
within the plan's Natural Environment Chapter.
3. The City of Yakima followed the state Shoreline Master Program Guidelines
pursuant to WAC 173-26-171(3) "which allows local governments substantial
discretion to adopt master program reflecting local circumstances and other local
regulatory and non -regulatory program related to the policy goals of Shoreline
Management..."
4. The City utilized the scientific information from the Shoreline Analysis Report and
local information gathered after the analysis report to draft the proposed updated
Shoreline Master Program.
5. The City has provided extensive opportunity for public involvement and comment
as required by its Shorelines public participation plan and described in this report.
21
IND,,,,,
6. The City's Cumulative Impact Analysis has been prepared and concluded that
the updated shoreline program should protect and improve shoreline jurisdiction
within the City of Yakima while accommodating the reasonably foreseeable
future shoreline development, and result in no net loss of shoreline ecological
function, and may improve ecological functions over time.
7. Supporting documents to this staff report include the Cumulative Impact Analysis
and Restoration Plan Addendum.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community and Economic Development recommends APPROVAL_
of the foregoing Draft Shoreline Master Program and Cumulative Impact and Restoration
Plan Addendum.
22
IIDEX
A......
r IG TEXT AMENDMENT — PROPOSED CHAPTER
SHORELINEMASTER ►
•
TXT#003-13,''AI1
...........
,,,, ,,,,,,,, , „/i ,,,, , ,,iii �/r //i/iii. a/ �1 , ,,,;;;; ��ii � � � ���� , ✓ o � � ��
B-1 Draft Shoreline Master Program 08/20/2013
CITY OF YAKIMA
Grant No. G1200061
Q111ty
ollllll��iiiii� 1���III��w �1111imiii���Il���tI�I°�,,. 1111111 ouull lmullu oouoiiillul `
�pp¶NNIINo°lllllll, 1111111.. �I �I 1111111111111
Rlll I iomill pimo„Il pNIIV� lomlg uoiooll INmll I ,��INuuo IN�uivplpp,, iu Vm IProoll loilll�' Ir` NooVr liooilll 9iiull I�IIv ooml oiool ml
111111111111I1 � l � 1 �l umuuullll��rl I I uuuu�I����V ��, ^I��� p NmmYIIII`I`` 1�I�1111111111 � I mumoi�Illll,,, � 111011111101��IIII. I p � 1 � S l
p11I111111111N�VIIII IIID, ���1&o»�II ���1\,» N° ���limo111w ���II �11Ia»ioNIIIIIY''11111\`miiIIIIU �I�II�Iu���11w1@IIN' ��11ipml���II ���Yv�l �0i4w,oN11111� L. 111114
July 1, 2013
Planning Commission Draft
II iii u us,t2O 1 rI I n
4
INDEX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
SMP Section 1: Shoreline Element...................................................................................................1
Purpose and Relationship of the Shoreline Management Act to the Growth
Management Act................................................................ ....1
......................................
Profile of Shoreline Jurisdiction in Yakima..........................................................................2
Development of Goals and Policies.....................................................................................2
General Shoreline Planning Sub-element...........................................................................3
Shoreline Environment Designations...........................................................................4
High Intensity Environment Policies.............................................................................5
Essential Public Facilities Policies.................................................................................5
Shoreline Residential Environment Policies.................................................................6
Floodway /Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) Environment Policies...............................6
Urban Conservancy Environment Policies....................................................................7
Aquatic Environment — Lakes.......................................................................................7
Economic Development Sub-element.................................................................................8
Commercial and Service Development.........................................................................8
Industrial Development................................................................................................8
Public Access and Recreation Sub-element........................................................................8
PublicAccess.................................................................................................................8
Recreational Development...........................................................................................9
Circulation Sub -element (Transportation & Parking)..........................................................9
Shoreline Uses and Modifications Sub-element...............................................................10
Agriculture..................................................................................................................10
Aquaculture ................................................ ..........
....................................................
..10
Boating and Private Moorage Facilities......................................................................10
Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal.....................................................................11
Fill................................................................................................................................11
In -Water Structures.............................................................................................
..11
Mining.........................................................................................................................11
Residential Development............................................................................................12
Shoreline Stabilization..........................................................................................
..12
Signs............................................................................................................................13
Utilities.................................................................................................. .......13
..............
ExistingUses........................................................... ......... .......13
Redevelopment, Repair, and Maintenance................................................................13
Conservation Element.......................................................................................................13
Environmental Protection...........................................................................................13
Critical Areas & Vegetation Conservation..................................................................14
Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects.................................15
Water Quality, Stormwater Management, and Nonpoint Pollution ..........................15
Historic, Cultural, Scientific, and Educational Resources Element....................................16
Flood Hazard Management Element................................................................................16
SMP Section 2: Shoreline Regulations............................................................................................17
Chapter 17.01 Purpose and General Provisions..................................................................17
17.01.010 Authority......................................................................................................17
17.01.020 Applicability..................................................................................................17
17.01.030 Findings........................................................................................................18
17.01.040 Purpose........................................................................................................19
17.01.050 Relationship to Other Codes, Ordinances and Plans...................................19
17.01.060 Liberal Construction.....................................................................................20
17.01.070 Severability...................................................................................................20
17.01.080 Effective Date...............................................................................................20
17.01.090 Definitions....................................................................................................20
17.01.100 Shoreline Jurisdiction...................................................................................38
Chapter 17.03 Shoreline Environment Designations...........................................................39
17.03.010 Floodway / Channel Migration Zone (CMZ).................................................39
17.03.020 Urban Conservancy......................................................................................40
17.03.030 High Intensity........................................................... .............................40
17.03.040 Essential Public Facilities..............................................................................41
17.03.050 Shoreline Residential...................................................................................42
17.03.060 Aquatic.........................................................................................................42
17.03.070 Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix.......................................................43
17.03.080 Development Standards..............................................................................49
17.03.090 Official Shoreline Maps and Unmapped or Undesignated Shorelines ......... 49
17.03.100 Pre-Designation............................................................................................50
Chapter 17.05 General Regulations.....................................................................................50
17.05.010 Archaeological and Historic Resources........................................................50
17.05.020 Environmental Protection............................................................................51
17.05.030 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation.............................................................52
17.OS.040 Water Quality, Stormwater, and Nonpoint Pollution..................................54
17.05.050 Public Access................................................................................................55
17.05.060 Flood Hazard Reduction...............................................................................57
Chapter 17.07
Use -Specific and Modification Regulations.................................................61
17.07.010
Agriculture....................................................................................................61
17.07.020
Aquaculture..................................................................................................61
17.07.030
Boating and Private Moorage Facilities.......................................................62
17.07.040
Commercial and Service Development........................................................63
17.07.050
Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal......................................................64
17.07.060
Fill............................................................... ..................... .......65
..... .................
17.07.070
Industry ........................................................................................................67
17.07.080
In -Water Structures..............................................................................
17.07.090
Mining............................................................... .........
17.07.100
Recreational Development..........................................................................70
17.07.110
Residential Development.............................................................................70
17.07.120
Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects..................71
17.07.130
Shoreline Stabilization.................................................................................71
17.07.140
Signs.................................................................................................. ......73
17.07.150
Transportation and Parking.........................................................................74
17.07.160
Utilities.........................................................................................................75
17.07.170
Redevelopment, Repair, and Maintenance.................................................77
Chapter 17.09
Critical Areas In Shoreline Jurisdiction.........................................................
17.09.010
General Provisions.......................................................................................80
17.09.020
Flood Hazard Areas......................................................................................93
17.09.030
Fish and Wildlife Habitat and the Stream Corridor System .......................102
17.09.040
Wetlands....................................................................................................113
17.09.050
Geologically Hazardous Areas....................................................................118
17.09.060
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.................................................................122
Chapter 17.11
Existing Uses, Structures and Lots.............................................................127
17.11.010
Nonconforming Uses..................................................................................127
17.11.020
Nonconforming Structures........................................................................128
17.11.030
Nonconforming Lots...................................................................................128
17.11.040
Pre-existing Legal Uses—Conforming Residential Structures ...................128
Chapter 17.13
Administration and Enforcement..............................................................129
17.13.010
Roles and Responsibilities..........................................................................129
17.13.020
Interpretation.............................................................................................130
17.13.030
Statutory Noticing Requirements..............................................................130
17.13.040
Application Requirements.........................................................................131
17.13.050
Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permits.................132
17.13.060
Shoreline Substantial Development Permits .............................................132
17.13.070
Shoreline Conditional Use Permits............................................................133
17.13.080
Shoreline Variance Permits........................................................................134
17.13.090
Duration of Permits....................................................................................135
17.13.100
Initiation of Development..........................................................................136
17.13.110
Review Process...........................................................................................136
17.13.120
Appeals.......................................................................................................137
17.13.130
Amendments to Permits............................................................................137
17.13.140
SMP Amendments......................................................................................139
17.13.150
Enforcement...............................................................................................140
17.13.160
Monitoring.................................................................................................140
Appendix A: 2014 City
of Yakima Programmatic Exemption, Issued to the Washington
State Department of Transportation, South Central Region .......................................................
A-1
Appendix B: Designated Type 2 Stream Corridors .......................... ..... B-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 03.070-1. Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix.......................................................43
Table 09.030-1. Standard Stream Buffers............................................................................111
Table 09.040-1. Standard Wetland Buffers..........................................................................115
Table 09.040-2. Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands...............................115
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
"ii IIM IIF ) ori" IIE", C"T" II 0 I�'14 1 5 I[ til 0 IR IIS.,: III III N i IIE I Ell°uw IIS., P41 -
Purpose and Relationship of the Shoreline Management Act to the Growth
Management Act
The Growth Management Act (GMA) was amended in 1995 to add the goals and policies of the state
Shoreline Management Act (SMA) as one of the goals of the GMA. The purpose of the SMA is stated in
RCW 90.58.020 as follows:
"The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and frogile of its
natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization,
protection, restoration, and preservation. In addition it finds that ever increasing pressures of
additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the
management and development of the shorelines of the state. The legislature further finds that much
of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that
unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in
the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the
public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the some time, recognizing and
protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefor, a clear and
urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and
local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of
the state's shorelines.
It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning
for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the
development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of
the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy
contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and
wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of
navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. ***
In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic
qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible
consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To this end uses shall
be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural
environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the
natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be
given priority for single-family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline
recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements
facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which
are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other
development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the
shorelines of the state. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and shorelands of the
state shall be recognized by the department. Shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be
appropriately classified and these classifications shall be revised when circumstances warrant
regardless of whether the change in circumstances occurs through man-made causes or natural
causes. Any areas resulting from alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and shorelands
DW.
July 1 2013
INDEX
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
of the state no longer meeting the definition of "shorelines of the state" shall not be subject to the
provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW.
Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to
minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the
shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water."
The Shoreline Management Act policy has been refined to include provisions for uses along the
shoreline, public access to shorelines, preservation and restoration of the shoreline resources and
ecology, promotion of long-term over short-term benefit, and other actions to promote the state-wide
interest of appropriate use of shoreline over local interest.
In addition to incorporating the state SMA goals and policies, the Growth Management Act also provides
that "the goals and policies of a shoreline master program for a county or city ... shall be considered an
element of the county or city's comprehensive plan." The City of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) was originally approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology in June 1974. In 2013,
the SMP was updated consistent with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 173-26, State
master program approval/amendment procedures and master program guidelines (Guidelines). The
Guidelines are administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The SMP
becomes effective 14 days after conclusion of both the City's SMP development and adoption process
followed by Ecology's review and approval process.
Profile of Shoreline Jurisdiction in Yakima
The entire shoreline jurisdiction within the City limits and Urban Growth Area (UGA), including
unincorporated territory and the waterbodies themselves, amounts to approximately 1,533 acres (733
acres non-UGA, 800 acres UGA). The City of Yakima has two rivers and three lakes which are identified
as "shorelines of the state": the Yakima River, the Naches River, Willow Lake, Lake Aspen, and Rotary
Lake. Buchanan Lake and its shorelands (approximately 76 acres) will be considered part of the City's
shoreline jurisdiction when the Washington Department of Natural Resources Surface Mine Reclamation
Permit lapses or is terminated, or when the City receives a permit application for new development on
or uses of Buchanan Lake.
In accordance with state law, the jurisdiction of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program encompasses the
shoreline waterbodies; land within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of these waterways; and
their floodways, certain portions of 100 -year floodplains and channel migration zones, and associated
wetlands.
Development of Goals and Policies
The goals and policies presented here are categorized according to Master Program elements as
mandated by the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The elements are identified in the SMA as generic
classes of activities for which goals and policies shall be developed and systematically applied to
different shoreline uses in these classes, when deemed appropriate by the local jurisdiction.
The general goal and policy statements found within each element of the Master Program are intended
to provide the policy basis for administration of the City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program. All
elements are equal in their importance and no element has a greater standing or relevance than any
other element. The Master Program Elements are as follows.
A. Shoreline use element for considering:
DOC. July 1, 2013
INDEX R y...:u:.f ��:::...:::�. a:..:.:.
#Td
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
The proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the use on shorelines
and adjacent land areas, including, but not limited to, housing, business, industry,
transportation, agriculture, natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and
grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of the land;
The pattern of distribution and location requirements of water uses including, but not limited
to, aquaculture, recreation, and transportation; and
Establishing the importance of locating water -oriented uses, particularly those that are water -
dependent, within the shoreline jurisdiction area.
B. Economic development element for the location and design of industries, transportation facilities,
port facilities, tourist facilities, commerce and other developments that are particularly dependent
on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state;
C. Public access element for provision for public access to shorelines, particularly publicly owned
areas;
D. Recreational element for preserving and enlarging recreational opportunities including but not
limited to parks, beaches, and recreational areas;
E. Circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major
thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities, all
correlated with the shoreline use element;
F. Conservation element for the preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to scenic
vistas, aesthetics, and critical areas' functions and values, fisheries and wildlife protection, and
shoreline ecological functions;
G. Historical/cultural/scientific/and educational element for protecting and restoring buildings, sites
and areas having historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific, or educational values; and
H. Flood control element forgiving consideration to the state-wide interest in the prevention and
minimization of flood damages, and construction, modification, and restoration of flood -damaged
structures consistent with FEMA Standards.
General Shoreline Planning Sub -element
10.3.1. Implement the general policies and goals of the Shoreline Management Act as listed below
(WAC 173-26-176(3)):
10.3.1.1. Utilize Shorelines for economically productive uses that are particularly dependent on
Shoreline location or use.
10.3.1.2. Utilize Shorelines and the waters they encompass for public access and recreation.
10.3.1.3. Protect and restore the ecological functions of Shorelines.
10.3.1.4. Protect the public right of navigation and corollary uses of waters of the state.
10.3.1.5. Protect and restore buildings and sites having historic, cultural, and educational value.
10.3.1.6. Plan for public facilities and uses correlated with other shoreline uses.
10.3.1.7. Prevent and minimize flood damages.
10.3.1.8. Recognize and protect private property rights.
10.3.1.9. Preferentially accommodate single-family uses.
DOC.
July 1, 2013 3
INDEX
r
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
10.3.1.10. Coordinate shoreline management with other relevant local, state, and federal programs.
10.3.2. Protection measures for Shorelines of Statewide Significance should follow the Shoreline
Management Act principles in order of preference as listed below (RCW 90.58.020):
10.3.2.1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest;
10.3.2.2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
10.3.2.3. Result in long term over short terra benefit;
10.3.2.4. Protect the resource and ecology of the shoreline;
10.3.2.5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines;
10.3.2.6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;
10.3.2.7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or
necessary.
10.3.3. Establish a system of shoreline uses that:
10.3.3.1. Gives preference to uses with minimal impacts that are dependent upon their proximity to
the water;
10.3.3.2. Is consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural
environment;
10.3.3.3. Protects the public's health, safety, and welfare; ecological functions; and property rights;
and
10.3.3.4. Establishes conditional uses to provide extra protection for the shoreline.
10.3.4. Assure that new shoreline development in the City of Yakima is consistent with a viable
pattern of use suitable to the character and physical limitations of the land and water.
10.3.5. Encourage sound management of renewable and nonrenewable natural resources.
10.3.6. In general when determining the order of preference between conflicts of shoreline uses
the following order should be observed:
10.3.6.1. Water -dependent commercial uses are preferred over non -water- dependent commercial
uses;
10.3.6.2. Water -related and water -enjoyment commercial uses are preferred over non -water -
oriented commercial uses; and
10.3.6.3. Non- water -oriented commercial uses should only be allowed in limited situations.
Shoreline Environment Designations
10.3.7. The City of Yakima's Shorelines are classified into specific environment designations based
on existing and future land use patterns, as well as the biological and the physical
character of the shoreline. land uses and activities which are permitted within these
environment designations should be limited to those land uses that are consistent with the
character of the identified environment designation.
WC.
INDEX July 1, 2013
# /
DRAFT
High Intensity Environment Policies
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
10.3.8. High Intensity Environment: The purpose of the "High Intensity" environment is to provide
for high-intensity water -oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while
protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that
have been previously degraded.
10.3.9. Specific criteria for designation of the High Intensity environment include areas or
properties that:
10.3.9.1. Presently support high intensity land uses including commercial, industrial, urban
recreational, transportation, or high-intensity water -oriented uses.
10.3.9.2. Are planned to accommodate urban expansion of uses listed in 10.3.9.1.
10.3.10. Water -oriented commercial, industrial, and recreation uses should be given high priority in
the High Intensity environment. First priority should be given to water -dependent uses.
Second priority should be given to water -related and water -enjoyment uses. Nonwater-
oriented uses should not be allowed except as part of mixed-use developments.
Nonwater-oriented uses may also be allowed in limited situations where they do not
conflict with or limit opportunities for water -oriented uses or on sites where there is no
direct access to tate shoreline. Public benefits such as ecological restoration or public
access may be required in association with nonwater-oriented development.
10.3.11. New stand-alone residential uses in the High Intensity environment should be discouraged.
10.3.12. When considering shoreline environment designation amendment proposals, full
utilization of existing high intensity areas should be achieved before further expansion of
intensive development is allowed.
10.3.13. Development in the High Intensity designation should assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions as a result of new development. Where applicable, new development
should include environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline to comply with any
relevant state and federal law.
10.3.14. Where feasible, visual and physical public access should be required as part of
development in the High Intensity designation unless it already exists to serve the
development or other safety, security, or fragile environmental conditions apply.
10.3.15. Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such as sign control regulations,
appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance
of natural vegetative separation.
Essential Public Facilities Policies
10.3.16. The purpose of the Essential Public Facilities environment is to support planning and
maintenance of existing essential public facilities.
10.3.17. Assign an "Essential Public Facilities" environment designation to lands containing those
facilities that are typically difficult to site or relocate, such as state or regional
transportation facilities and waste water handling facilities.
10.3.18. Essential public facilities and their accessory or supporting uses are allowed in the
Essential Public Facilities environment.
July 1, 2013
of 2a AU&N15122. Z2 1 i,
DOC,
INDEX
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
10.3.19. Allowed new development in the Essential Public Facilities designation should assure no
net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
10.3.20. Where applicable, new and expanded development should include environmental cleanup
and restoration of the shoreline to comply with any relevant state and federal law.
10.3.21. Expansion and improvement of existing facilities should be allowed, with mitigation
sequencing applied to avoid and then minimize adverse impacts to the extent consistent
with the specific facility and public needs, with mitigation required for any remaining
adverse impacts.
Shoreline Residential Environment Policies
10.3.22. The purpose of the "Shoreline Residential" environment is to accommodate residential
development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with the SMP. An additional
purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.
10.3.23. Assign a "Shoreline Residential" environment designation to areas that are predominantly
single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for
residential development.
10.3.24. Development standards addressing the development envelope, water quality, and
vegetation should assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account
the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of
infrastructure and services available, and other comprehensive planning considerations.
10.3.25. Multifamily and multi -lot residential and recreational developments should provide public
access and joint use for community recreational facilities.
10.3.26. Access, utilities, and public services should be available and adequate to serve existing
needs and/or planned future development.
10.3.27. Commercial development should be limited to water -oriented uses and allowed only when
the underlying zoning permits such uses.
Floodway / Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) Environment Policies
10.3.28. The Floodway/CMZ environment is intended to protect the water areas; islands,
associated overflow channels, and channel migration areas. This environment provides for
the movement of the river within its floodplain, and emphasizes preservation of the
natural hydraulic, geologic and biological functions of the City's shorelines that are
constrained by biophysical limitations.
10.3.29. The Floodway/CMZ designation is assigned to shoreline areas that are within a mapped
Channel Migration Zone and/or within a designated FEMA Floodway. The extent of the
Floodway/CMZ designation should never extend beyond the limitations of the Shoreline
CMZ found in WAC 173-26-221(3)(b). Areas separated from the active river channel by
existing legal artificial channel constraints should not be considered as part of the CMZ.
In addition, areas that are separated from the active channel by legally existing artificial
structure(s) including transportation facilities, built above or constructed to remain intact
through the one hundred -year flood, should also not be considered part of the CMZ.
DIM.
INDEX
#__L _�
July 1, 2013
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
10.3.30. Commercial, industrial, mining, nonwater-oriented recreation, roads, utilities, parking
areas, and residences should generally not be located in the Floodway/CMZ environment.
Other uses (recreation, resource, etc.) should be carefully limited to protect shoreline
functions.
10.3.31. Activities that may degrade the value of the Floodway/CMZ environment should be
limited, and development in hazardous areas should be restricted.
10.3.32. Modifications that harden or fix stream banks and channels should be discouraged.
Urban Conservancy Environment Policies
10.3.33. The Urban Conservancy environment is intended to protect and restore ecological
functions of open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and
developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses.
10.3.34. Specific criteria for designation of the Urban Conservancy environment include areas or
properties that:
10.3.34.1. Lie in the city limits and urban growth areas;
10.3.34.2. Are planned for development that is compatible with the principals of maintaining or
restoring the ecological functions of the area;
10.3.34.3. Are suitable for water -enjoyment uses;
10.3.34.4. Are open space or floodplains, or;
10.3.34.5. Are areas that retain important ecological functions which should not be more intensively
developed.
10.3.35. Allowed uses for the Urban Conservancy environment generally include uses which
preserve the natural character of the area, and promote the preservation of open space,
floodplains or sensitive lands. Uses allowed under this designation should focus on
recreation. Commercial, industrial and residential uses should be limited, and when
allowed result in restoration of ecological functions. Public access and recreation
objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and significant ecological impacts
mitigated.
Aquatic Environment — Lakes
10.3.36. The purpose of the "Aquatic" environment is to protect, restore, and manage the unique
characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary Nigh -water mark of
shoreline lakes.
10.3.37. Specific criteria for the Aquatic designation are lands waterward of the ordinary high water
mark of shoreline lakes.
10.3.38. Allow new over -water structures only for water -dependent uses, public access, or
ecological restoration. The size of new over -water structures should be limited to the
minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use.
10.3.39. In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of
water resources, multiple use of over -water facilities should be encouraged.
July 1, 2013
Ui -21-20
DOC,
INDEX
/�
`� 1
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
10.3.40. Uses that could adversely impact the ecological functions of critical freshwater habitats
should not be allowed except where necessary to achieve the objectives of the Shoreline
Management Act, and then only when their impacts are mitigated according to mitigation
sequencing as necessary to assure no net loss of ecological functions.
10.3.41. Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent degradation
of water quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions.
10.3.42. When considering development or activities in the Aquatic environment, the City should
favor development and activities associated with preferred uses of the Shoreline
Management Act and apply development standards that consider water quality,
navigation, presence of aquatic vegetation, existing critical habitats, aesthetics, public
access, and views.
Economic Development Sub -element
Commercial and Service Development
10.3.43. Limit commercial and service development to those activities that are dependent upon a
shoreline location. Nonwater-oriented commercial uses may be allowed when part of a
mixed-use development including water dependent activities, or on sites separated from
the shoreline, or when public benefits such as public access and ecological restoration are
provided.
10.3.44. Commercial and service uses which are not shoreline dependent should be encouraged to
locate upland.
Industrial Development
10.3.45. Allocate sufficient quantities of suitable land for water -related industry.
10.3.46. Discourage industries which have proven to be environmentally hazardous in shoreline
areas.
Public Access and Recreation Sub -element
Public Access
10.3.47. Protect navigation of waters of the state, the space needed for water -dependent uses, and
views of the water through development standards.
10.3.48. Transportation and parking plans within Shoreline jurisdiction shall include systems for
public access, including pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation where appropriate.
10.3.49. Whenever possible shoreline development by public entities such as the City of Yakima,
Yakima, County, Yakima Greenway, Washington State Department of Transportation, and
Federal Highway Administration should incorporate both physical and visual public access
to shoreline areas which are compliant with the various entities safety and security access
plans. However, adopted public access plans as described in WAC 173-26-221(4)(c) that
more effectively allow public access thru alternative means may be accepted in lieu of the
above site specific access requirements.
DW.
INDEX
July 1, 2013
Rev !Il��m'V�
# /; I
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
10.3.50. Development standards for dedicated and improved public access to the shoreline and
visual quality should be required for public and private developments, with few
exceptions, except where it is demonstrated to be infeasible due to reasons of safety,
security, or impact to the shoreline environment, or constitutional or legal limitations.
10.3.51. Promote and enhance diversified types of public access to shorelines in the City of Yakima
that accommodate intensified uses without significantly impacting natural areas, and do
not infringe upon property rights.
10.3.52. Access to recreational areas should emphasize multiple points of access (parking areas,
trails or bicycle paths).
10.3.53. Development standards should be established to assure preservation of unique, fragile,
and scenic elements, and to protect existing views from public property or large numbers
of residences.
10.3.54. When considering shoreline issues where there is a conflict between water dependent
uses, public access, or maintenance of an existing view from adjacent properties, public
access or water dependent use should have priority unless there is a compelling reason to
the contrary.
10.3.55. Road and railroad facilities should be properly designed, to provide to the greatest extent
practical, scenic corridors, rest areas, view points, and other public oriented facilities.
10.3.56. Wherever feasible, utilities should be placed underground.
Recreational Development
10.3.57. Assure preservation and expansion of diverse, convenient recreational opportunities along
shorelines for public use, consistent with the capacity of the land by ensuring that
shoreline recreational development is given priority and is primarily related to access,
enjoyment and use of the water and Shorelines of the State. This policy may be
accomplished by ensuring that shoreline recreational development is given priority and is
primarily related to access, enjoyment and use of the water and Shorelines of the State.
10.3.58. Land uses designated for a specific shoreline recreational area should be planned to satisfy
a diversity of demands, and must be compatible with each other and the environment.
10.3.59. Where feasible, encourage the use of public lands for recreational facilities as an
economical alternative to new acquisitions by local agencies.
10.3.60. Locate, design, construct and operate recreational facilities to prevent undue adverse
impacts to natural resources and adjacent or nearby private properties.
Circulation Sub -element (Transportation & Parking)
10.3.61. Encourage a transportation network capable of delivering people, goods, and services, and
resulting in minimal disruption of the shorelines' natural system.
10.3.62. When major highways, freeways and railways are required to be located along stream
drainages or lake shores, the facilities should be sufficiently setback, and minimal land
area consumed so that a useable shoreline area remains.
10.3.63. Access roads and parking areas should be located upland, away from the shoreline
whenever possible, and access to the water should be provided by pathways or other
methods.
July 1, 2013 DOL'
INDEX
#_L__[ _[
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
10.3.64. Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and should be allowed only as
necessary to support an authorized use.
10.3.65. Proper design, location, and construction of road and railroad facilities should be exercised
to:
10.3.65.1. Minimize erosion and permit the natural movement of water;
10.3.65.2. Use existing topography and preserve natural conditions to the greatest practical extent.
10.3.66. Loops or spurs of old highways with high aesthetic quality or bicycle route potential should
be kept in service.
Shoreline Uses and Modifications Sub -element
Agriculture
10.3.67. Allow lawfully established agricultural activities occurring on agricultural lands to continue.
10.3.68. New agricultural activities on land not currently used for agriculture, conversion of
agricultural lands to other uses, and other development on agricultural land that does not
meet the definition of agricultural activities (including any agricultural development not
specifically exempted by the provisions of RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(iv)) should meet shoreline
requirements.
10.3.69. Prohibit concentrated feeding operations in shoreline jurisdiction.
Aquaculture
10.3.70. Consider aquaculture a preferred shoreline use when consistent with the control of
pollution and prevention of damage to the environment.
10.3.71. Ensure that aquaculture uses do not conflict with other water -dependent uses or
navigation, spread disease, establish non-native species that cause significant ecological
impact, or significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
10.3.72. Protect spawning areas designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
from conflicting uses.
Boating and Private Moorage Facilities
10.3.73. Ensure that boating facilities are located only at sites with suitable environmental
conditions, shoreline configuration, access, and neighboring uses.
10.3.74. Piers and docks should only be allowed for water -dependent uses and public access,
except that water -enjoyment and water -related uses may sometimes be included as part
of a mixed-use development.
10.3.75. Applications for new piers and docks must show a specific need and must be the minimum
size necessary.
10.3.76. Encourage the cooperative use of shared docks.
10
DOC.
INDEX July 1, 2013
#_L_ �(
(
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
10.3.77. Dredging should only be permitted for maintaining existing navigation uses, not for
obtaining fill material or mining.
10.3.78. The deposition of spoils in water areas should only be allowed for habitat improvement or
when the alternative is more detrimental than depositing in water areas.
W
10.3.79. Normal and reasonable land grading and filling should be allowed where necessary to
develop a land area for a permitted use provided:
10.3.79.1. There is no substantial changes made in the natural drainage patterns; and
10.3.79.2. There is no reduction of flood water storage capacity that might endanger other areas.
10.3.79.3. Filling within the ordinary high water mark should only be allowed when necessary to
support water -dependent uses, public access, transportation facilities, mitigation,
restoration, enhancement, and certain special situations listed in WAC 173-26-231(3)(c).
10.3.80. In evaluating fill projects, such factors as total water surface reduction, navigation
restriction, impediment to water flow and circulation, impediment to irrigation systems,
reduction of water quality, and destruction of fish and wildlife habitat should be examined.
10.3.81. Shoreline fills or cuts should be located and designed to avoid creating hazards to adjacent
life, property, natural resources systems, and to ensure that the perimeters of the fill
incorporate appropriate mechanisms for erosion prevention.
In -Water Structures
10.3.82. Location and planning of in -water structures should consider the full range of public
interests, watershed functions and processes, and environmental concerns, with a special
emphasis on protecting and restoring priority habitats and species.
10.3.83. All in -water structures should provide for the protection and preservation of ecosystem -
wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural resources, including, but not limited to,
fish and wildlife, water resources, shorelines, critical areas, hydrogeological processes, and
natural scenic vistas.
10.3.84. Removal of sand, gravel, and minerals should be allowed from only the least sensitive
shoreline areas and should comply with the below policies:
10.3.84.1. Due to the risk of avulsion and mine pit capture by the rivers, mining within the stream
channel and channel migration zones should not be allowed; and
10.3.84.2. Restoration or enhancement of ecological functions is encouraged.
10.3.85. Require land reclamation plans of any mining venture proposed within a shoreline.
July 1, 2013 INDEX 11
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
10.3.86. Mining reclamation plans shall incorporate this SMP's restoration goal to the greatest
extent feasible, and shall be done in conformance with the Washington State Surface
Mining Act (RCW 78.44).
10.3.87. Ensure that mining and associated activities are designed and conducted consistent with
the applicable environment designation and the applicable critical areas ordinance.
10.3.88. Ensure that proposed subsequent uses of mined property and the reclamation of
disturbed shoreline areas are consistent with the applicable environment designation and
that appropriate ecological functions are required within the reclamation plan.
Residential Development
10.3.89. Design subdivisions at a density, level of site coverage, and occupancy that is compatible
with the physical capabilities of the shoreline, and ensure proposals are located to prevent
the need for new shore stabilization or flood hazard reduction measures.
10.3.90. Restrict subdivisions in areas subject to flooding.
10.3.91. Encourage cluster development wherever feasible to:
10.3.91.1. Maximize use of shorelines by residents,
10.3.91.2. Maximize both on-site and off-site aesthetic appeal, and
10.3.91.3. Minimize disruption of the natural shorelines.
Shoreline Stabilization
10.3.92. Shoreline modifications should only be allowed where they are shown to be necessary to
support or protect an allowed primary structure or a legally existing shoreline use that is in
danger of loss or substantial damage, or they are necessary for mitigation or enhancement
work.
10.3.93. Shoreline modifications should be limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish the
objective, while still protecting ecological functions. Give preference to shoreline
modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions.
10.3.94. New structural stabilization measures should only be allowed:
1.0.3.94.1. When they are necessary to protect an existing primary structure,
10.3.94.2. Are in support of new and existing development, or
10.3.94.3. Are necessary to protect projects where restoration of ecological functions or hazardous
substance remediation projects is taking place.
10.3.95. Flood protection and stabilization measures which result in or tend toward channelization
of streams such as, hardening of stream banks, or fixing channel locations should be
avoided.
10.3.95. All shore stabilization activities should be designed and constructed to accepted
engineering standards.
12
JWy l, 2013
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Signs
10.3.97. Outdoor sign size, spacing and lighting should conform to the Scenic Vistas Act (RCW
47.42) and standards in the Zoning Ordinance.
Utilities
10.3.98. New utility production and processing facilities, such as power plants and sewage
treatment plants, or parts of those facilities that are non -water -oriented should not be
allowed in shoreline areas unless it can be demonstrated that no other feasible option is
available. Expansion, updating, and maintenance of existing facilities is allowed but should
be designed to minimize impacts as much as possible.
10.3.99. Wherever possible, transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power
lines, cables, and pipelines, should be located outside of the shoreline area. If location
within the shoreline cannot be prevented, utilities should be confined in a single corridor
or within an existing right-of-way or underground consistent with policy 10.3.50.
10.3.100. New sewage treatment, water reclamation, and power plants should be located where
they do not interfere with and are compatible with recreational, residential or other public
uses of the shoreline.
10.3.101. New waste water treatment ponds for industrial uses should be located upland when
feasible.
Existing Uses
10.3.102. The SMP should recognize existing uses and developments in the shoreline, and allow
them to continue consistent with their lawfully established condition.
10.3.103. The City should apply applicable SMP provisions to the shoreline use or development
proposed in shoreline jurisdiction, considering the size, location, duration and scope of the
proposal where appropriate.
Redevelopment, Repair, and Maintenance
10.3.104. The SMP should recognize existing uses and developments in the shoreline, and allow
them to continue consistent with their lawfully established condition.
10.3.105. The City should apply applicable SMP provisions to the shoreline use or development
proposed in shoreline jurisdiction, considering the size, location, duration and scope of the
proposal where appropriate.
Conservation Element
Environmental Protection
10.3.106. Maintain, restore and where necessary improve the shoreline terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems so that they maintain viable, reproducing populations of plants and animals
while providing the maximum public benefit of limited amounts of shoreline areas.
DOC.
July 1, 2013 INDEX
V�d�'q�,'.��iuug!p 5u.� 11, x"'!0'1.... I
13
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
Critical Areas & Vegetation Conservation
10.3.107. New development or uses, including the subdivision of land, should not be established
when it is foreseeable that the development or use would require structural flood hazard
reduction measures within the channel migration zone or floodway.
10.3.108. New structural flood hazard reduction measures in shoreline jurisdiction should only be
allowed when the following can be demonstrated:
10.3.108.1. The structural flood hazard reduction measure is necessary to protect an existing
development,
10.3.108.2. Nonstructural measures are not feasible,
10.3.108.3. Impacts on ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully
mitigated so as to assure no net loss of ecological functions, and
10.3.108.4. Appropriate vegetation conservation actions are undertaken.
10.3.109. Protect all shorelines of the state so that there is no net loss of ecological functions from
both individual permitted or exempt development.
10.3.110. Evaluate and consider cumulative impacts of development on shoreline ecological
functions to ensure no net loss of ecological function.
10.3.111. Develop a means to allocate the burden of addressing cumulative effects.
10.3.112. Provide, where feasible and desirable, restoration of degraded areas along the City's
shorelines.
10.3.113. Critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction are protected through the critical area policies
and standards of the City of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program and Comprehensive Plan
Natural Environment Chapter.
10.3.114. Protect shoreline streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands through the application of
vegetative buffers.
10.3.115. Existing agriculture should be encouraged to provide through voluntary means:
10.3.115.1. Maintenance of a permanent vegetative buffer between tilled areas and associated water
10.3.116. Buffer requirements for new agriculture uses on non-agricultural lands should be applied.
10.3.117. Provide a permitting process which allows government agencies, and public and private
groups to submit and gain approval for long-term maintenance plans which comply with
the requirements of the City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program.
10.3.118. Natural vegetation within shoreline jurisdiction should be retained to the greatest extent
feasible by applying the stream corridor and wetland buffer requirements.
10.3.119. Selective pruning of trees for safety and view protection, and the removal of noxious
weeds is allowed.
14
DOC,
INDEX
July 1, 2013
Rev A, ��
bodies,
10.3.115.2.
Reduction of bank erosion,
10.3.115.3.
Reduction of surface runoff,
10.3.115.4.
Reduction of siltation,
10.3.115.5.
Improvement of water quality, and
10.3.115.6.
Habitat for fish and wildlife.
10.3.116. Buffer requirements for new agriculture uses on non-agricultural lands should be applied.
10.3.117. Provide a permitting process which allows government agencies, and public and private
groups to submit and gain approval for long-term maintenance plans which comply with
the requirements of the City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program.
10.3.118. Natural vegetation within shoreline jurisdiction should be retained to the greatest extent
feasible by applying the stream corridor and wetland buffer requirements.
10.3.119. Selective pruning of trees for safety and view protection, and the removal of noxious
weeds is allowed.
14
DOC,
INDEX
July 1, 2013
Rev A, ��
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
10.3.120. Shoreline construction/maintenance projects which disturb areas of the shoreline should
be restored to a state which is equal or greater than the original project condition. When
replanting is required, native species should be planted and maintained until new
vegetation is established.
Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects
10.3.121. Restoration and enhancement of shorelines should be designed using principles of
landscape and conservation ecology and should restore or enhance chemical, physical, and
biological watershed processes that create and sustain shoreline habitat structures and
functions.
10.3.122. Restoration and enhancement actions should improve shoreline ecological functions and
processes and should target meeting the needs of sensitive plant, fish and wildlife species
as identified by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of
Natural Resources fall,,(air°r)a ,1 � tjo..il,,g National Marine Fisheries Service, and/or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
10.3.123. The City should, and private entities are encouraged to, seek funding from State, Federal,
private and other sources to implement restoration, enhancement, and acquisition
projects, particularly those that are identified in the Restoration Plan of this SMP or the
local watershed plans.
10.3.124. The City should develop processing guidelines that will streamline the review of
restoration -only projects.
10.3.125. Allow for the use of tax incentive programs, mitigation banking, grants, land swaps, or
other programs, as they are developed, to encourage restoration and enhancement of
shoreline ecological functions and to protect habitat for fish, wildlife and plants.
Water Quality, Stormwater Management, and Nonpoint Pollution
10.3.126. Shoreline water quality should be protected as follows:
10.3.126.1. Rely on the City's stormwater program and Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual
for Eastern Washington which meet state and federal stormwater control requirements
where possible;
10.3.126.2. Utilize Critical Aquifer Recharge Area protection measures;
10.3.126.3. Control drainage and surface runoff from all facilities requiring large quantities of
fertilizers and pesticides to prevent contamination of water areas;
10.3.126.4. All developments should comply with Yakima County Health regulations, when applicable;
10.3.126.5. Handle and dispose of pesticides in accordance with provisions of the Washington
Pesticide Application Act (RCW 17.21) and the Washington Pesticide Act (RCW 14.47);
10.3.126.6. Proper design, location, and construction of all facilities should be exercised to prevent
the entry of pollutants or waste materials into waterbodies;
10.3.126.7. When earthen materials are moved within shoreline areas, measures to adequately
protect water quality should be provided;
10.3.126.8. Water quality protection measures should not impact recreation opportunities;
10.3.126.9. New development and redevelopment proposals should be connected to city sewer; and
July 1, 2013
Bey 81;;,u. !kt 2Q, E 1,3
DOC.
INDEX
15
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
INT.T- i
10.3.126.10. New development and redevelopment proposals should provide adequate stormwater
handling and possibly pre-treatment facilities.
10.3.127. Agricultural erosion control measures should conform to standards established by the
Conservation Districts of Yakima County and those agreed upon in USDA conservation
plans.
10.3.128. In planning for marina location and design, special water quality considerations should be
given to:
10.3.128.1. Fuel handling and storage facilities to minimize accidental spillage,
10.3.128.2. Proper water depth and flushing action for any area considered for overnight or long-term
moorage facilities, and
10.3.128.3. Adequate facilities to properly handle wastes from holding tanks.
10.3.129. Sanitary landfills along shoreline areas should be prohibited. The disposal of all solid
wastes should be disposed of in accordance with the Yakima County Inter -local and
Moderate Risk Solid Waste Management Plan.
Historic, Cultural, Scientific, and Educational Resources Element
10.3.130. ..n ..l.l.,I,l,,,p,„the protection and restoration of areas and sites in the City of Yakima
having historic, archaeological, cultural, educational or scientific value consistelrot witlI
Local sta^ p anvws.
10.3.131. Development along shorelines should include consultation with professional
archaeologists, historians, biologists, il.i��.: 7 ,117i°lira Iton Ii)e alrtmelrnit oIFArcq,raer)lr 2yand
IN::;m..!C �:p.u�l!.;�....I�.1..g.."Prvai:ir n and It-a=ii-iHan .,.tIhe '�"a: am aIsla ti,,,,,,,,on] to identify areas containing potentially
,
valuable data, and to establish procedures for salvaging the data or maintaining the area in
an undisturbed condition.
10.3.132. Shoreline permits should contain conditions of approval which require developers to
immediately stop work and notify local governments, the Office of Archaeology and
thy: ^aliti,alr°nia Natiou°� if any archaeological or
Historic Preservation, an ;Y,iN,,,,!;ele..................................................................................
historic resources are uncovered during excavation.
10.3.133. Development which would destroy archaeological or historical sites or data may be
delayed for a reasonable time to allow the appropriate agency or organization to purchase
the site or to recover the data.
Flood Hazard Management Element
10.3.134. The City should ensure public and private development applications site and design flood
control measures consistent with appropriate engineering principles, including guidelines
of the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Yakima
County Flood Hazard Management Plan, watershed plans, restoration plans, critical area
regulations, floodplain regulations, and stormwater management plans and regulations in
order to prevent flood damage, maintain the natural hydraulic capacity of floodways, and
conserve limited resources such as fish habitat, water, and soil.
16 DOC. July 1, 2013
INDEX I3ey Alp yu Q
A
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
10.3.135. Where feasible, non-structural methods to protect, enhance, and restore shoreline
ecological functions and processes and other shoreline resources should be encouraged as
an alternative to structural flood control works. Non-structural methods may include, but
are not limited to, shoreline buffers, land use controls, use relocation, wetland restoration,
dike removal, biotechnical measures, stormwater management programs, land or
easement acquisition, voluntary protection and enhancement projects, or incentive
programs.
10.3.136. New or expanding development or uses in shoreline jurisdiction, including subdivision of
land, that would likely require structural flood control works, such as dikes, levees,
revetments, floodwalls, channel realignment, gabions or rip -rap, within a river, floodway,
or lake should not be allowed.
10.3.137. New structural flood control works should only be allowed in shoreline jurisdiction when it
can be demonstrated by a scientific and engineering analysis that they are necessary to
protect existing development, that impacts to ecological functions and priority species and
habitats can be successfully mitigated so as to assure no net loss, that appropriate
vegetation conservation actions are undertaken, and where non-structural flood hazard
reduction measures are infeasible.
10.3.138. Flood control works and shoreline uses, development, and modifications should be
located, designed, constructed and maintained so their resultant effects on geo-hydraulic
shoreline processes will not cause significant damage to other properties or shoreline
resources, and so that the physical integrity of the shoreline corridor is maintained.
S �Iw 111,P" �S EC r1 01\,1 I'I In G lll,u lU l„ Iti III IIIA ° Ill"hiH�"ii
TITLE 17 - SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS
1,","I U III 11 ["1 10 �S �El; A "Adl D G E 11 1 Ilh :'Ih t A III Fl IIIuN„OV IIk!i III 0 IlrJ!,,;
17.01.010 Authority
A. Title 17 of the Yakima Municipal Code is established pursuant to RCW Chapter 90.58 (Shoreline
Management Act), WAC 173-26 (State master program approval/amendment procedures and
master program guidelines), and WAC 173-27 (Shoreline management permit and enforcement
procedures). This title shall be known as the "Shoreline Master Program Regulations."
B. The Shoreline Master Program Regulations shall, for the purposes of 36.70A.480 (GMA and
Shorelines of the State) be considered a set of use regulations applying only to shoreline areas as
specified in RCW 90.58 (SMA) and WAC 173-26 (State master program approval/amendment
procedures and master program guidelines). These regulations are intended to be substantive legal
rules and procedures used to implement the goals and policies of the Master Program (these
goals ad policies are contained in the City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10, Section 3 —
General Shoreline Planning Sub -element). These regulations shall be applied and interpreted in a
manner consistent with the remainder of the Master Program or the Act.
17.01.020 Applicability
A. The provisions of this title shall apply to any new development, construction or use within the
incorporated portion of the City of Yakima. However, this title does not apply to the situations
below:
July 1, 2013 DOC. 17
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
Interior building improvements that do not change the use or occupancy are not subject to
this title;
Exterior structure maintenance activities, including painting and roofing, as long as such
activities do not expand the existing footprint of the structure or impervious area;
Routine landscape maintenance of established, ornamental landscaping, such as lawn
mowing, pruning and weeding;
4. Maintenance of the following existing facilities that do not expand the affected area: septic
tanks (routine cleaning), wells, and individual utility service connections;
Changing agricultural crops within an existing farming operation is not considered new
development, construction or use. SMP regulations do apply to the following: 1) new
agricultural activities on land not meeting the definition of agricultural land, 2) conversion of
agricultural lands to other uses, and 3) other development on agricultural land that does not
meet the definition of agricultural activities (e.g. processing plants); and
Minor, temporary or transient activities, including those of a recreational nature, that do not
alter the environment or require a dedicated staging area, use area, or route are not subject
to this title, and including temporary signs (election, sale, rent, etc.).
The following subsections guide the determination of applicability of SMP regulations on federal
lands:
1. Federal development on federally owned land is not subject to this SMP nor required to
obtain a Shoreline permit unless otherwise required by federal law, or unless the state by
statute has ceded all regulatory authority over the federal ownership;
2. Federal development on a federally owned lease is not subject to this SMP nor required to
obtain a Shoreline permit unless otherwise required by federal law, or unless the state by
statute has ceded all regulatory authority over the federal ownership as long as the
development is consistent with the purpose of the lease;
3. Development on federally owned land under a federal lease or easement for a non-federal
activity is subject to this SMP and must obtain a Shoreline permit; for example, the SMP
applies to private activities on federal land such as leases where the private citizen owns the
structure but the federal government owns the land;
4. Non-federal development or use on federally owned land is subject to this SMP and must
obtain a Shoreline permit; and
5. Development on non-federal land is subject to this SMP and must obtain a Shoreline permit,
even if it is leased, rented, etc. to the federal government, or it is within the boundaries of
federal ownership unless the state by statute has ceded all regulatory authority over the
federal ownership.
C. Unless specifically exempted by statute, all proposed uses and development occurring within
shoreline jurisdiction must conform to chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act and this
Master Program whether or not a permit is required.
18
DOC.
y
INDEX July 1, 2013
iH,,�.##
DRAFT
17.01.030 Findings
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Consultant note: Section to be inserted at time of Planning Commission recommendation to Council.
Typically, findings would state natural and built environment conditions that illustrate local
circumstances. For example, the findings could describe the Yakima Greenway as an important
consideration in the SMP. Another factor could be the presence of existing development along
manmade lakes. Yet another could be the importance of the Yakima River in terms of flood control and
habitat.
17.01.040 Purpose
The purpose of YMC Title 17 is to establish a single, uniform system of procedures and standards to be
applied to development within Shoreline jurisdiction of the City of Yakima. The SMP regulations are
intended to carry out the responsibilities imposed on the City of Yakima by the Shoreline Management
Act (RCW 90.58) and its Administrative Rules (WAC 173-18, WAC 173-20, WAC 173-22, WAC 173-26 and
WAC 173-27) insofar as regulations can, and the adoption of these regulations does not remove other
responsibilities imposed by the Act. The purposes of the Shoreline Master Program Regulations are to:
A. Promote reasonable and appropriate use of the shorelines that will protect the public and
private interest;
B. Protect against adverse effects to the public health, the land, its vegetation and wildlife and the
waters and their aquatic life within the City of Yakima;
C. Protect public rights of navigation;
D. Recognize and protect private property rights consistent with public interest;
E. Promote a high quality of environment along the shorelines;
F. Preserve and protect fragile natural resources and culturally significant features;
G. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines where increased use levels are
desirable;
H. Protect public and private properties from adverse effects of improper development in hazardous
shorelines areas;
I. Recognize and protect the statewide interest;
J. Give preference to uses that result in long-term over short-term benefits; and
K. Provide for no net loss of ecological functions cumulatively from both individual permitted
development and individual exempt development.
L. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary.
17.01.050 Relationship to Other Codes, Ordinances and Plans
A. All applicable federal, state, and local laws shall apply to properties in the shoreline jurisdiction. At
the time of application or initial inquiry, the Shoreline Administrator shall inform the
applicant/proponent of other local laws and rules that may be applicable to the project. The
responsibility for determining applicable federal, state or special district statutes and regulations
and complying with the same rests with the applicant/proponent or responsible person carrying out
the activity, use, or development in question.
DOC.
July 1, 2013 INDEX 19
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
B. This SMP includes critical areas regulations applicable only in the shoreline jurisdiction, and shall
control within shoreline jurisdiction over other City critical area regulations adopted pursuant to the
Growth Management Act.
C. Other rules and regulations, including but not limited to the City of Yakima development regulations
addressing subdivision, zoning, building and construction shall remain in full force and effect as they
apply to a designated Shoreline.
D. Wherever the requirements of this Title 17 conflict with the requirements of City rules or
regulations, the most restrictive standards shall govern.
17.01.060 Liberal Construction
As provided for in RCW 90.58.900, the Act is exempted from the rule of strict construction; the Act and
this SMP shall therefore be liberally construed to give full effect to the purposes, goals, objectives, and
policies for which they were enacted.
17.01.070 Severability
If any provision of the ordinance codified in this title, or its application to any person or legal entity or
circumstances is held to be invalid, the remainder of said ordinance or the application of the provision to
other persons or legal entities or circumstances shall not be affected.
17.01.080 Effective Date
The SMP is hereby adopted on the XXdat,eo[XX1, x1013. This SMP and all amendments thereto shall
become effective 14 days from the date of the Washington Department of Ecology's written notice of
final approval.
17,01.090 Definitions
Whenever the words and terms set forth in this section appear in this title, they shall be given the
meaning attributed to them by this section. Definitions established by RCW 90.58.030 and WAC 173
have been incorporated herein and should these definitions in the RCW or WAC be amended, the most
current RCW or WAC definition shall apply. Except where specifically defined in this section, the RCW or
the WAC, all words used in this Shoreline Master Program shall carry their customary meanings.
When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future; the singular
includes the plural; and the plural, the singular.
"Abutting" means bordering upon, to touch upon, or in physical contact with. Sites are considered
abutting even though the area of contact may be only a point.
"Accessory" means any use or development incidental to and subordinate to a primary use of a
shoreline use or development. See also Appurtenance, Residential.
"Act" means the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, chapter 90.58 RCW.
"Adjacent" means to be nearby and not necessarily abutting.
"Shoreline Administrator" means the duly appointed City of Yakima Director of Community
Development, whichever is appropriate, or their designee.
20 DOC. July 1, 2013
IND
....gyro�U„t ?(���s
# ®�
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
"Adoption by rule" means an official action by the Department of Ecology to make a local government
shoreline master program effective through rule consistent with the requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW, thereby incorporating the adopted shoreline master program or
amendment into the state master program.
"Agricultural activities" means agricultural uses and practices including, but not limited to: Producing,
breeding, or increasing agricultural products; rotating and changing agricultural crops; allowing land
used for agricultural activities to lie fallow in which it is plowed and tilled but left unseeded;
allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie dormant as a result of adverse agricultural market
conditions; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie dormant because the land is enrolled in a
local, state, or federal conservation program, or the land is subject to a conservation easement;
conducting agricultural operations; maintaining, repairing, and replacing agricultural equipment;
maintaining, repairing, and replacing agricultural facilities, provided that the replacement facility is no
closer to the shoreline than the original facility; and maintaining agricultural lands under production or
cultivation.
"Agricultural products" includes but is not limited to horticultural, viticultural, floricultural, vegetable,
fruit, berry, grain, hops, hay, straw, turf, sod, seed, and apiary products; feed or forage for
livestock; Christmas trees; hybrid cottonwood and similar hardwood trees grown as crops and
harvested within twenty years of planting; and livestock including both the animals themselves and
animal products including but not limited to meat, upland finfish, poultry and poultry products, and dairy
products.
"Agricultural equipment" and "agricultural facilities" includes, but is not limited to:
A. The following used in agricultural operations: Equipment; machinery; constructed shelters,
buildings, and ponds; fences; upland finfish rearing facilities; water diversion, withdrawal,
conveyance, and use equipment and facilities including but not limited to pumps, pipes, tapes,
canals, ditches, and drains;
B. corridors and facilities for transporting personnel, livestock, and equipment to, from, and within
agricultural lands;
C. farm residences and associated equipment, lands, and facilities; and
D. roadside stands and on-farm markets for marketing fruit or vegetables.
"Agricultural land" means those specific land areas on which agriculture activities are conducted as
of the date of adoption of a local master program as evidenced by aerial photography or other
documentation. After the effective date of the master program, land converted to agricultural use is
subject to compliance with the requirements of the master program.
"Alluvial fan" is a low, outspread, relatively flat to gently sloping feature, shaped like an open fan or a
segment of a cone, deposited by a stream at the place where it issues from a valley upon a plain or
broad valley, or where a tributary stream is near or at its junction with the main stream, or wherever a
constriction in a valley abruptly ceases or the gradient of the stream suddenly decreases; it is
steepest near the mouth of the valley where its apex points upstream, and it slopes gently and convexly
outward with gradually decreasing gradient.
"Amendment" means a revision, update, addition, deletion, and/or reenactment to an existing shoreline
master program.
DOC.
July >, 2013 INDEX z�
# i -�
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
"Applicant" means a person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity that proposes a
development, construction or use on a site.
"Approval" means an official action by a local government legislative body agreeing to submit a
proposed shoreline master program or amendments to the Department of Ecology for review and
official action pursuant to this chapter; or an official action by the Department of Ecology to make a
local government shoreline master program effective, thereby incorporating the approved shoreline
master program or amendment into the state master program.
Appurtenance, residential" includes a garage; deck; driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a septic
tank and drainfield and grading which does not exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not
involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Local
circumstances may dictate additional interpretations of normal appurtenances which shall be set forth
and regulated within the applicable master program.
"Aquaculture" means the culture and/or farming of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants and animals.
When dependent on the use of the water area and when consistent with control of pollution and
prevention of damage to the environment, aquaculture is a preferred use of the water area.
Commercial aquaculture is conducted to produce products for market with the objective of earning a
profit. Non-commercial aquaculture is conducted for the benefit of native fish recovery, education and
interpretation, or other public benefit or use.
"Aquifer" means a saturated geologic formation which will yield a sufficient quantity of water to serve as
a private or public water supply.
"Bank" means the land surface above the ordinary high water mark that abuts a body of water and
contains it to the bankfull depth.
"Bankfull depth" means the average vertical distance between the channel bed and the estimated water
surface elevation required to completely fill the channel to a point above which water would enter
the floodplain or intersect a terrace or hillslope. In cases where multiple channels exist, the bankfull
depth is the average depth of all channels along the cross-section.
"Barb" is a structure used primarily in streams. It is a low relief projection from a bank, angled
upstream, to redirect flow away from the bank towards the center of the channel. As opposed to groins
or jetties, barbs are not barrier types of structures; they function by re -directing flows that pass over the
top of the structure.
"Base Flood" for purposes of administering Section 17.09.020 means the flood having a 1 -percent
chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. (Ref. IBC 1612.2)
"Base flood elevation" for purposes of administering Section 17.09.020 means the elevation of the
base flood, including wave height, relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), North
American Vertical Datum (NAVD) or other datum specified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
(Ref. IBC 1612.2)
"Basement" for purposes of administering Section 17.09.020 means any area of the building having
its floor subgrade (below ground level) on all sides. (Ref. IBC 1612.2)
"Bed" means the land below the ordinary high water lines of state waters. This definition shall not
include irrigation ditches, canals, storm water run-off devices, or other artificial watercourses except
where they exist in a natural watercourse that has been altered by man.
22 DOC, July 1, 2013
INDEX I.R. ey:..�14.:�. 2..,Q.'.p..:2_01,.
# P.
DRAFT
"Bedrock" means in-place solid rock.
CITY Or YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
"Berm" means a mound of earth material used as a protective barrier or to control the direction of water
flow.
"Best Management Practices" or "BMPs" means schedules of activities, practices, maintenance
procedures, and structural and/or managerial practices that, when used singly or in a combination
prevent or reduce adverse impacts to the environment.
"Bioengineering" means project designs or construction methods which use live woody vegetation or a
combination of live woody vegetation and specially developed natural or synthetic materials to
establish a complex root grid within the existing bank which is resistant to erosion, provides bank
stability, and maintains a healthy riparian environment with habitat features important to aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife. Bioengineered or biotechnical bank protection designs may incorporate limited use
of armored toes and wood structural elements.
"Boating facilities" means developments and uses that support access to shoreline waters for purposes
of boating, including marinas, community docks serving more than four single-family residences or
multi -family units, public piers, and community or public boat launch facilities. Docks serving four of
fewer single-family residences are not boating facilities.
"Breakwater" means a fixed or floating off -shore structure that protects the shore from wave
action or currents.
"Buffer averaging" means the regulatory alteration of the dimensions of a buffer that allows for
increases and decreases in the buffer in discrete areas provided that the net area of buffer remains the
same.
"Building Official" means the manager of the Offices of Code Administration or designee.
"Bulkhead" means a vertical or nearly vertical erosion protection structure placed parallel to the shore
consisting of concrete, timber, steel, rock, or other permanent material not readily subject to erosion.
"Channel" means an open conduit, either naturally or artificially created, which periodically or
continuously contains moving water, or which forms a connecting link between two bodies of water.
"Channel migration zone (CMZ)" means the area along a river within which the channel(s) can be
reasonably predicted to migrate over time as a result of natural and normally occurring hydrological
and related processes when considered with the characteristics of the river and its surroundings.
"Classification" means the definition of value and hazard categories to which critical areas and natural
resource lands will be assigned.
"Clearing" means the removal of timber, brush, grass, ground cover or other vegetative matter from a
site.
"Compaction" means compressing soil through some mechanical means to make it denser.
"Comprehensive master program update" means a master program that fully achieves the procedural
and substantive requirements of the Department of Ecology's Shoreline Master Program Guidelines
effective January 17, 2004, as now or hereafter amended.
"Conditional use" means a use, development, or substantial development which is classified as a
conditional use or is not classified within the applicable master program.
DOC.
July 1, 2013
INDEX 23
F
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
"Concentrated animal feeding operation" means a structure or pens for the concentrated feeding or
holding of animals or poultry, including, but not limited to, horses, cattle, sheep or swine. This definition
includes dairy confinement areas, slaughterhouses, shipping terminal holding pens, poultry and/or egg
production facilities and fur farms, but does not include animal husbandry.
"Construction" means the assembly, placement, or installation of structures, roadways, transmission
lines, and other improvements within a project site.
"Critical Aquifer Recharge Area" means an area with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for
potable water, or areas where a drinking aquifer is vulnerable to contamination that would affect the
potability of the water.
"Critical areas" as defined under chapter 36.70A RCW includes the following areas and ecosystems:
A. Wetlands;
B. Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable waters;
C. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
D. Frequently flooded areas; and
E. Geologically hazardous areas.
"Designated" means formal legislative action to identify and describe a critical area.
"Department" means the City of Yakima Community Development Department.
"Development" means a use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging;
drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing
of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal
public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the act at any stage of water level. See
also Substantial Development. Development does not include the following activities:
A. Interior building improvements that do not change the use or occupancy;
B. Exterior structure maintenance activities, including painting and roofing as long as it does not
expand the existing footprint of the structure;
C. Routine landscape maintenance of established, ornamental landscaping, such as lawn mowing,
pruning and weeding; and
D. Maintenance of the following existing facilities that does not expand the affected area: septic tanks
(routine cleaning); wells; and individual utility service connections.
"Development regulations" means the controls placed on development or land uses by a county or city,
including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances, all portions of a shoreline
master program other than goals and policies approved or adopted under chapter 90.58 RCW, planned
unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together with
any amendments thereto.
"Dike" means an embankment to prevent flooding by a stream or other water body. A dike is also
referred to as a levee.
"Dock" means a structure built over or floating upon the water and used as a landing place for boats
and other marine transport, fishing, swimming, and other recreational uses.
24
July 1, 2013
INDEX V, ..P.Y.�.!4.gi49LI ll: �u�;11.
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
"Document of record" means the most current shoreline master program officially approved or adopted
by rule by the department for a given local government jurisdiction, including any changes resulting
from appeals filed pursuant to RCW 90.58.190.
"Dredging" means removal of earth from the bed of a stream, lake, or pond for the purpose of flood
control; navigation; utility installation (excluding on-site utility features serving a primary use, which are
"accessory utilities" and shall be considered a part of the primary use); the construction or modification
of essential public facilities and regional transportation facilities; restoration (of which the primary
restoration element is sediment/soil removal rather than being incidental to the primary restoration
purpose); and/or obtaining minerals, construction aggregate, or landfill materials. This definition does
not include excavation for mining within a pond created by a mining operation approved under this
title or under a local zoning ordinance, or a mining operation in existence before Zoning, Shorelines,
or Critical Areas permits were required for such operations. Dredging, as regulated in this SMP under
Section 17.07.060, is not intended to cover other excavations waterward of the ordinary high water
mark that are incidental to construction of an otherwise authorized use or modification (e.g., bulkhead
replacements, large woody debris installations, boat launch ramp installation, pile placement).
"Earth material" means any rock, natural soil, or combination thereof.
"Ecological functions" or "shoreline functions" means the work performed or role played by the
physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and
terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem.
"Ecosystem -wide processes" means the suite of naturally occurring physical and geologic processes of
erosion, transport, and deposition; and specific chemical processes that shape landforms within a
specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the associated ecological
functions.
"Enhance" means to strengthen any of the basic functional properties listed in Chapter 17.09 that exist
but do not perform at optimum efficiency. "Optimum" refers to the most favorable or best
performance of each function achievable for a specific segment of stream or lake corridor.
"Ephemeral stream" means a stream that flows only in response to precipitation with no groundwater
association, usually less than 30 days per year. The lack of any groundwater association results in a
lack of a distinctive riparian vegetation compared to the surrounding landscape.
"Erosion" means the wearing away of the earth's surface as a result of the movement of wind, water,
or ice.
"Events and Temporary Uses" means a social or community occasion or activity lasting for a limited
time. Events and Temporary Uses within permitted facilities or legally non -conforming facilities that are
designed for such uses are not included in this definition, as long as they do not materially interfere
with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state.
"Excavation" means the mechanical removal of earth material.
"Exempt" developments are those set forth in WAC 173-27-040 and RCW 90.58.030(3)(e), 90.58.140(9),
90.58.147, 90.58.355, and 90.58.515 which are not required to obtain a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit, but which must otherwise comply with applicable provisions of the Act and the
local master program.
DOC.
INDEX
NDEX 25
� i
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
"Fair market value" of a development is the open market bid price for conducting the work, using the
equipment and facilities, and purchase of the goods, services and materials necessary to accomplish the
development. This would normally equate to the cost of hiring a contractor to undertake the
development from start to finish, including the cost of labor, materials, equipment and facility usage,
transportation and contractor overhead and profit. The fair market value of the development shall
include the fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or materials.
"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.
"Fill" means the addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure, or other
material to an area waterward of the OHWM, in wetlands, or on shorelands in a manner that raises the
elevation or creates dry land. The physical structure of a shore stabilization structure shall not be
considered fill. However, fill placed behind the structure is considered fill. Stream bed manipulation
for irrigation diversions or restoration shall not be considered fill.
"Flood" means a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry
land areas from the unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source.
"Flood hazard permit" means written approval applied for and obtained in accordance with such rules
and regulations as are established under this title.
"Flood insurance rate map (FIRM)" means the official map on which the Federal Emergency
Management Agency has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones
applicable to the community.
"Flood insurance study" means the official report provided by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency that includes flood profiles, the flood boundary-floodway map, and the water surface
elevation of the base flood.
"Floodplain" is synonymous with the one hundred -year floodplain and means that land area susceptible
to inundation with a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The limit of
this area shall be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or a reasonable method which meets the
objectives of the act.
"Flood -prone" means a land area for which a floodway and floodplain has not been determined with
respect to any specific flood frequency, but for which the potential for flooding can be identified by
information observable in the field such as soils or geological evidence, or by materials such as flood
studies, topographic surveys, photographic evidence or other data.
DOC.
26 INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
"Flood -proofing" for purposes of administering YMC Title 17 means any combination of structural and
nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood
damages to lands, water and sanitary facilities, structures and contents of buildings.
"Floodway" means the area, as identified in a master program, that either:
A. Has been established in Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps or
floodway maps; or
B. Consists of those portions of a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of a watercourse
upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur with reasonable
regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified, under normal
condition, by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of vegetative ground
cover condition, topography, or other indicators of flooding that occurs with reasonable regularity,
although not necessarily annually.
Regardless of the method used to identify the floodway, the floodway shall not include those lands that
can reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or
maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.
"Floodway fringe" for purposes of administering YMC Title 17 means that portion of a floodplain
which is inundated by floodwaters, but is not within a defined Floodway. Floodway fringes serve as
temporary storage for floodwaters.
"Forest land" means land primarily devoted to forest practices activities.
"Forest practices" means activities conducted under federal forest practices approval or under a Forest
Practices permit reviewed and approved by the Washington Department of Natural Resources
pertaining to the management of forest land, including growing, managing, harvesting, and interim
storage of merchantable timber for commercial value, as well as incidental activities reviewed under
federal or state approval, such as road construction and maintenance (including bridges) and mining
activities.
"Geotechnical report" or "geotechnical analysis" means a scientific study or evaluation conducted by a
qualified expert that includes a description of the ground and surface hydrology and geology, the
affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting, erosion, and other geologic hazards or
processes, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the proposed development on
geologic conditions, the adequacy of the site to be developed, the impacts of the proposed
development, alternative approaches to the proposed development, and measures to mitigate potential
site-specific and cumulative geological and hydrological impacts of the proposed development, including
the potential adverse impacts to adjacent and down -current properties. Geotechnical reports shall
conform to accepted technical standards and must be prepared by qualified professional engineers or
geologists who have professional expertise about the regional and local shoreline geology and
processes.
"Grade" means the vertical location of the ground surface. "Natural grade" is the grade as it exists
or may have existed in its original undisturbed condition. "Existing grade" is the current grade in either
its undisturbed, natural condition or as disturbed by some previous modification. "Rough grade" is a
stage where grade conforms approximately to an approved plan. "Finish grade" is the final grade of
the site which conforms to an approved plan. "Average grade level" is the average of the natural or
existing topography of the portion of the lot, parcel, or tract of real property which will be directly under
July 1, 2013 DOC.
INDEX 27
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
the proposed building or structure. In the case of structures to be built over water, average grade level
shall be the elevation of the ordinary high water mark. Calculation of the average grade level shall be
made by averaging the ground elevations at the midpoint of all exterior walls of the proposed building
or structure.
"Grading" means the movement or redistribution of the soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, or other
material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land
"Groin" means a barrier type of structure that extends from the stream bank into a waterbody for the
purpose of the protection of a shoreline and adjacent uplands by influencing the movement of water or
deposition of materials. Groins may serve a variety of functions, including bank protection, pool
formation, and increased roughness, and may include rock structures, debris jams, or pilings that collect
wood debris. See also Barb and Weir.
"Groundwater" means water that occurs beneath the land surface, also called subsurface water or
subterranean water. Groundwater includes water in the zone of saturation of a water -bearing
formation.
"Guidelines" means those standards adopted by the Department of Ecology into the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) to implement the policy of Chapter 90.58 RCW for regulation of use of the
shorelines of the state prior to adoption of master programs. Such standards also provide criteria for
local governments and the Department of Ecology in developing and amending master programs.
"Hard structural shoreline stabilization" means shoreline erosion control practices using hardened
structures that armor and stabilize the shoreline from further erosion. Hard structural shoreline
stabilization typically uses concrete, boulders, dimensional lumber or other materials to construct linear,
vertical or near -vertical faces. These include bulkheads, rip -rap, and similar structures.
"IiazalydV. us maa:e::"D"ia�;�w�a 11"n�e��V'➢s a �'1CVa ',",If'li'iV cell'�:��iC 11",:u�ll�,; I aC' XVII'" �II'V 'V; p"'VhlAllll"Yla'�:I "
_...7........................................................ q�wrri .&"�'k:,q is,a SII"�' �acall :aV..
_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, R,...................................................................................................._..,,..k,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,ll,,,,,,,,,,,,,�",,,,,,,1
hed,nlltlh hazard as r:h::�bf in��d alrnd cilassiified lin ill">rle lu'�tern'�atioinau Ii Fire i',; Olde wlhethel�'° the u°n"na ° .s '” I � r. i"
_............................................................................................................................................................................................................. t�, r.Ga h ar ,,, an
usable or w'astle (::)ndit:lo�n°' alrn o'rna :er"u'al ° inai:. a" Ila de... rade „ u°°o'ulrmr'1'wa r. �,.
,,,,,,,,,,,y........................................................................................................ 1.er , tlf..aIa1, wli�eun'im'rnaa°o�grII s'li':m.nra....r.l
y ................... g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,R,,,,,,,,,,,,.......................................................................................... y................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I l,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I L..................... y,,,,,,,,,,............................ p..
ldar'n .pled l:;reall:erf a sed :::lr°odlu :erl uMeg r;ICed ..... S nosed oif „nr' o�'heur�niise rr"uli9:Gu'� auaa eu:fm a.uil k„
..................................If...................................................8...................................k..............................................................N.......... Vnaza 'do�„s
,�������������,,,,,,,,dl,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...............................................8...........................................................................................................................................�l.A. �N.....................:N.....................................................................
�� �. M °' . I i �p �„
"Va 'inlY"'a; IVV „�V.Ub....I:all"VV...e aV'�,,ppe.... .G.�I? wa de d N"k:µ'9V:11`ien"lnei' ha'zaii'"iCl�9us wa�arl' tha. II'� cn '�., nl
m�.., ..............................������.....................�N����...............���.....M�n........�������������................ ............ d''.a I r' n e N.a 16.W 11
�����m,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1'H'',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1.,,,,,,,,,,,,A,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,e
hazard as defin"uu:nd olr cllasslfied ulrn I;:lha °ntea . 0" .II'. !": ill::" sand l ha lin ,nlr'i,.° w .,, 10 'WAi:r wl' e�::ll'ro�*u' �,:
................................................_.......,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...........................................................................................................................IC........ p the m z
,,,,,,,,,,�,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1...........................................,,,,......w.........................................................................................................
an,! in usal:)Ie oirwa',nste n.orrVdl'I�:ioIG'�'” all"n'd ::nV;"t:i''V;;nlif"VVI"rn DIY" '::nV;�1I:V�n�d'Ib. 11"n"� 'fir° dIVnC 'k, .i'" ..,.... lµi...n i.
_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_...........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Y..............................,IL.............................................................................._..IL..................................................................Il........................ t t d a t a c, lin N.n II Ir a n d Ir 'l"Va 9 e: at
,a,. Irnbi Vint taro G npeV.'at.i iiI " s IIIniciIVVIV:�IIIV'n :" a.in 'kd� 8i�:�. to l�,v
1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_..._................................................u...........................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11...........
"Height” is measured from average grade level to the highest point of a structure: Provided, that
television antennas, chimneys, and similar appurtenances shall not be used in calculating height, except
where such appurtenances obstruct the view of the shoreline of a substantial number of residences on
areas adjoining such shorelines, or the SMP specifically requires that such appurtenances be included:
Provided further, that temporary construction equipment is excluded in this calculation.
"Hydraulic dredging" is a minimally invasive dredging technique that utilizes suction to vacuum up
sediments and other lake or riverbed material.
"Hydrologically Related Critical Areas (HRCA)" include all those areas identified in YMC 17.09.030.0
within the City of Yakima which are important and deserving of protection by nature of their value for
the functional properties found in YMC 17.09.030.E.
"Hyporheic" means a groundwater area adjacent to and below channels where water is exchanged with
channel water and water movement is mainly in the downstream direction.
28 ® July 1, 2013
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
"Intermittent stream" means a stream which flows only during certain times of the year, with inputs
from precipitation and groundwater, but usually more than 30 days per year. The groundwater
association generally produces an identifiable riparian area. This definition does not include streams
that are intermittent because of irrigation diversion or other manmade diversions of the water.
"In -water structures" are structures placed by humans within a stream, river or lake waterward of the
OHWM that either causes or has the potential to cause water impoundment or the diversion,
obstruction, or modification of water flow. In -water structures may include those for hydroelectric
generation, irrigation, water supply, flood control, transportation, utility service transmission, fish
habitat enhancement, recreation, or other purpose. Barbs, jetties, groins and weirs are all examples of
in -water structures.
"Lake or pond" means an inland body of standing water.
"Limited master program amendment" means a master program amendment that addresses specific
procedural and/or substantive topics and which is not intended to meet the complete requirements of a
comprehensive master program update.
"Lowest floor" for purposes of administering YMC 17.09.020 means the lowest floor of the lowest
enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood -resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking
of vehicles, building access or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a
building's lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in
violation of the applicable nonelevation design requirements of this title.
"Maintenance, Normal" means those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a legally
established condition. See Repair, Normal.
"Manufactured home" means a structure fabricated on a permanent chassis that is transportable in
one or more sections; is designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation when connected
to the required facilities; has sleeping, cooking, and plumbing facilities or any combination thereof; and
is intended for human occupancy or is being used for residential purposes.
"Manufactured home park or subdivision" means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into
two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale pursuant to YMC Title 15.
"Manufactured home park or subdivision, existing" means a manufactured home park or subdivision
that was completed before December 15, 1981, the effective date of the floodplain management
regulations.
"May" means the action is acceptable, provided it conforms to the provisions of this chapter.
"Minerals" means gravel, sand and metallic and non-metallic substances of commercial value.
"Mining" means the removal of naturally occurring minerals and materials from the earth for
commercial value. Mining includes processing and batching. Mining does not include large
excavations for structures, foundations, parking areas, etc.
"Must" means a mandate; the action is required.
"Native" means indigenous to or originating naturally within Yakima County.
"Natural conditions" means those conditions which arise from or are found in nature and not
modified by human intervention; not to include artificial or manufactured conditions.
DOC.
�
July 1, 2013 INDEX 29
Rg� N Aumg g..2%. 0.:1
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT'
"Natural or existing topography" means the topography of the lot, parcel, or tract of real property
immediately prior to any site preparation or grading, including excavation or filling.
"New construction," for purposes of administering YMC 17.09.020, means the start of construction after
construction plans were submitted to the City and the building division reviewed and approved the
construction plans to create a structure.
"Nonconforming structure" for purposes of administering YMC 17.09.020 means a structure which was
lawful prior to the adoption or amendment of this chapter, but which fails by reason of such adoption or
amendment to conform to the present requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. In
addition, the structure may not be permitted as a new structure under the terms of this chapter because
the structure may not be in conformance with the applicable elevation and/orfloodproofing
requirements.
"Nonconforming use" for purposes of administering YMC 17.09.020 means a use of land or structure
which was lawfully established and maintained prior to the adoption or amendment of this chapter, but
does not conform to this chapter for the zoning district in which it is located. In addition, the use may
not be permitted as a new use under the terms of this chapter because the use may not be in
conformance with the applicable elevation and/or floodproofing requirements.
"Nonwater-oriented uses" means those uses that are not water -dependent, water -related, or water -
enjoyment.
"Ordinary High Water Mark" (OHWM) means that mark on lakes and streams which will be found by
examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common
and usual, and so long continued in ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from
that of the abutting upland.
"Perennial stream" means a stream that flows year round in normal water years. Groundwater is a
source of much of the water in the channel.
"Permit" means any substantial development, variance, conditional use permit, or revision authorized
under chapter 90.58 RCW.
"Priority habitat" means a habitat type with unique or significant value to one or more species. An area
classified and mapped as priority habitat must have one or more of the following attributes:
Comparatively high fish or wildlife density; comparatively high fish or wildlife species diversity; fish
spawning habitat; important wildlife habitat; important fish or wildlife seasonal range; important fish or
wildlife movement corridor; rearing and foraging habitat; refuge; limited availability; high vulnerability
to habitat alteration; unique or dependent species; or shellfish bed. A priority habitat may be described
by a unique vegetation type or by a dominant plant species that is of primary importance to fish and
wildlife. A priority habitat may also be described by a successional stage. Alternatively, a priority habitat
may consist of a specific habitat element (such as talus slopes, caves, snags) of key value to fish and
wildlife. A priority habitat may contain priority and/or non-priority fish and wildlife.
"Priority species" means species requiring protective measures and/or management guidelines to
ensure their persistence at genetically viable population levels. Priority species are those that meet any
of the criteria listed below:
A. State -listed or state proposed species. State -listed species are those native fish and wildlife species
legally designated as endangered (WAC 232-12-014), threatened (WAC 232-12-011), or sensitive
(WAC 232-12-011). State proposed species are those fish and wildlife species that will be reviewed
DOC.
30 INDEXJuly 1, 20
� IG�� �d�.....3
�
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (POL-M- 6001) for possible listing as endangered,
threatened, or sensitive according to the process and criteria defined in WAC 232-12-297.
B. Vulnerable aggregations. Vulnerable aggregations include those species or groups of animals
susceptible to significant population declines, within a specific area or statewide, by virtue of their
inclination to congregate.
C. Species of recreational, commercial, and/ortribal importance. Native and nonnative fish, shellfish,
and wildlife species of recreational or commercial importance and recognized species used for tribal
ceremonial and subsistence purposes that are vulnerable to habitat loss or degradation.
D. Species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act as either proposed, threatened, or
endangered.
"Project site" means that portion of any lot, parcel, tract, or combination thereof which encompasses all
phases of the total project proposal.
"Provisions" means policies, regulations, standards, guideline criteria or environment designations.
"Public access" means the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to
travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations.
"Public interest" means the interest shared by the citizens of the state or community at large in the
affairs of government, or some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected including, but not
limited to, an effect on public property or on health, safety, or general welfare resulting from a use or
development.
"Public Trust Doctrine" is a legal principle derived from English Common Law. The essence of the
doctrine is that the waters of the state are a public resource owned by and available to all citizens
equally for the purposes of navigation, conducting commerce, fishing, recreation and similar uses and
that this trust is not invalidated by private ownership of the underlying land. The Public Trust Doctrine
does not allow the public to trespass over privately owned uplands to access the water. It does,
however, protect public use of navigable water bodies below the ordinary high water mark. See
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/laws_rules/public_trust,htmi.
"Qualified Professional" shall meet the following criteria:
A. A qualified professional for wetlands must have a bachelors degree or higher in biology, ecology, soil
science, botany, or a closely related field, and a minimum of five years of professional experience in
wetland identification and assessment in the Pacific Northwest.
B. A qualified professional for stream corridors must have a bachelors degree or higher in wildlife
biology, ecology, fisheries, or closely related field, and a minimum of five years professional
experience related to the subject species/habitat type.
C. A qualified professional for geologically hazardous areas and preparation of geo-technical reports
must be a professional engineering geologist or civil engineer, licensed in the state of Washington.
D. A qualified professional for critical aquifer recharge areas must be a professional hydrogeologist, or
environmental engineer licensed in the state of Washington.
E. A qualified professional for channel migration zone reports must be a professional engineering
geologist, civil engineer or geologist licensed in the state of Washington, with a minimum of five
years of professional experience in geomorphology.
DOC.
July 1, 2013
a ; . :...31
r.: I 11D�
.H3.
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
F. A qualified professional for flood studies must be a professional engineering geologist or civil
engineer licensed in the state of Washington.
G. A qualified professional for economic studies must have a bachelors degree or higher in economics
or business administration with 5 years of professional experience. The five year standard shall be
waived for professionals with a PhD degree.
H. A qualified professional for habitat assessments and habitat management plans must have a
bachelors degree or higher in biology and professional experience related to the subject species or
habitat.
I. Or other person/persons with experience, training, expertise and related work experience
appropriate for the relevant critical area subjects determined acceptable to the Shoreline
Administrator.
"Recreational development" means public or commercial activities or facilities that allow for the
refreshment of mind and body. Examples include, but are not limited to, parks, viewpoints, trails, public
access facilities, and other low -intensity use outdoor recreation areas. Recreational uses that do not
require a shoreline location, nor are related to the water, nor provide significant public access, are
considered nonwater-oriented. For example, a recreation use solely offering indoor activities would be
considered nonwater-oriented.
"Recreation vehicle" means a vehicle which is:
A. Built on a single chassis;
B. Four hundred square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection;
C. Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light-duty truck; and
D. Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for
recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.
"Repair, Norma I" means to restore a development or structure to a state comparable to its original,
legally established condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and
external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair
causes substantial adverse effects to shoreline resource or environment. Replacement of a structure or
development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for
the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to
the original structure or development including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location
and external appearance and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline
resources or environment. See also Maintenance, Normal.
"Residential development" means construction or alteration, earth modification, subdivision and use of
land primarily for human residence; including, but not limited to, single-family residences and
multifamily dwellings, accessory uses, and structures normally associated with residential uses and
structures. Residential development includes land divisions, including short plats, of residentially zoned
land. It also includes all modifications to land and vegetation associated with construction, preparation,
or maintenance of residential structures or accessory structures.
"Restore," "restoration" or "ecological restoration" means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired
ecological shoreline processes or functions, such as those listed in YMC 17.09.030.E that have been lost
or destroyed through natural events or human activity. This may be accomplished through measures
32 DOC' July 1, 2013
INDEX..;k.b,R��;
#
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
including, but not limited to, re -vegetation, removal of intrusive structures and removal or treatment of
toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the site to aboriginal or pre -
European settlement conditions.
"Revetment" means a facing placed on a bank or bluff to protect a slope, embankment, or shore
structure against erosion by wave action or currents.
"Riparian vegetation" means the terrestrial vegetation that grows beside rivers, streams, and other
freshwater bodies and that depends on these water sources for soil moisture greater than would
otherwise be available from local precipitation.
"Riprap" means a layer, facing, or protective mound of stones randomly placed to prevent
erosion, scour, or sloughing of a structure or embankment; also the stone used for this purpose.
"Scour" means the removal of underwater material by waves and currents, especially at the base or toe
of a shore stabilization structure.
"Shall" means a mandate; the action must be done
"Shorelands" or "shoreland areas" means those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all
directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and
contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river
deltas associated with the streams and lakes which are subject to the provisions of this chapter; the
same to be designated as to location by the Department of Ecology.
"Shorelines" means all of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated
shorelands, together with the lands underlying them; except (i) shorelines of statewide significance;
(ii) shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty cubic
feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and (iii) shorelines
on lakes less than twenty acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes.
"Shoreline areas" and "shoreline jurisdiction" means all "shorelines of the state" and "shorelands" as
defined in RCW 90.58.030.
"Shorelines of statewide significance" means the following shorelines of the state:
A. Those lakes, whether natural, artificial, or a combination thereof, with a surface acreage of one
thousand acres or more measured at the ordinary high water mark;
B. Those natural rivers or segments east of the crest of the Cascade range downstream of a point
where the annual flow is measured at two hundred cubic feet per second or more, or those portions
of rivers east of the crest of the Cascade range downstream from the first three hundred square
miles of drainage area, whichever is longer; and
C. Those shorelands associated with A and B, above.
"Shorelines of the state" are the total of all "shorelines" and "shorelines of statewide significance"
within the state; "Shoreline modifications" means those actions that modify the physical configuration
or qualities of the shoreline area, usually through the construction of a physical element such as a dike,
breakwater, pier, weir, dredged basin, fill, bulkhead, or other shoreline structure. They can include other
actions, such as clearing, grading, or application of chemicals.
DOC.
July 1 2013 INDEX 33
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
"Shoreline environment designations" are a classification of shorelines established by local shoreline
master programs in order to provide a uniform basis for applying policies and use regulations within
distinctively different shoreline areas.
"Shorelines Hearings Board" means a six member quasi-judicial body, created by the SMA, which hears
appeals by any aggrieved party on the issuance of a shoreline permit, enforcement penalty and appeals
by the City on Department of Ecology approval of master programs, rules, regulations, guidelines or
designations under the SMA.
"Shoreline modifications" means those actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the
shoreline area, usually through the construction of a physical element such as a dike, breakwater, pier,
weir, dredged basin, fill, bulkhead, or other shoreline structure. They can include other actions, such as
clearing, grading, or application of chemicals.
"Shoreline stabilization" means structural or non-structural modifications to the existing shoreline
intended to address erosion impacts to property and dwellings, businesses, or structures caused by
natural processes, such as current, flood, wind, or wave action. They are generally located parallel to the
shoreline at or near the OHWM.
"Should" means that the particular action is required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason,
based on policy of the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter, against taking the action.
"Significant" means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental
quality. Significance involves context and intensity and does not lend itself to a formula or quantifiable
test. The context may vary with the physical setting. Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration
of an impact. The severity of an impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence.
An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental
impact would be severe if it occurred.
"Significant ecological impact" means an effect or consequence of an action if any of the following
apply:
A. The action measurably or noticeably reduces or harms an ecological function or ecosystem -wide
process.
B. Scientific evidence or objective analysis indicates the action could cause measurable or noticeable
reduction or harm to those ecological functions or ecosystem -wide processes under foreseeable
conditions.
C. Scientific evidence indicates the action could contribute to a measurable or noticeable reduction or
harm to ecological functions or ecosystem -wide processes as part of cumulative impacts, due to
similar actions that are occurring or are likely to occur. Any project may have one or more
significant ecological impacts, which can be either short-term or long-term. Projects with short-
term significant ecological impacts may still be considered beneficial if the project improved
ecological function over the long term, either due to mitigation or because of short-term impacts
may be construction -related only.
"Significant vegetation removal" means the removal or alteration of trees, shrubs, and/or ground cover
by clearing, grading, cutting, burning, chemical means, or other activity that causes significant ecological
impacts to functions provided by such vegetation. The removal of invasive or noxious weeds does not
constitute significant vegetation removal. Tree pruning, not including tree topping, where it does not
affect ecological functions, does not constitute significant vegetation removal.
34 INDEX Il�ie�d u�M,u��„m, �y'���..D.�.3:
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
"Single Improved Recreational Vehicle Site" means a site on which a recreational vehicle may be parked
with minimal services (such as electricity, well and septic system), without a garage or carport, and
without large accessory buildings (small detached storage sheds or accessory structures totaling 120
square feet or less may be allowed). Recreational vehicle sites not meeting these criteria are
considered single family residences.
"Slope" means an inclined ground surface the inclination of which is expressed as a ratio of
horizontal distance to vertical distance.
"Soft structural shoreline stabilization" means shoreline erosion control and restoration practices that
contribute to restoration, protection or enhancement of shoreline ecological functions. Soft structural
shoreline stabilization typically includes a mix of gravels, cobbles, boulders, logs and native vegetation
placed to provide shore stability in a non-linear, generally sloping arrangement. Linear, vertical faces
are an indicator of Hard Structural Shoreline Stabilization (see above definition).
"Solid waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes including, but not
limited to, garbage, rubbish, wood waste, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, demolition and construction
wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, and discarded commodities. Solid waste shall not
include earth, clay, sand or gravel.
"Special flood hazard area" means the land in the floodplain identified by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency that is subject to a one -percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year;
commonly known as the 100 -year floodplain.
"Start of construction," for purposes of administering YMC 17.09.020, means the first placement of
permanent construction of a structure (other than a manufactured home) on a site, such as the
pouring of slabs or footings or any work beyond the stage of excavation. "Permanent construction"
does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling, nor does it include the
installation of streets or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers or
foundations, or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of
accessory buildings, such as garage, or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not as part of the main
structure. For a structure (other than a manufactured home) without a basement or poured footings,
the "start of construction" includes the first permanent framing or assembly of the structure or any
part thereof on its piling or foundation. For manufactured homes not within a manufactured home
park, "start of construction" means the affixing of the manufactured home to its permanent site. For
manufactured homes within manufactured home parks, "start of construction" is the date on which
the construction of facilities for servicing the site on which the manufactured home is to be affixed
(including, at a minimum, the construction of streets, either final site grading or the pouring of
concrete pads, and installation of utilities) is completed.
"State master program" is the cumulative total of all shoreline master programs and amendments
thereto approved or adopted by rule by Ecology.
"Stream" means water contained within a channel, either perennial, intermittent or ephemeral.
Streams include natural watercourses modified by man, for example, by stream flow manipulation,
channelization, and relocation of the channel. They do not include irrigation ditches, wasteways, drains,
outfalls, operational spillways, canals, stormwater runoff facilities, or other artificial watercourses.
"Stream corridor," as used in this title, means those features listed and described in YMC
17.09.030.C.
Y 2 DIX. 35
July 1umo ! 29 ..' INDEX
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
"Structure" means a permanent or temporary edifice or building, or any piece of work artificially built or
composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, whether installed on, above, or below the
surface of the ground or water, except for vessels
"Substantial development" shall mean any development of which the total cost or fair market value
exceeds five thousand dollars, or any development which materially interferes with the normal public
use of the water or shorelines of the state. The dollar threshold established in this subsection (3)(e)
must be adjusted for inflation by the office of financial management every five years, beginning July 1,
2007, based upon changes in the consumer price index during that time period. "Consumer price index"
means, for any calendar year, that year's annual average consumer price index, Seattle, Washington
area, for urban wage earners and clerical workers, all items, compiled by the bureau of labor and
statistics, United States department of labor. The office of financial management must calculate the new
dollar threshold and transmit it to the office of the code reviser for publication in the Washington State
Register at least one month before the new dollar threshold is to take effect. See WAC 173-27-040 for a
list of developments that are not considered substantial.
"Substantial improvement" for purposes of administering YMC 17.09.020 means any repair,
reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the
assessed value of the structure either:
A. Before the improvement or repair is started; or
B. Before the damage occurred to a structure that has been damaged and is being restored.
For the purposes of this definition, "substantial improvement" occurs when the first alteration of any
wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration
affects the external dimensions of the structure. The total value of all improvements to an individual
structure undertaken subsequent to October 1, 1995, the effective date of this title, shall be used to
define "substantial improvement" for said structure. The term does not, however, include either:
A. Any project for improvement to a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary or
safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions; or
B. Any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register or Historic Places or a state inventory of
historic places.
"Substantially degrade" means to cause significant ecological impact.
"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.
"Use" means the activity to which land or a building is devoted and for which either land or a building is
or may be occupied or maintained.
"Variance" is a means to grant relief from the specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set
forth in the applicable master program and not a means to vary a use of a shoreline.
"Vegetative buffer or Buffer" means an area extending landward from the ordinary high water mark of
a lake or stream and/or from the edge of a wetland which is maintained or otherwise allowed to
provide, under optimal conditions, adequate soil conditions and native vegetation for the performance
of the basic functional properties of a stream corridor, wetland and other hydrologically related critical
areas as set forth in YMC 17.09.030.E (Functional Properties) and YMC 17.09.040.D (Wetland Functions
lDOC.
36 INDEX IR.�.w'd�,"...::au. !! ly 1,,2,D13
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
and Rating). It is understood that optimal conditions do not always exist due to degradation of the
vegetative buffer before establishment of this title, or due to colonization by non-native species. Such
conditions still provide functional properties, though at a lower level, depending on the difference from
natural conditions.
"Vessel" includes ships, boats, barges, or any other floating craft which are designed and used for
navigation and do not interfere with the normal public use of the water.
"Water -dependent use" means a use or portion of a use which cannot exist in a location that is not
adjacent to the water and which is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its
operations.
"Water -enjoyment use" means a recreational use or other use that facilitates public access to the
shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic
enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic of the use and
which through location, design, and operation ensures the public's ability to enjoy the physical and
aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water -enjoyment use, the use must be open
to the general public and the shoreline -oriented space within the project must be devoted to the
specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment.
"Water -oriented use" means a use that is water -dependent, water -related, or water -enjoyment, or a
combination of such uses.
"Water quality" means the physical characteristics of water within shoreline jurisdiction, including water
quantity, hydrological, physical, chemical, aesthetic, recreation -related, and biological characteristics.
Where used in this chapter, the term "water quantity" refers only to development and uses regulated
under this chapter and affecting water quantity, such as impermeable surfaces and storm water
handling practices. Water quantity, for purposes of this chapter, does not mean the withdrawal of
ground water or diversion of surface water pursuant to RCW 90.03.250 through 90.03.340.
"Water -related use" means a use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront
location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because:
A. The use has a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of
materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or
B. The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water -dependent uses and the proximity of
the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient.
"Weir" means a structure generally built across a stream channel for the purpose of diverting water or
trapping sediment or other moving objects transported by water.
"Wetland" or "wetlands" means that area inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances does 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. However, wetlands may include those
artificial wetlands specifically intentionally created from non -wetland areas to mitigate conversion of
wetlands.
DM��//'��//��
.
July 1 2013INDEX37
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
"Wildlife" means all species of the animal kingdom whose members exist in Washington in a wild
state. The term "wildlife" includes, but is not limited to, any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, or
invertebrate, at any stage of development. The term "wildlife" does not include feral domestic
mammals or the family Muridae of the order Rodentia (old world rats and mice).
"Wildlife habitat" means areas which, because of climate, soils, vegetation, relationship to water,
location and other physical properties, have been identified as of critical importance to maintenance of
wildlife species.
17.01.100 Shoreline Jurisdiction
Pursuant to the authority of RCW 40.58.030(2)(f) and WAC 173-22-040(2-3), the jurisdictional limits of
the Shoreline Master Program within the City of Yakima for areas that are subject to these regulations,
are listed below. The City of Yakima has developed maps to generally depict the extent of Shoreline
jurisdictional boundaries for all Shorelines within the county. These maps are for informational and
illustrative purposes only and are not regulatory in nature. Where such maps are not available or do not
correspond with physical features on the ground, jurisdictional boundaries shall be controlled by the
criteria listed below, WAC 173-22, and the Act itself. It is understood when the maps and the actual
physical features do not correspond, the physical features will dictate the extent of the jurisdictional
boundaries. It is understood that the actual physical features may change. The physical features will
dictate the extent of the Shoreline jurisdictional boundaries. Shoreline jurisdictional area shall include:
A. The following waterbodies in the City and, upon annexation, in the UGA:
Yakima River,
2. Naches River,
3. Willow Lake,
4. Lake Aspen, and
5. Rotary Lake.
B. Buchanan Lake shall be regulated under this SMP when the Washington Department of Natural
Resources Surface Mine Reclamation Permit lapses or is terminated, or when the City receives a
permit application for new development on or uses of Buchanan Lake. _..Fhe li i„heal "�_Ir,or_e,,,I_i;,ne
Substantial .l.....IDevedp.p,!!fro, ,�I,��,Im ....Conditions Use Pprnrliit SII:�....B4,,,, b) i.:p S rAedIs Yakirrja Crri..�r1�. I�r
..................... ....... _...Y .....................................................
_._�_.
Bu.�chanan I,.alse sto`VV overns.
C. Subject to subsection H below, wherever the "floodway” has been established by a flood insurance
study prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), shoreline jurisdiction shall
be the floodway plus 200 feet, measured on a horizontal plane, or the 100 -year floodplain,
whichever is lesser.
D. Subject to subsection H below, whenever the 100 -year floodplain has been identified by a flood
insurance study prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency but where no "floodway"
has been identified, shoreline jurisdiction shall be the 100 -year floodplain boundary or 200 feet,
measured in a horizontal plane, from the ordinary high water mark, whichever is greater.
E. Whenever there are no detailed floodplain or floodway studies, shoreline jurisdiction shall be 200
feet, measured on a horizontal plane, from the ordinary high water mark.
DOC.
38INDEX
ff July 1, 2013
# �. m
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
F. Where a Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) has been identified, and extends beyond the jurisdiction
established by subsection C above, jurisdiction shall extend to the extent of the CMZ, but not
beyond the limits of subsection D.
G. Those wetlands and river deltas which are in proximity to and either influence or are influenced by
the Shorelines. This influence includes, but is not limited to, one or more of the following: periodic
inundation, location within a floodplain, or hydraulic continuity;
H. Under no circumstances shall shoreline jurisdiction be less than 200 feet, measured on a
horizontal plane, from the ordinary high water mark of the Shoreline waterbody, except that those
portions of Buchanan Lake within 200 feet of the Yakima River are excluded from shoreline
jurisdiction until Buchanan Lake is regulated as a shoreline waterbody.
C 1V° f A 11 ] Ik ��' II 1 IIh 7 ,, iw, j 3 S III i )11)I � III. II II"��11 llh IIh \1 III IR 0 I[''��l 11VI E °'III S IV G A," I S
This SMP is intended to meet the requirements in WAC 173-26-211. It states that:
Master programs shall contain a system to classify shoreline areas into specific environment
designations. This classification system shall be based on the existing use pattern, the biological
and physical character of the shoreline, and the goals and aspirations of the community as
expressed through comprehensive plans as well as the criteria in this section. Each master
program's classification system shall be consistent with that described in WAC 173-26-211(4)
and (5) unless the alternative proposed provides equal or better implementation of the act.
This SMP is consistent with these requirements, deviating from WAC 173-26-211(4) and (5) with respect
only to some environment designation names, or the addition of new environment designations where
such provides the City with opportunity to provide further, but complementary, designations consistent
with existing land management plans. Each environment designation contains a purpose statement,
designation criteria, and management policies components.
17.03.010 Floodway / Channel Migration zone (CMZ)
A. Purpose: The "Floodway/CMZ" environment is intended to protect the water areas, islands,
associated overflow channels, and channel migration areas. This environment provides for the
movement of the river within its floodplain, and emphasizes preservation of the natural hydraulic,
geologic and biological functions of the City's shorelines that are constrained by biophysical
limitations.
Designation Criteria: The Floodway/CMZ designation is assigned to shoreline areas that are within a
mapped Channel Migration Zone and/or within a designated FEMA Floodway. The extent of the
Floodway/CMZ designation should never extend beyond the limitations of the Shoreline CMZ found
in WAC 173-26-221(3)(b). Areas separated from the active river channel by existing legal artificial
channel constraints should not be considered as part of the CMZ. In addition, areas that are
separated from the active channel by legally existing artificial structure(s) including transportation
facilities, built above or constructed to remain intact through the one hundred -year flood, should
also not be considered part of the CMZ.
C. Management Policies:
July 1 2013 INDEXWwo 3g
uliuu�r
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
1. Commercial, industrial, mining, nonwater-oriented recreation, roads, utilities, parking areas,
and residences should generally not be located in the Floodway/CMZ environment. Other
uses (recreation, resource, etc.) should be carefully limited to protect shoreline functions.
2. Activities that may degrade the value of the Floodway/CMZ environment should be limited,
and development in hazardous areas should be restricted.
Modifications that harden or fix stream banks and channels should be discouraged.
A. Purpose: The "Urban Conservancy" environment is intended to protect and restore ecological
functions of open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and
developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses.
B. Designation Criteria: Specific criteria for designation of the Urban Conservancy environment include
areas or properties that:
1. Lie in the city limits and urban growth areas;
2. Are planned for development that is compatible with the principals of maintaining or restoring
the ecological functions of the area;
3. Are suitable for water -enjoyment uses;
4. Are open space or flood plains, or;
S. Are areas that retain important ecological functions which should not be more intensively
developed.
C. Management Policies:
1. Allowed uses for the Urban Conservancy environment generally include uses which preserve
the natural character of the area, and promote the preservation of open space, floodplains or
sensitive lands.
2. Uses allowed under this designation should focus on recreation.
3. Commercial, industrial and residential uses should be limited, and when allowed result in
restoration of ecological functions.
4. Public access and recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and
significant ecological impacts can be mitigated.
A. Purpose: The purpose of the "High Intensity" environment is to provide for high-intensity water -
oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological
functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded.
B. Designation Criteria: Specific criteria for designation of the High Intensity environment include areas
or properties that:
Presently support high intensity land uses including commercial, industrial, urban recreational,
transportation, or high-intensity water -oriented uses.
2. Are planned to accommodate urban expansion of uses listed in 1 above.
BMW
40 INDEX July 1, 2013
ue u.0 ro.
DRAFT
C. Management Policies:
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Water -oriented commercial, industrial, and recreation uses should be given high priority in
the High Intensity environment. First priority should be given to water -dependent uses.
Second priority should be given to water -related and water -enjoyment uses. Nonwater-
oriented uses should not be allowed except as part of mixed-use developments. Nonwater-
oriented uses may also be allowed in limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit
opportunities for water -oriented uses or on sites where there is no direct access to the
shoreline. Public benefits such as ecological restoration or public access may be required in
association with nonwater-oriented development.
2. When considering shoreline environment designation amendment proposals, full utilization of
existing high intensity areas should be achieved before further expansion of intensive
development is allowed.
3. New development in the High Intensity designation should assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions. Where applicable, new development should include environmental
cleanup and restoration of the shoreline to comply with any relevant state and federal law.
4. Where feasible, visual and physical public access should be required as part of development in
the High Intensity designation unless it already exists to serve the development or other
safety, security, or fragile environmental conditions apply.
5. Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such assign control regulations,
appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance of
natural vegetative separation.
17.03.040 Essential Public Facilities
A. Purpose: The "Essential Public Facilities" environment is intended to support planning and
maintenance of existing essential public facilities.
Designation Criteria: The Essential Public Facilities designation is assigned to lands containing those
facilities that are typically difficult to site or relocate, such as state or regional transportation
facilities and waste water handling facilities.
C. Management Policies:
1. Essential public facilities and their accessory or supporting uses are allowed in the Essential
Public Facilities environment.
2. Allowed new development in the Essential Public Facilities designation should assure no net
loss of shoreline ecological functions.
3. Where applicable, new and expanded development should include environmental cleanup
and restoration of the shoreline to comply with any relevant state and federal law.
4. Expansion and improvement of existing facilities should be allowed, with mitigation
sequencing applied to avoid and then minimize adverse impacts to the extent consistent with
the specific facility and public needs, with mitigation required for any remaining adverse
impacts.
DIC.
lY 1, 2013 INDEX 41
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
17.03.050 Shoreline Residential
DRAFT
A. Purpose: The purpose of the "Shoreline Residential" environment is to accommodate residential
development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with the SMP. An additional purpose is
to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.
B. Designation Criteria: Assign a Shoreline Residential environment designation to areas that are
predominantly single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for
residential development.
C. Management Policies:
1. Development standards addressing the development envelope, water quality, and vegetation
should assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account the
environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and
services available, and other comprehensive planning considerations.
2. Multifamily and multi -lot residential and recreational developments should provide public
access and joint use for community recreational facilities.
3. Access, utilities, and public services should be available and adequate to serve existing needs
and/or planned future development.
4. Commercial development should be limited to water -oriented uses and allowed only when
the underlying zoning permits such uses.
17.03.060 Aquatic
A. Purpose: The purpose of the "Aquatic" environment is to protect, restore, and manage the unique
characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high-water mark of shoreline
lakes.
B. Designation Criteria: The Aquatic designation applies to lands and waters waterward of the ordinary
high water mark of shoreline lakes.
C. Management Policies:
42
1. Allow new over -water structures only for water -dependent uses, public access, or ecological
restoration. The size of new over -water structures should be limited to the minimum
necessary to support the structure's intended use.
2. In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of water
resources, multiple use of over -water facilities should be encouraged.
3. Uses that could adversely impact the ecological functions of critical freshwater habitats should
not be allowed except where necessary to achieve the objectives of the Shoreline
Management Act, and then only when their impacts are mitigated according to mitigation
sequencing as necessary to assure no net loss of ecological functions.
4. Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent degradation of
water quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions.
5. When considering development or activities in the Aquatic environment, the City should favor
development and activities associated with preferred uses of the Shoreline Management Act
DOC.
INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
and apply development standards that consider water quality, navigation, presence of aquatic
vegetation, existing critical habitats, aesthetics, public access, and views.
17.03.070 Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix
Table 03.070-1 lists the uses and activities for each Shoreline Environment designation that are
allowed by Substantial Development Permit and/or Conditional Use Permit, or are prohibited. Such
uses shall be processed in accordance with YMC Chapter 17.13 (Administration and Enforcement). This
table does not change those situations of when this title does not apply to a development (YMC
17.01.020 Applicability), or when a use or activity listed as needing a Shoreline Substantial Development
P ermit may qualify for an exemption instead (YMC 17.13.050, Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial
Development Permits). Definitions for some uses are provided in YMC 17.01.090. The provisions in
Table 03.070-1 apply to specific common uses and types of development only to the extent they occur
within shoreline jurisdiction.
Table 03.070-1. Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix
Shoreline Use or Modification
S
X
S
S
S
N/A
Agricultural Market, Agricultural Stand (Zoning)
S
Vi+
@
C
V
_ N
d
c U
N/A
--------------.........................,.....,....__..,.
S
"
u
a
v+
Z
c ----
X c
a�
S = Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or
See Industry/Manufacturing/Storage
Sz
Exemption
c
X
__
U
3
N/A
C= Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
.c
i
o
c
M
X = Prohibited N/A = Not Applicable_
r_ t
Agricultural Activities (RCW 90.58.065)
S
X
S
S
S
N/A
Agricultural Market, Agricultural Stand (Zoning)
S
X
X
S
X
N/A
Winery and Brewery (Zoning)
S
X
X
S
X
N/A
Agriculture -Industrial
Agricultural Chemical Sales/Storage (Zoning)
S
X
X
X
X
N/A
Agricultural Related Industries & Storage
S
X
X
C
X
N/A
(Zoning)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Concentrated Feeding Operation (Zoning,
See Industry/Manufacturing/Storage
Regional SMP)
X
X
X
X
X
N/A
Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
Non-commercial
S
S
X
C
C
S
Processing (Regional SMP)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Packing & Storage (Regional SMP)
See Industry/Manufacturing/Storage
July 1, 2013
IND 43
�1
4
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
Shoreline Use or Modification
S
+�
C
X
X
See upland
designation
Public/Community/Commercial
S
M
c
S
N
c U
5
---------- -------------- ---------------
--------------
S
u
N
S
r
m
S = Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or
=
a'
cc
X
S
Exemption
5
eo
c
u°
M o
C= Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
S
X
X
M
o L
a
X = Prohibited N/A = Not Applicable
=
s
.
°
Cr
Outdoor manufacturing, processing and
Boating and Private Moorage Facilities
Boat Launches (Regional SMP)
Private
S
X
C
X
X
See upland
designation
Public/Community/Commercial
S
S
S
S
S
5
Pier/Dock
Single -Family Residence Facility to Access
N/A
X
S
X
X
S
Watercraft (Regional SMP)
S
X
X
C
X
X
Water -Dependent Commercial, Industrial,
S
X
X
S
X
X
Aquaculture, Recreational, or Community
S
X
S
X
X
S
Residential Use; or Public Access (Regional SMP)
Commercial and Service Development
Retail, Trade, and Service
Water -Oriented (SMP Guidelines) S X X S X C
Non -Water -Oriented
General (Regional SMP)
C
X
X
C
X
X
General + Public Benefit'
S
X
X
C
X
X
Separated from Shoreline (Regional SMP)
S
X
X
S
X
X
... - ....
Mixed-use4 project that includes a Water -
Dependent Commercial, Industrial,
Aquaculture, or Recreational Use (Regional
S
X
X
S
X
C
SMP)
Outdoor manufacturing, processing and
storage
S
X
X
X
X
X
Community Services and Institutional Uses (Zoning
Code)
Water -Oriented (SMP Guidelines) S S X S X C
Non -Water -Oriented
General (Regional SMP)
C
C
X
C
X
X
Separated from Shoreline (Regional SMP)
5
S
X
S
X
N/A
Mixed-use4 Project that Includes a Water-
S
S
X
S
X
C
DOC.
44 INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Shoreline Use or Modification
N/A
C
N/A
N/A
C
...............................
C
----------..-------- .,..... -.,e..,..-------------------
N/A
-
u
"
v
m
N/A
N
c U
...
S
K
N/A
X
N/A
N/A
X
C
S = Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or
S
a'
°C
c
^'
N/A
Exemption
N/A
S
N/A
U°
3 .+C°-,
u
C=Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
s
—
X
L
Mc
X
M
X = Prohibited N/A = Not Applicable
to
=
�
LL,
t
-0
0
LL
Cr
Dependent Commercial, Industrial,
Aquaculture, or Recreational Use (Regional
S
S
X
C
C
X
SMP)
N/A
S
N/A
N/A
S
S
Health and Social Service Facility (Zoning
Code)
S
S
X
X
X
X
Mixed -Use Buildings (Zoning)
S
X
X
X
X
X
Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal
Dredging for Water -dependent Use and Public
N/A
C
N/A
N/A
C
...............................
C
Access (Regional SMP)
N/A
S
N/A
N/A
S
S
Dredging for Existing Navigation Uses (Regional
N/A
X
N/A
N/A
X
C
SMP)
S
S
S
S
S
N/A
Dredging for Habitat Restoration (Regional SMP)
_ ............ _.
N/A
S
N/A
N/A
S
...............................
S
Dredging, Other (Regional SMP)
N/A
—
X
N/A
N/A
X
X
Disposal of Dredged Material, General
S
S
X
X
X
...............................
X
Disposal of Dredged Material, General +Part of
Restoration Plan
S
S
X
C
C
X
Dredging Maintenance Plan
N/A
S
N/A
N/A
S
S
Fill
Waterward of the OHWM, General
N/A
C
N/A
N/A
C
C
Waterward of the OHWM, General + Part of
Restoration Plan
N/A
S
N/A
N/A
S
S
Upland of the OHWM, General (Regional SMP)
S
S
S
S
C
N/A
Upland of the OHWM, Part of Restoration Plan
S
S
S
S
S
N/A
Flood Hazard Reduction Measures
Modification of Existing Flood Hazard Facilities
(including relocation farther landward)
S
S
S
S
S
N/A
New Facilities
C
C
C
C
C
N/A
Forest Practices
Forest Practices N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Industry I Manufacturing 1 Storage
Water -Oriented (SMP Guidelines) I5 I X X 1 C I X I C
July 1, 2013 INDEX 4S
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
Shoreline Use or Modification
C
C
C
C
C
C
General (Regional SMP)
C
••
U
LL
X
C
N
X
—--—-_.,. . e———,. .. .. __.. ., _,._,. .... ---—--—-__,. ,. . . ,. ,. . ---
_eKey
Key:
S
u
S
S
C
s c
5 ..........................
S = Shoreline Substantial Development Permit ora'
S
X
ccc
X
~
M
Exemption
C
C
C
U
c
40
C ...........................
C = Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
r
X
ly
�
1
X
X = Prohibited /A = Not Applicable
00
=
;
o
s
.
a to
N/A
Mixed-use4 project that includes a Water -
D
a:Cr
Non -Water -Oriented
C
C
C
C
C
C
General (Regional SMP)
C
X
X
X
X
X
General + Part of Restoration Plan, Provides
S
S
S
S
S
5 ..........................
Other Public Benefit', or Located in Degraded
S
X
X
X
X
X
Area
C
C
C
X
X
C ...........................
Outdoor manufacturing, processing and storage
X
X
X
X
X
X
Separated from Shoreline (Regional SMP)
S
X
X
C
X
N/A
Mixed-use4 project that includes a Water -
Dependent Commercial, Industrial, Aquaculture,
S
X
X
C
X
C
or Recreational Use (Regional SMP)
In -Water Structures
To protect public facilities
C
C
C
C
C
C
To protect or restore ecological functions
S
S
S
S
S
..............................
S
To monitor flows, water quality, or other habitat
S
S
S
S
S
5 ..........................
characteristics
S
S
S
S
S
S
Other
C
C
C
X
X
C ...........................
Mining
Surface Mining (Regional SMP)
C
X
X
X
X
..............................
X
Underground Mining (Regional SMP)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mining for Habitat Restoration (Regional SMP)
S
S
S
S
S
5 ..........................
Recreational Development
Water -Oriented (SMP Guidelines)
High -Intensity, General (Regional SMP)
S
S
S C
C C
High Intensity, General + Part of Restoration Plan
S
S
S S
S S
or Located in Degraded Areal
Moderate -Intensity, General (Regional SMP)
I S
S
S S
..........................
C C
Moderate -Intensity, General + Part of
Restoration Plan or Located in Degraded Area
S
S
S S
S S
Low -Intensity (Regional SMP)
S
S
S S
S S
Recreation Maintenance Plan
S
S
S S
S S
46
DOL.
INDEX
July 1, 2013
RE�_ g,g&s it 21 2i0 13
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Shoreline Use or Modification
S
X
S
S
X
N/A
Accessory Dwelling Unit (Zoning Code)
S
X
C
S
N
C
N/A
Key:.
S
LL
u
C
C
M
.V.r
M C
W
S = Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or
S
a'
a�
Vv
o
o
a
Y
Exemption
C
X
E
u
>-
fu
N/A
C= Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
t
X
N/A
coc
L
m
X = Prohibited N/A = Not Applicable
Cp
=
Us
w
r
N/A
p
� g
Q
Non -Water -Oriented (SMP Guidelines)
................................ ------
General C X X C X X
Sites separated from shoreline S X S S C N/A
Indoor (Regional SMP) See Commercial and Service Uses
Residential Development
Single -Family Dwelling (Zoning Code)
S
X
S
S
X
N/A
Accessory Dwelling Unit (Zoning Code)
S
X
S
S
X
N/A
Duplex (Zoning Code)
S
X
C
C
X
N/A
Multifamily Dwelling (Zoning Code)
S
X
X
X
X
N/A
Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision3 (Regional
SMP)
C
X
X
X
X
N/A
Houseboats and Over -Water Residential Uses
(Regional SMP)
N/A
X
N/A
N/A
X
X
Residential Maintenance Plan
S
N/A
I S
N/A
N/A
I S
Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems
Enhancement Projects
Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems
Enhancement Projects S S S S S 5
Shoreline Stabilization
Hard Stabilization
C
C
C
C
C
C
Soft Stabilization
S
S
S
C
C
S
Repair and Replacement
S
S
S
S
S
S
Signs
On -premise for Authorized Use (Regional SMP)
S
S
S
S
S
S
Off -premise (Regional SMP)
S
S
X
X
X
X
Informational (directional, landmark, trail marker,
S
S
S
S
S
.................................
S
etc.) (Regional SMP)
Transportation and Parking
New Access Roads Serving Permitted Uses (Regional S S 5 5 C N/A
SMP)
DOC.
July 1, 2013 47
Rea Au ust 20 2013 INDEX
# A -)
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
CIa1i
Shoreline Use or Modification
Reviewed as art of authorized use.
Utility Services to Projects outside Shoreline
Jurisdiction (Regional SMP)
S
5
S
S
--- - ---
C
u
ti
c
7•
c
y
c V
C
Key:
NN
Expanded Power Generating Facilities
S
5
X
C
S= Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or
c
a
S
c
�
M
Exemption
C
New Utility Services, General (Zoning Code)
c
u°
c
C
C =Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
t
Expanded Utility Services, General
S
S
L-
S
X = Prohibited N/A = Not Applicable
C
LU
S
S
S
S
Expanded Access Roads Serving Permitted Uses
S
S
5
S
S
/A
New Highways, Freeways, Arterials & Collectors
X
Wastewater Treatment Facility+ Part of Restoration
Plan or Located in Degraded Areal
S
5
X
S
(Regional SMP)
S
5
C
C
C
C
Expanded Highways, Freeways, Arterials &
.................................
Collectors
S
S
S
S
S
S
New Bridges
S
S
C
C
C
.......................................
C
Expanded Bridges
5
S
S
S
S
S
Transportation Maintenance Plan
-.......................................................................... ........... ........ ...._........ _.... ............ ...... ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ....... ..
S
S
S
S
S
N/A
Transportation Maintenance Facilities (Regional
SMP)
C
S
X
C
X
X
New Railways (Regional SMP)
....................................................................I.........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.............................................
S
S
C
C
C
C
Expanded Railways
S
S
S
S
S
S
Parking for Authorized Use (Regional SMP)
Reviewed as part of authorized use.
Park and Ride lots and Similar Stand Alone Parking
...................
(Regional SMP)
C
S
X
X
X
X
Utilities
Utility Services Accessory to Individual Shoreline
Projects (Regional SMP)
Reviewed as art of authorized use.
Utility Services to Projects outside Shoreline
Jurisdiction (Regional SMP)
S
5
S
S
C
C
New Power Generating Facilities (Zoning Code)
C
C
X
C
X
C
Expanded Power Generating Facilities
S
5
X
C
X
C
Utility Transmission Lines (Regional SMP)
S
5
C
C
C
C
New Utility Services, General (Zoning Code)
C
C
C
C
C
C
Expanded Utility Services, General
S
S
S
S
C
C
Utility Maintenance Plan
S
S
S
S
S
S
Wastewater Treatment Facility
C
S
X
C
C
X
Wastewater Treatment Facility+ Part of Restoration
Plan or Located in Degraded Areal
S
5
X
S
S
X
1 Public benefit = public access for substantial numbers of persons or shoreline ecological restoration.
DOCS.
48 INDEX July 1, 2013
ev A,iGu�rg '[� �0.1r',� ;�
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Z Degraded Area = improved rights of way, levees, previously legally degraded land, or existing
impervious area.
3 Construction of a manufactured home on an existing lot is permitted as a "Single-family Dwelling."
4 In this context, "mixed-use" means a shoreline development that includes and supports a water -
dependent use.
5 "Mixed-use building" means a building in a commercial district or planned development used partly for
residential use and partly for a community facility or commercial use.
17.03.080 Development Standards
A. There shall be a thirty-five (35) foot maximum building height for all structures, except that utility
towers and poles, water treatment towers, wastewater treatment facilities and bridges are not
required to meet this standard. To exceed 35 feet, an applicant must apply for a Shoreline Variance,
and comply with the following criteria in addition to standard Shoreline Variance criteria:
1. Demonstrate overriding considerations of the public interest will be served
Demonstrate that the proposal will not obstruct the view of a substantial number of
residences on areas adjoining such shorelines or impair views from public lands or impair
scenic vistas to the Yakima Greenway or Naches River or associated lakes.
B. Minimum shoreline lot frontage shall be consistent with underlying zoning and be no less in width
than the following by shoreline environment:
High Intensity, Essential Public Facilities: 35 feet
Shoreline Residential: 50 feet
Urban Conservancy, Floodway/CMZ: 60 feet
C. Shoreline buffers: See YMC 17.09.030.
D. Minimum structures setback from side property lines in shoreline jurisdiction shall be consistent
with the underlying zoning and no less than 5 feet.
17.03.090 Official Shoreline Maps and Unmapped or Undesignated Shorelines
A. The shoreline jurisdiction and environment designations established by this title are shown on the
official Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environment Designations Map for the Yakima urban growth area.
The official Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environment Designations Map, together with all the
explanatory material thereon, is adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this SMP. The
electronic files of the official map will be considered the official version and may be updated
administratively or through an SMP amendment as indicated in YMC 17.03.090.13, C and D below.
The Department of Ecology will be provided with electronic files of the official map when any
updates are made. Minor mapping errors corrected administratively shall not be greater than 1.0
acre in size. If greater than 1.0 acre in size, a SMP amendment shall be completed within three
years of finding the mapping error.
B. Any areas within shoreline jurisdiction that are not mapped and/or designated due to minor
mapping inaccuracies in the lateral extent of shoreline jurisdiction from the shoreline waterbody
related to site-specific surveys of ordinary high water mark, floodway, channel migration zones,
DOC.
July 1, 2013 INDEX 49
Shu �u ��:... a
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Inky—.12 r
and/or floodplain are automatically assigned the category of the contiguous waterward shoreline
environment designation. Where the mapping inaccuracy results in inclusion of an unmapped
associated wetland, that wetland shall be assigned an Urban Conservancy environment designation.
Correction of these minor mapping inaccuracies may be made and incorporated into the official
Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environment Designations Map without an SMP amendment.
C. All other areas of shoreline jurisdiction that were neither mapped as jurisdiction nor assigned an
environment designation shall be assigned an Urban Conservancy designation until the shoreline
can be redesignated through an SMP amendment process conducted consistent with WAC 173-26-
100 and YMC 17.13.140.
D. The actual location of the OHWM, floodplain, floodway, and wetland boundaries must be
determined at the time a development is proposed. Wetland boundary and ordinary high water
mark determinations are valid for five years from the date the alrq
assessed —-- Lagger.jin_th iield._After fivey±Lr� ijis_ I a �;seda the City shaft determine whetlhq
re usu w or additional assessrnenL is neces� ary.. Floodplain and floodway boundaries should be
assessed using FEMA maps or the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical
information available.
E. In addition, any property shown in shoreline jurisdiction that does not meet the criteria for shoreline
jurisdiction shall not be subject to the requirements of this SMP. Revisions to the official Shoreline
Jurisdiction and Environment Designations Map may be made as outlined in this section E without
an SMP amendment.
17.03.100 Pre -Designation
The City of Yakima has adopted shoreline environment pre -designations for shorelines located outside
of city limits but within the City's urban growth area. In the event of annexation of a shoreline, the
affected area shall be subject to the Yakima Shoreline Master Program upon the effective date of the
annexation.
The City has also adopted shoreline environment pre -designations for Buchanan Lake and its future
associated shorelands. In the event that the Washington Department of Natural Resources Surface
Mine Reclamation Permit lapses or is terminated, or when the City receives a permit application for new
development on or uses of Buchanan Lake, Buchanan Lake shall be considered a shoreline waterbody
and will be subject to this SMP.
i -i P"'i"' lE11:117.105 G III II11 II,,,, REGU III,,,,, T 11 ;)lM s
17.05.010 Archaeological and Historic Resources
A. The City shall require that permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources
c::rlr' Il .:roc eV.�:: ry "tl�'ilrn an ,!.rie clla..,iif'o
ed a r° i'n q „ '..� II"'� l'6; a V'l d V"' dell'"'h i'n l „ I'..a V"'�' l'C p fire" , r : ,., I::a ::u „o r
......................................................................................................... ............................... / r u �,,, ollo Ila... a Ire .�o u.nii,,. .
„au„>N c:�lr'u tll7 usl"riiill° il;ou'....t'ate Dean llrnell"ut rp;lf Allclaeollo,:. and II Nlistolrir Ilplr°rseratooll� II::;DAIIIP
.....................o K......................................................................,,,,,,................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.... .............. .
l,c;ro rn1o1a, ,ll,,,11
require a site inspection or evaluation by a professional archaeologist. Auger tests
may be required before construction and representatives of "n ::n.t.,;...;;„.;: of”'
A14'°IP and Yakama 4.ip Nation may be invited to observe
any tests and construction warkugnnai wilCll t el e ppLoylideid; the-re�su�ullts �Of �suich �tes�ts. If auger or historical
data indicate probable presence of cultural resources which may be disturbed by excavation, the
50 INDEX July 1, 2413
Rev A
■
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
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, i ..
DAMP. and the Yakama Nation if
archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation. Following such notification, the City may
follow the provisions of subsection C.
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, or where the C3AHP_pre_dictive rnoclel identifies the area as having
° N h risk and/orvery hi h risk" for grchaeolo�ical resources the City shall 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.Oz0 Environmental Protection
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 d.lewr�'Ilip itilq� 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 YMC
17.05.010.13 not required. In the following circumstances, the applicant must provide the mitigation
sequencing analysis described in YMC 17.05.020.D:
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 YMC 17.05.020.0 must describe how the proposal will follow the
sequence of mitigation as defined below:
Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
July 1, 2013 DOC' 51
Rl�v �"� m u�� u� � �...� �, 7 �1i 111;;;,.
' � IND
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
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.
E. 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 17.04, Critical Areas in Shoreline Jurisdiction, a mitigation plan
must include:
1. 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;
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;
S. 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.
F. 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.
17.05.030 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation
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.
52 DOC. July 1, 2013
INDEX
# _/
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
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 YMC 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 17.05.020.D 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,
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.Rer.noyal Gf irlrrasive )e. Cies doers
not re, uiire mith.atkm Ibut the...rerlc ovail.....�,i,tg,,,,,must,,, , ,,,!rnapq:ed :1..�..._t:.`_uthned irr YM :: 7.0 ra��:,0J k��;�k)\N
p.....avoid.........1!......Irirp,u, a„u,lri .p. .....11 u., ntiiall adveir.se ii acts,
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 maybe 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
July 1, 2013 INDEX 53
' ... 9::9, , u„ t ,'Q 2013
' .�
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
1IT-1
in bare soils that may be subject to erosion or recolonization by invasive species, the area must be
stabilized using best management practices and replanted with native plants.
J. 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.
17.05,040 Water Quality, Stormwater, and Nonpoint Pollution
A. Do not degrade ecological functions. 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, so that there is no net loss of ecological
functions.
Do not degrade views and recreation opportunities. 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, so that significant impacts
to aesthetic qualities or recreational opportunities do not occur. A significant impact to aesthetics
or recreation would occur if a stormwater facility and appurtenant structures such as fences or
other features have the potential to block or impair a view of shoreline waters from public land or
from a substantial number of residences per RCW 90.58.320, or if water quality were visibly
degraded such that the color and character were unattractive and discouraged normal uses such as
swimming, fishing, boating, or viewing.
C. Requirements for new development.
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 compliance with the latest edition of the Stormwater Management Manual for
Eastern Washington or approved local equivalent if applicable to the project. If certain
thresholds are not met by a development that trigger compliance with the Stormwater
Management Manual or approved local equivalent, best management practices (BMPs) must
still be employed to avoid and minimize potential adverse effects.
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.
D. Chemical applications. Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers should be applied in a manner which
minimizes direct or indirect entrance into nearby waters. Application of pesticides intended to abate
mosquitoes or similar water -related infestations should be administered in accordance with
Environmental Protection Agency standards.
E. Sewage management. To avoid water quality degradation, sewer service is subject to the
requirements outlined below.
54
INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
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.
F. 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.
G. 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.
17.05.050 Public Access
A. Shoreline development shall not interfere with public access and enjoyment of any nearby publicly
owned land areas.
B. The City shall not vacate any road, street, or alley abutting a body of water except as provided under
RCW 35.79.035.
C. Efforts to implement the public access provisions of this section shall be consistent with all relevant
constitutional and other legal limitations on regulation of private property and the principles of
nexus and proportionality. Public access requirements on privately owned lands should be
commensurate with the scale and character of the development and should be compatibly designed
to meet needs of affected parties including, but not limited to, the landowner and the public.
Applications than: acciess �::au are au ii of ,�u„ertlies owned Ili::u 'Nall°ur�ua �:o�,ulrst shall11;�u.ull.�ii uuiit
_.................................................................................................................................................................................................................I P.......................................1..........
................................................................................................................................................................................. Y..............,,,,...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
wu'rac�. urn eu °I;atuou of C'mi,�. , ,i;P,p,L ;Y, „�II ,I°ii r,ll„ to su�b� uu° tal tcv tlll e (,-1n!y.,.
[AF:. Public access does not include the right to enter upon or cross private property, except on dedicated
public rights-of-way or easements or where development is specifically designed to accommodate
public access.
ii -E, Except as provided in subsection,.P Gbelow, shoreline substantial developments and shoreline
conditional uses shall provide for safe and convenient public access to and along the shoreline
where any of the following conditions are present:
1. the development is proposed by a public entity or on public lands, or is a publicly financed
erosion control measure ;
the nature of the proposed use, activity or development will likely generate a public demand
for one or more forms of physical or visual access to the shoreline;
the proposed use, activity or development is not a water -oriented or other preferred
shoreline use, activity or development under the Act, such as a non -water -oriented
commercial or industrial use; or
DOC. INDEX July 1, 2013 NDEX 55
1, 21011,.
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
4. the proposed use, activity or development will interfere with the public use, activity and
enjoyment of shoreline areas or waterbodies subject to the public trust doctrine (see
definition YMC 17.01.090).
IFG. An applicant shall not be required to provide public access where the City determines that one or
more of the following conditions apply:
1. reasonable, safe and convenient public access to the shoreline is accessible within one-
quarter mile (1,320 feet) of the site, &Riiq,ir the City's adopted parks and recreation plans do
not indicate a need for a trail or access at the property;
2. the site is within or part of an overall development which has previously provided public
access through other application processes;
3. the economic cost of providing for public access upon the site is unreasonably
disproportionate to the total long-term economic value of the proposed use, activity or
development;
4. the proposed use, activity or development only involves the construction of four or fewer
single-family or multifamily dwellings;
5. the proposed use, activity or development only involves agricultural activities;
6. the proposal consists of a new or expanded road or utility crossing through shoreline
jurisdiction serving development located outside of shoreline jurisdiction;
7. the nature of the use, activity or development or the characteristics of the site make public
access requirements inappropriate due to health, safety or environmental hazards based on
evidence provided in the proposed application;
8. the proposed use, activity or development has security requirements that are not feasible to
address through the application of alternative design features or other measures;
9. significant and unmitigable harm to the shoreline environment would be likely to result from
an increase, expansion or extension of public access upon the site;
10. public access is deemed detrimental to threatened and/or endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act.
. Public Access Standards. When public access is provided, the following standards shall apply.
1. Physical public access is preferred to solely visual access. Where physical public access is not
feasible, the applicant shall incorporate visual public access. Visual public access may consist
of view corridors, viewpoints, or other means of visual approach to public waters. Physical
public access may consist of a dedication of land or easement and a physical improvement in
the form of a trail, park, or other area serving as a means of physical approach to public
waters.
2. Physical public access shall be designed to connect to existing or future public access features
on adjacent or abutting properties, or shall connect to existing public rights-of-way or access
easements, consistent with design and safety standards.
3. Public access proposals shall be designed consistent with parks and recreation standards or
plans contained in applicable City, County, State, or Federal codes or approved plans.
56
DOC.
INDEX July
:,,, 2013
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
II. Shared community access may be allowed if there is no existing or planned public access along the
shoreline as determined by a review of adopted parks and recreation plans. Where provided,
community access is subject to all applicable development standards of this section.
�Ji. Off-site public access, either physical or visual, may be permitted by the City where it results in an
equal or greater public benefit than on-site public access, or when on-site limitations of security,
environment, or feasibility are present. Off-site public access is preferred where it implements
adopted City, County, or Yakima Greenway parks and recreation plans. Off-site public access may
include, but is not limited to, enhancing a nearby public property (e.g. existing public recreation site;
existing public access; road, street or alley abutting a body of water; or similar) in accordance with
City standards; providing, improving or enhancing public access on another property under the
control of the applicant/proponent; or another equivalent measure.
�,. The City may condition public access proposals to ensure compatibility with existing public access or
transportation facilities, address environmental conditions or environmental impacts, and/or
address compatibility with adjacent properties. Public access facilities shall be made compatible
with adjacent private properties through the use of techniques to define the separation between
public and private space.
17.05.060 Flood Hazard Reduction
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 rr�ii°npreC] ii, i.v.ie 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). A Regulatory Channel Migration Zone Map is adopted by reference and
declared to be a part 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 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 costs (see definition in YMC 17.01.090).
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.
D00.
July 1, 2013 INDCy 57
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
58
DRAFT
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.
When the primary purpose of a utility transmission line is to transfer bulk products or energy
through a floodway en route to another destination, as opposed to serving customers within a
floodway, such transmission lines shall conform to the following:
a. All utility transmission lines shall cross floodways by the most direct route feasible as
opposed to paralleling floodways;
b. Electric transmission lines shall span the floodway with support towers located in
floodway fringe areas or beyond. Where floodway areas cannot be spanned due to
excessive width, support towers shall be located to avoid high floodwater velocity
and/or depth areas, and shall be adequately floodproofed;
c. Buried utility transmission lines transporting hazardous and non -hazardous materials,
including but not limited to crude and refined petroleum products and natural gas, shall
be buried a minimum of four (4) feet below the maximum established scour of the
waterway, as calculated on the basis of hydrologic analyses. Such burial depth shall be
maintained horizontally within the hydraulic floodway to the maximum extent of
potential channel migration as determined by hydrologic analyses. In the event
potential channel migration extends beyond the hydraulic floodway, conditions imposed
upon floodway fringe and special flood hazard areas shall also govern placement. All
hydrologic analyses are subject to acceptance by the City of Yakima, which shall assume
the conditions of a one -hundred (100) year frequency flood as verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and shall include on-site investigations and consideration of
historical meander characteristics in addition to other pertinent facts and data. The use
of riprap as a meander containment mechanism within the hydraulic floodway shall be
consistent with this Title;
d. 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; and,
e. Aboveground utility transmission lines, not including electric transmission lines, shall
only be allowed for the transportation of non -hazardous materials where an existing or
new bridge or other structure is available and capable of supporting the line. When
located on existing or new bridges or other structures with elevations below the one -
hundred (100) year flood level, the transmission line shall be placed on the downstream
side and protected from flood debris. In such instances, site-specific conditions and
flood damage potential shall dictate placement, design and protection throughout the
floodway. Applicants must demonstrate that such aboveground lines will have no
appreciable effect upon flood depth, velocity or passage, and shall be adequately
protected from flood damage. If the transmission line is to be buried except at the
waterway crossing, burial specifications shall be determined as in subsection (C)(3)
above.
DOC.
�
INDEX July 1, 2013
# 1
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Water -dependent installations which by their very nature must be in the floodway. In all
instances of locating utilities and other installations in floodway locations, project design must
incorporate floodproofing (Examples of water -dependent installations are: docks and boat
launches; dams for domestic/industrial water supply; wastewater treatment and collection
systems; flood control and/or hydroelectric production; water diversion structures and
facilities for water supply; irrigation and/or fisheries enhancement; floodwater and drainage
pumping plants and facilities; hydroelectric generating facilities and appurtenant structures;
and nonstructural uses and practices; provided, that the applicant shall provide evidence that
a floodway location is necessary in view of the objectives of the proposal, and provided
further that the proposal is consistent with other provisions of this Chapter and Title)
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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:
shall be approved when a scientific and engineering analysis demonstrates the following:
a. that they are necessary to protect existing development;
DOC.
July 1, 2013 INDEX 59
:gu ,.2Q, 2.9.1
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
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;
c. that adverse effects upon adjacent properties will not result relative to increased
floodwater depths and velocities during the base flood or other more frequent flood
occurrences;
d. that the ability of natural drainage ways to adequately drain floodwaters after a flooding
event is not impaired;
e. that the proposal has been coordinated through the appropriate diking district where
applicable, and that potential adverse effects upon other affected diking districts have
been documented; and,
f. that adverse impacts on ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be
successfully mitigated so as to assure no net loss.
Z. shall be consistent with an approved comprehensive flood hazard management plan.
3. 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.
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.
t ' .! .�.'.:....C,�.�..igxx .Stir) : [gvees ar"e niot c'olnslidered rerl�,..ae1" stll"iG ctura� f igiod liaz'ard II"eductiolr6 IC"nleas„ II,,,_ s „
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .,........................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._........................................................................ � ,w � � ��,tl II
.. ... h�..... .......................
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 17.07.050, 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
60 DOC. July 1, 2013
IND �u n ...
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
applicant shall provide all necessary studies, reports and engineering analysis which shall be subject
to review and modification by the City. If proposed transportation 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.
0 7 L I S 14 S 11 IIh C 16 IU'' III C A IPS 11 II3 [ )�4 C, II[ ) 1I lF1' IU CA ID III 0 ['� 11 G U III.AIII III 0 III111�1k S
17.07.010 Agriculture
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.
The provisions of this SMP do not limit or require modification of agricultural activities on
agricultural lands as of the date of adoption of the SMP.
C. SMP provisions shall apply in the following cases:
1. new agricultural activities on land not meeting the definition of agricultural land;
2. expansion of agricultural activities on non-agricultural lands or conversion of non-agricultural
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. agricultural development and uses not specifically exempted by the Act.
D. Concentrated animal feeding operations (see definition in YMC 17.01.090) are prohibited in
shoreline jurisdiction.
E. New agricultural activities and facilities shall utilize best management practices established by the
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service or other similar agency.
F. 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 shall 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 water for
aquacultural purposes within Shoreline jurisdiction.
A. All structures located within waterbodies 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.
July 1, 2013 INDEX 61
r
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
B. Aquaculture facilities shall be designed and located to avoid significant conflict with water -
dependent uses, the spreading of disease, introduction of non-native species, or impacts to
shoreline aesthetic qualities.
C. New aquaculture proposals shall comply with mitigation sequencing requirements as outlined in
YMC 17.05.020.D, and with all other general standards in YMC Chapter 17.05. Aquaculture activities
that would have a significant adverse impact on natural, dynamic shoreline processes, or that would
result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, shall be prohibited.
D. Potential locations for aquaculture are relatively restricted due to specific requirements for water
quality, temperature, flows, oxygen content, adjacent land uses, wind protection, and commercial
navigation. The technology associated with some forms of present-day aquaculture is still in its
formative stages and experimental. Therefore, some latitude in the development of this use should
be given, while the potential impacts on existing uses and natural systems are recognized.
E. Aquaculture that supports recovery of endangered or threatened fish species or supports public or
community recreation is encouraged provided it is conducted within the bounds of subsections A
through C.
17.07.030 Boating and Private Moorage Facilities
A. All boating facilities and residential moorage structures 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. Docks associated with single-family residences are defined as water -dependent uses provided
they are designed and intended as a facility for access to watercraft.
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 permanent boat
moorage, are prohibited in free-flowing streams and rivers.
E. Public, commercial, industrial, or community residential boating facilities 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
waterbodies, if applicable;
3. be restricted to suitable locations;
4. avoid or mitigate for aesthetic impacts;
mitigate impacts to existing public access and navigation, if applicable;
6. provide documentation of ownership or authorization to use associated water areas;
7. 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; and
8. submit an operations and site plan demonstrating:
62
DOC.
INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
a. location and design of fuel handling and storage facilities to minimize accidental spillage
and protect water quality;
b. proper water depth and flushing action for any area considered for overnight or long-
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 when required or
appropriate. Such facilities should be located away from the immediate water's edge.
F. Private residential docks.
Aspen Lake: the maximum length of docks is 8 feet measured perpendicular from the OHWM,
and no new dock may be situated directly across from an existing dock.
Willow Lake: the maximum length of docks is 12 feet measured perpendicular from the
OHWM.
G. Boat Launches.
1. Launch ramps shall be designed and constructed using methods/technology that have been
recognized and approved by state and federal resource agencies as the best currently
available, with consideration for site-specific conditions and the particular needs of that use.
At a minimum, they shall minimize the obstruction of currents, alteration of sediment
transport, and the accumulation of drift logs and debris.
2. New boat launch facilities shall be approved only if they provide public access to public waters
that are not adequately served by existing access facilities, or if use of existing facilities is
documented to exceed the designed capacity. Prior to providing boat launch facilities at a
new location, documentation shall be provided demonstrating that expansion of existing
launch facilities is not feasible or would not be adequate to meet a specific recreation or
safety-related demand.
17.07.040 Commercial and Service Development
The following provisions apply to any development, construction, or use of land or water for
commercial and community service purposes within Shoreline jurisdiction.
A. Water -dependent commercial development shall be given priority over non -water -dependent
commercial uses. Secondarily, water -related and water -oriented uses shall be given priority over
non -water -oriented commercial uses.
B. Application for new commercial or community services shall demonstrate either:
How the use qualifies as a water -oriented use and how facilities function as such, or;
The use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water -dependent uses, or;
Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site, and the use will provide a significant
public benefit towards meeting SMA objectives, such as providing public access consistent
with YMC 17.05.040 and ecological restoration, or;
DOC.
July 1, 2013 INDE�X 63
p
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
4. That a non -water -oriented use is physically separated from the shoreline by either a public
right-of-way or a separate parcel.
C. Mixed-use buildings, as defined in YMC 17.01.090, may be allowed subject to compliance with all of
the following criteria:
1. The project includes one or more water -dependent uses.
2. Water -dependent commercial uses as well as other water -oriented commercial uses have
preferential locations along the shoreline.
The underlying zoning district permits residential uses together with commercial uses.
4. Public access is provided for substantial numbers of persons in accordance with YMC
17.05.050 and ecological restoration is provided as a public benefit. The Shoreline
Administrator shall interpret substantial numbers of persons consistent with the Act, SMP
Guidelines, and Shorelines Hearings Board cases.
5. Residential uses meet requirements of YMC 17.07.130.
D. If required by YMC 17.05.040, commercial and community services uses shall be designed to
facilitate public access to and enjoyment of nearby shoreline areas.
E. Non -water -oriented commercial uses shall not be allowed over water in any shoreline environment
unless they are accessory to and support water -dependent uses.
17.07.050 Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal
A. Siting and design. New development shall be sited and designed to avoid or, if that is not possible,
to minimize the need for new and maintenance dredging.
B. Dredging and dredge material disposal shall be done in a manner which avoids or minimizes
significant ecological impacts, and impacts which cannot be avoided shall be mitigated in a manner
that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Dredging and excavation shall be confined
to the minimum area necessary to accomplish the intended purpose or use.
C. Dredging shall be permitted for the following activities when significant ecological impacts are
minimized and when mitigation is provided:
1. Establishment, expansion, relocation or reconfiguration of navigation channels and basins
where necessary for assuring safe and efficient accommodation of existing navigational uses.
Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins, provided dredging is
restricted to maintaining previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth, and
width.
Development, expansion and maintenance of essential public facilities when there are no
feasible alternatives.
4. Maintenance of irrigation reservoirs, drains, canals, or ditches for agricultural purposes.
5. Restoration or enhancement of shoreline ecological functions and processes benefiting water
quality and/or fish and wildlife habitat.
6. Reduction of flood hazards.
64 DOC. July 1, 2013
INDEX n ::q... : , „ �a�.��:�..?Q� ..:.,[3
# ._
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
D. Dredging waterward of the ordinary high-water mark for the primary purpose of obtaining fill
material shall not be allowed, except when the material is necessary for the restoration of ecological
functions. When allowed, the site where the fill is to be placed must be located waterward of the
ordinary high-water mark. The project must be either associated with a Model Toxics Control Act or
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and liability Act habitat restoration
project or, if approved through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, any other significant habitat
enhancement project.
E. Use of dredged material for the purpose of ecological restoration is encouraged.
F. Disposal of dredge material on shorelands or wetlands within a river's channel migration zone is
discouraged. In the limited instances where it is allowed, such disposal requires a Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit. This provision is not intended to address discharge of dredge material into
the flowing current of the river or in deep water within the channel where it does not substantially
affect the geohydrologic character of the channel migration zone.
G. Hydraulic dredging (see definition in YMC 1.7.01.090) or other techniques that minimize the
dispersal and broadcast of bottom materials shall be preferred over agitation forms of dredging.
H. Curtains and other appropriate mechanisms shall be used to minimize widespread dispersal of
sediments and other dredge materials.
I. Dredge spoils are also considered fill, and shall not be deposited within the stream except where
such deposit is in accordance with approved procedures intended to preserve or enhance wildlife
habitat, natural drainage, or other naturally occurring conditions.
J. The City may approve five-year management plans addressing maintenance dredging, use of best
management practices, and other measures to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
K. All applications for Shoreline Permits that include dredging shall supply a dredging plan that includes
the following information:
1. The quantity of material to be removed.
2. The method of removal.
3. Location of spoil disposal sites and measures that will be taken to protect the environment
around them.
4. Plans for the protection and restoration of the shoreline environment during and after
dredging operations.
L. A dredging operation judged by the Administrator to be insufficient for protection or restoration of
the shoreline environment shall cause denial of a Shoreline permit.
17.07.060 Fill
A. All fills shall be located, designed and constructed to protect shoreline ecological functions and
ecosystem -wide processes, including channel migration. Any adverse impacts to shoreline
ecological functions shall be mitigated.
B. Permissible fill in sensitive areas, including fill within wetlands, floodways, channel migration zones,
or waterward of the OHWM, shall only be permitted in limited instances for the following purposes
and when other required state or federal permits have been obtained, with due consideration given
DOC.
July y 1, 2013 INDEX 65
f
r d �-
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT'
to specific site conditions, and only along with approved shoreline use and development activities
that are consistent with this SMP, such as:
1. Water -dependent uses, public access, and cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as
part of an interagency environmental clean-up plan;
2. Disposal of dredged material considered suitable under, and conducted in accordance with,
the Dredged Material Management Program of the Department of Natural Resources and/or
the Dredged Material Management Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [see YMC
17.07.060 of this SMP];
3. Expansion or alteration of transportation facilities of statewide significance currently located
on the shoreline where alternatives to fill are infeasible;
4. Ecological restoration or enhancement when consistent with an approved restoration plan;
5. Maintenance or installation of flood hazard reduction measures consistent with a
comprehensive flood hazard management plan and YMC 17.05.060, Flood Hazard Reduction.
6. Protection of cultural or historic resources when fill is the most feasible method to avoid
continued degradation, disturbance or erosion of a site. Such fills must be coordinated with
way.af rtie+d... iaN .t,r„i e!rA;1.1e;Yan<ama IIl,i;;,iic pme and comply with applicable provisions of YMC
.............
17.05.010 of this SMP.
All fills waterward of the QHWM not associated with ecological restoration, flood control or
approved shoreline stabilization shall require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
C. Permissible upland fill. All other upland fill is permitted, provided it:
1. Is conducted outside applicable buffers, unless specifically allowed in buffers;
2. Is part of an approved shoreline use or modification, or is necessary to provide protection to
cultural or historic resources;
Is the minimum necessary to implement the approved use or modification;
4. Is planned to fit the topography so that minimum alterations of natural conditions will be
necessary;
5. Does not adversely affect hydrologic conditions or increase the risk of slope failure; and
Is consistent with applicable provisions of Chapter 17.09, particularly regulations governing
floodways and 100 -year floodplains.
D. Fill shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the use or purpose and shall be confined to areas
having the least impact to the shoreline area. Other alternatives shall be preferred over fill to
elevate new structures in the floodplain, such as use of pile or pier supports, posts, columns, other
zero -rise methods, or increasing foundation height.
E. Unless site characteristics dictate otherwise, fill material within surface waters or wetlands shall be
sand, gravel, rock, or other clean material obtained from a State -certified source, with a minimum
potential to degrade water quality and meeting the specifications included in project plans approved
by local, state and federal review agencies.
F. Fill placement shall be scheduled at times having the least impact to fish spawning, nesting patterns,
and other identified natural processes.
DOC.
66 July 1, 2013
+INDEX Rev ;A.,u.119IIs;:!.1.:: D...tt...::�:1'�.:�.3...
'Ir y-
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
G. Erosion control. A temporary erosion and sediment control (TESL] plan, including BMPs, consistent
with the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington, or the most recent adopted
stormwater manual, shall be provided for all proposed fill and excavation activities, and approved by
the Shoreline Administrator prior to commencement of activity. Disturbed areas shall be
immediately protected from erosion using weed -free straw, mulches, hydroseed, or similar methods
and revegetated, as applicable.
H. Projects that propose fill shall make every effort to acquire fill onsite (also known as compensatory
storage) where appropriate.
I. Fill should not obstruct, cut off, or isolate stream corridor features.
17.07.070 Industry
The following provisions apply to any development, construction, or use of land for industrial purposes
within Shoreline jurisdiction:
A. Water -dependent uses shall be given preference over non -water -dependent uses. Water -oriented
industrial uses shall be given preference over non -water -oriented uses.
B. Facilities and structures shall be designed and screened with vegetation to minimize degradation of
shoreline aesthetic qualities.
C. The location, design, and construction of industrial uses and redevelopment are required to
demonstrate no net loss of ecological functions and that significant adverse impacts to other
shoreline resources and values are avoided. Industries which have proven to be environmentally
hazardous are prohibited from locating along the shorelines provided such industries may be
allowed consistent with the Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix (Table 03.070-1) if a hazard
mitigation plan is approved by the Shoreline Administrator upon a finding that the plan would
adequately mitigate hazards and provide for no net loss of ecological function. If the plan is found
insufficient for protection of the shoreline environment, the Shoreline Administrator may require a
third -party review of the hazard mitigation plan at the applicant's expense.
D. New industrial uses and redevelopment of industrial uses shall provide for environmental cleanup
and restoration in degraded or contaminated locations.
E. Application for new industrial activities shall demonstrate either:
1. How the use qualifies as a water -oriented use and how facilities function as such, or;
That a non -water -oriented use is part of a mixed-use development that includes a water -
dependent use, or;
Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site and the use will provide a significant public
benefit towards meeting SMA objectives, such as providing public access and ecological
restoration, or;
4. That a non -water -oriented use is physically separated from the shoreline by either a public
right-of-way or a separate parcel.
F. New or expanded industrial developments shall be required to make adequate provisions for public
and private visual and physical shoreline access unless such a requirement would interfere with
DW.
July 1' 2013 INDEX 67
mii:.22 03,
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
operations or create hazards to life or property or another exception is met consistent with YMC
17.05.040.
17.07.080 In -Water Structures
A. Prohibited and allowed projects. Projects that damage fish and wildlife resources, degrade
recreation and aesthetic resources, result in a net loss of ecological functions, or result in high flood
stages and velocities are prohibited. Structures waterward of the ordinary high-water mark allowed
only for water -dependent uses, public access, shoreline stabilization, or other specific public
purpose.
B. Soil stabilization. Upland cut -and -fill slopes and back-filled areas resulting from installation of in -
water structures shall be stabilized with bioengineering approaches, including, but not limited to
brush matting and buffer strips and revegetated with native grasses, shrubs, or trees to prevent loss
of shoreline ecological functions and processes. In order to ensure soil stabilization, revegetation
must include native shrubs or trees and may not be limited to native grasses.
C. Water quality. In -water structures shall be constructed and maintained in a manner that does not
degrade the quality of affected waters. The City shall require conditions to achieve this objective.
D. Prohibited structures. In -water structures may not utilize components other than those designed
expressly for the approved in -water use.
Natural features. Natural in -water features, such as snags, uprooted trees, or stumps, shall be left in
place unless it can be demonstrated that they are actually causing bank erosion or higher flood
stages or pose a hazard to navigation or human safety.
Protect functions, processes and cultural resources. In -water structures shall provide for the
protection and preservation of ecosystem -wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural
resources, including, but not limited to, fish and fish passage, wildlife and water resources, shoreline
critical areas, hydrogeological processes, and natural scenic vistas. The location and planning of in -
water structures shall give due consideration to the full range of public interests, watershed
functions and processes, and environmental concerns, with special emphasis on protecting and
restoring priority habitats and species.
G. Design. In -water structures shall be designed by a qualified professional as determined by the
Shoreline Administrator. In -water structures shall preserve valuable recreation resources and
aesthetic values such as point and channel bars, islands, and braided channels. In -water structures
shall not be a safety hazard or obstruct water navigation as determined by the Shoreline
Administrator.
H. Permits. Construction of in -water structures may not commence without having obtained all
applicable Federal, State, and local permits and approvals.
68
Public access. Design of in -water structures by public entities, including the City, other local
governments, state and federal agencies, and public utility districts, shall include access to public
shorelines whenever possible, unless it is demonstrated that public access would cause unavoidable
public health and safety hazards, security problems, unmitigatable ecological impacts, unavoidable
conflicts with proposed uses, or unreasonable cost. At a minimum, in -water structures should not
decrease public access or use potential of shorelines.
DOC.
INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT
17.07.090 Mining
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
The following provisions shall apply to commercial mining within shoreline jurisdiction. Processing and
other activities that occur off-site or after active mineral extraction has concluded on-site are also
regulated as an industrial use (see YMC 17.07.070):
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 excavation and processing will affect or modify existing stream corridor
features, including existing riparian vegetation;
The location, extent and size in acreage of any pond, lake, or feature that will be created as a
result of mining excavation;
The description, location, and extent of any proposed subsequent use that would be different
than existing uses.
B. 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 value, except wetlands which shall be mitigated according to
guidance in the Washington State Department of Ecology's Wetland Mitigation in Washington State,
Parts 1 and 2 (March 2006 or as updated).
C. Except where authorized by the City in consultation with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife
and Department of Ecology, the following shall apply:
The excavation zone 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.
Washing, crushing, screening, or stockpiling of mined materials 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).
E. Additional Shoreline Standards for Industrial Mining -
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 Shoreline Administrator to be
insufficient for protection or restoration of the shoreline environment shall cause denial of a
Shoreline permit.
2. Mining stockpiles shall be sited in such a manner so as to avoid damage or loss resulting from
flooding.
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
DOC.
July 1, 2013 INDEX 69
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
reclamation of disturbed shoreline areas provides appropriate ecological functions consistent
with the setting.
17.07.100 Recreational Development
The following provisions apply to any development, construction, or use of land or water for
recreational purposes within Shoreline jurisdiction, whether public or commercial.
A. Recreational activities must be compatible with existing or proposed uses in the area and must not
create a noise, traffic, visual or similar problem.
B. The location, design, and operation of recreational facilities shall be consistent with the purpose of
the environmental designation.
C. Recreational uses and facilities located within shoreline jurisdiction shall include features that relate
to access, enjoyment and use of the water and shorelines of the state. Access to recreational areas
should emphasize both consolidated park or open space areas and trail access. Linkage of shoreline
parks and public access points by means of linear access should be encouraged.
D. Different uses within a specific recreational facility must be compatible with each other.
E. Commercial components of the use that are not explicitly related to the recreational operation must
also conform to the Commercial use standards of YMC 17.07.050 (Commercial and Service
Development).
F. Recreational development shall demonstrate achievement of no net loss of ecological functions.
G. Applicants may apply for a multiyear recreation maintenance plan for exempt and non-exempt
repair and maintenance activities consistent with YMC 17.07.170.
17.07.110 Residential Development
The following provisions apply to any development, construction, or use of land for residential
purposes within Shoreline jurisdiction.
A. New multiunit development, plats or subdivisions containing land adjacent to publicly owned or
controlled bodies of water shall allow for pedestrian access to such waterbodies for residents and
the public consistent with YMC 17.05.040,
B. Residential development and preliminary plats shall contain plans indicating how shoreline
vegetation will be preserved and erosion controlled. A vegetation protection and/or erosion control
plan shall demonstrate adequate protection of vegetation and avoidance of soil erosion. If the plan
is found insufficient for protection of the shoreline environment the Shoreline Administrator may
require a third -party review at the applicant's expense.
C. Applications for new shoreline residences shall ensure that shoreline stabilization and flood control
structures are not necessary to protect proposed residences. A geotechnical analysis (see definition
in YMC 17.01.090) shall be provided to demonstrate that such structures are unnecessary to protect
proposed residences; this study may be waived by the Shoreline Administrator if a study or
information provided by the USACE, FEMA, Ecology, or other agency exists and provides sufficient
information to conclude that shoreline stabilization and flood control structures are not necessary.
D. New floating residences and over -water residential structures shall be prohibited in shoreline
jurisdiction.
DOC.
70 INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Private lake owners or homeowners associations may apply for a multiyear residential maintenance
plan for exempt and non-exempt repair and maintenance activities consistent with YMC 17.07.170.
F. Single-family residences identified as a priority use only when developed in a manner consistent
with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment.
17.07.120 Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects
A. Applicability. Shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects include those activities
proposed and conducted specifically for the purpose of establishing, restoring or enhancing habitat
for priority species in shorelines. Such projects may include shoreline modification actions such as
modification of vegetation, removal of non-native or invasive plants, shoreline stabilization,
dredging, and filling, provided that the primary purpose of such actions is clearly restoration of the
natural character and ecological functions of the shoreline. This section does not apply to
mitigation.
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.
D. 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.
F. 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.
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.
H. Relief for OHWM 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 OHWM landward.
17.07.130 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. A geotechnical analysis must
estimate time frames and rates of erosion and report on the urgency associated with the specific
situation. New hard shoreline stabilization solutions to protect primary structures shall not be
authorized except when a report confirms that there is a significant possibility that such a structure
DOC.
July 1, 2013 INDEX 71
--- )
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
will be damaged within three years as a result of shoreline erosion in the absence of such measures,
or where waiting until the need is that immediate would foreclose the opportunity to use measures
that avoid impacts on ecological functions. Thus, where the geotechnical report confirms a need to
prevent potential damage to a primary structure, but the need is not as immediate as the three
years, that report may still be used to justify more immediate authorization to protect against
erosion using soft measures.
B. New development shall be located and designed to avoid the need for future shoreline stabilization
to the extent feasible. Subdivision of land must be regulated to assure that the lots created will not
require shoreline stabilization in order for reasonable development to occur using geotechnical
analysis of the site and shoreline characteristics.
C. Stabilization projects shall be developed under the supervision of, or in consultation with, agencies
or professionals with appropriate expertise.
D. Stabilization projects shall be limited in size to the minimum protective measures necessary, and
shall use measures designed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and avoidance
and minimization of impacts to sediment transport processes. Soft approaches shall be used unless
demonstrated not to be sufficient to protect primary structures, dwellings, and businesses.
E. The use of fill to restore lost land may accompany stabilization work, provided the resultant shore
does not extend beyond the original ordinary high water mark, finished grades are consistent with
abutting properties, a restoration plan is approved for the area, and the fill material is in compliance
with YMC 17.07.060 (Fill).
F. 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.
G. Additional Shoreline Standards for Shoreline Stabilization. The requirements below shall apply to all
shoreline stabilization activities within Shoreline jurisdiction.
72
Shoreline stabilization measures shall be designed, located, and constructed in such a manner
as to minimize the disruption of natural channel characteristics.
Where a geotechnical analysis or report is required, it shall meet the provisions of the
definition provided in 17.01.090.
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 protect 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.
DOICi.
IND" July 1, 2013
asr 7f �J:V..3
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
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:
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.
d. 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.
4. 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, "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 structures.
5. 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.
6. Soft shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions
may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high-water mark.
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 requirements regarding size, location, lighting, and
other relevant performance standards.
DOC.
July 1, 203
AND®( 73
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
C. Proposals for signage shall submit plans for signage at the time of application for shoreline permits,
including shoreline exemptions.
D. The Shoreline Administrator may condition signage regarding size, illumination, and placement, to
ensure that signage is compatible with adjacent shoreline environments and does not:
1) significantly (see definition in YMC 17.01.090) 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 2) impair scenic vistas to the Yakima Greenway or Naches River or associated lakes; or
3) impair driver vision such as due to lines of sight, type or frequency of lighting, or other feature
that has the potential to result in safety concerns.
17.07.150 Transportation and Parking
The following provisions shall apply to the location and construction of roads; railroads; bridges;
water crossings; pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation; and parking within shorelines, where
appropriate.
A. Transportation and parking activities consistent with exemptions in YMC 17.13.050 are exempt from
the requirement to obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, but shall meet applicable
provisions of this Master Program. Applicants may apply for a multiyear transportation maintenance
plan for exempt and non-exempt repair and maintenance activities consistent with YMC 17.07.170.
B. New or expanded transportation and parking facilities must be designed and located where they will
have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features, will not result in a net
loss of shoreline ecological functions, and will not adversely impact existing or planned water -
dependent uses.
C. New or expanded roads and railroads shall not be located within a designated stream corridor
except where it is necessary to cross the corridor, or where existing development, topography, and
other conditions preclude locations outside the stream corridor. Applications for new or expanded
roads and railroads shall demonstrate through engineering studies that a shoreline location is the
most feasible of the available options.
Construction of roadways or railroads across stream corridors shall be by the most direct
route possible having the least impact to the stream corridor.
Roadways or railroads that must run parallel to stream or wetland edges shall be along routes
having the greatest possible distance from stream or wetland and the least impact to the
corridor.
3. Roadways or railroads within the stream corridor shall not hydrologically obstruct, cut-off or
isolate stream corridor features.
D. Material excavated from the roadway area to achieve the design grade shall be used as fill where
necessary to maintain grade, or shall be transported outside the corridor if it contains material
unsuited to the current construction project. Spoil, construction waste, and other debris shall not be
used as road fill or buried within the stream corridor.
E. Bridges, water -crossing structures, or necessary fill to elevate roadways shall not constrict the
stream channel; impede the normal flow of floodwaters, sediment, and woody debris; or cause
displacement that would increase the elevation of flood waters such that it would cause properties
not in the floodplain to be flood -prone.
Dm.
INDEX NDEX July 1, 2013
> ................?u�..:.�
!:.�;..! ..... 01.: .
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Natural stream channels and drainage ways shall be preserved through the use of bridges for
crossings, unless the use of culverts is demonstrated to be the only technically feasible means for
crossing. The use of bridges shall be the preferred means to preserve natural streams and
drainageways. Where bridges are not feasible, large, natural bottom culverts; multi -plate pipes; and
bottomless arches shall be used, and shall be designed consistent with the latest guidance from the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
G. Roads and bridges within floodways must meet flood hazard regulations of YMC 17.09.020.
H. Parking —the standards in this section only apply to new or expanded uses within Shoreline
jurisdiction.
Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and shall be allowed only as necessary
to support an authorized use consistent with the use matrix and definitions in YMC 17.03.070
and 17.01.090, respectively.
Parking areas shall be located upland of the areas they serve, unless:
a. A location waterward is required to meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements,
or
b. No other feasible location upland of the area served is possible due to topographical or
other physical constraints.
c. In the above cases 2a and 2b, parking shall be located as far upland from the OHWM as
feasible, recognizing the limited supply of shoreline areas.
Proposals for new or expanded parking facilities shall minimize environmental and visual
impacts of parking facilities through compliance with YMC Chapter 17.05 General Regulations,
YMC Chapter 17.09 Critical Areas, and applicable City zoning standards addressing lighting and
landscaping.
17.07,160 Utilities
The following provisions shall apply to the location, construction, or installation of utility transmission
lines and facilities (such as those for wastewater, water, communication, natural gas, etc.) within
shoreline jurisdiction:
A. Utilities activities consistent with exemptions in YMC 17.13.050 are exempt from the requirement to
obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, but shall meet applicable provisions of this
Master Program. Applicants may apply for a multiyear utilities maintenance plan for exempt and
non-exempt repair and maintenance activities consistent with YMC 17.07.190.
B. New or expanded non -water -oriented utility production and processing facilities, such as power
plants and sewage treatment plants, or parts of those facilities that are non -water -oriented, shall
not be allowed in shoreline jurisdiction unless it can be demonstrated that:
1. No other feasible option is available, or
2. The new location is necessary due to channel migration or levee setback, or
The facilities are being added or improved to meet federal or state mandates.
C. Utility transmission lines and facilities shall be permitted within the stream corridor only where
it is necessary to cross the corridor or where existing development, topography, and other
DOC.
July 1 2013 INDEX 75
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
conditions preclude locations outside the stream corridor. For example, lines and facilities that are
essential public facilities (e.g. regional sewer facilities) that must cross the stream are permitted.
1. Utility transmission lines and facilities across stream corridors shall be by the most direct
route possible having the least impact to the stream corridor.
The construction of utility transmission lines and facilities within a stream corridor shall be
designed and located to ensure minimum disruption to the functional properties specified
under YMC 17.09.030.
D. Utility lines under streams and wetlands shall be placed in a sleeve casing to allow easy replacement
or repair with minimal disturbance to the stream corridor.
E. Buried utility transmission lines crossing a stream corridor shall be buried a sufficient depth below
the bankfull depth of the waterway, associated floodway and floodplain to the maximum extent of
potential channel migration as determined by hydrologic analysis.
F. Preference shall be given to utility systems contained within the footprint of an existing right-of-way
or utility easement over new locations for utility systems. Wherever possible, new above ground
installations shall use available, existing bridge and utility locations and stream corridor
crossings as opposed to creating new locations and stream corridor crossings.
G. Above ground electrical support towers and other similar transmission structures shall be located as
far upland as is practical.
H. Transmission support structures shall be located clear of high flood velocities, located in areas
of minimum flood depth which require the least floodproofing, and shall be adequately
floodproofed.
Underground utility transmission lines shall be constructed so they do not alter, intercept or
dewater groundwater patterns that support streams, wetlands and hyporheic flow.
J. All new and replacement water supply systems and wastewater systems within a special flood
hazard area must meet the requirements of YMC 17.09.020 Flood Hazard Areas.
K. Utility transmission lines within the floodway fringe or floodway shall meet the standards of YMC
17.09.020 Flood Hazard Areas
L. Additional Shoreline Standards for Utility Transmission Lines and Facilities. The requirements below
shall apply to all utility transmission lines and facilities within Shoreline jurisdiction. Utility services
to individual projects undergoing Shoreline review, including those where the primary use may be in
a different Shoreline environment than the utility service, shall not require separate Substantial
Development Permits for utility service installations, but are subject to all of the provisions in this
section, except those listed below. Utility service to projects outside Shoreline jurisdiction is subject
to normal Shoreline permitting, and is subject to all of the provisions in this section, except those
listed below.
76
Where feasible, utilities shall be placed underground unless such undergrounding would be
economically or technically prohibitive.
2. New utility facilities shall be designed and located to preserve the natural landscape, and
minimize conflicts with present and planned land and shoreline uses, especially recreation,
residential and public access.
DOC.
INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Expansion, updating, and maintenance of existing facilities is allowed, but shall be designed to
be located to avoid adverse impacts and achieve no net loss of ecological function to shoreline
resources as much as possible.
4. The presence of existing utilities shall not justify more intense development beyond levels
planned in the Comprehensive Plan or zoning.
5. Permit applications shall meet the following submittal review standards:
a. Applications shall submit studies (social, economic, environmental, engineering, etc.) to
demonstrate that a shoreline location is the most feasible of the available options.
b. Applications to locate transmission lines shall submit a location plan that shows existing
utility routes in the vicinity of the proposed transmission line. Failure of utility lines to
follow existing routes, where feasible, shall cause denial of the application.
c. Applications shall include a reclamation plan that provides for re -vegetation and
protection of shoreline areas from erosion and siltation. A re -vegetation or erosion
protection plan shall demonstrate adequate protection of vegetation and avoidance of
soil erosion. If the plan is found insufficient for protection of the shoreline environment,
the Shoreline Administrator may require a third -party review at the applicant's expense.
17.07.170 Redevelopment, Repair, and Maintenance
This section addresses how regulations apply to redevelopment, repair, or maintenance activities;
clarifies how SMP standards proportionally apply to redevelopment activities; and provides a process for
multi-year management plans for maintenance and repair.
A. SMP provisions shall not apply retroactively to existing uses and developments.
B. Legally established uses and developments may be maintained, repaired, and operated within
shoreline jurisdiction and within shoreline and critical area buffers established in this SMP. Normal
Shorell ni
maintenance an repair, as specified in YMC 17.13.050, (... exeuy .p.j...j................................... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
UF�.:�:tantial, evello,. u��eunt Etnl°u`uiL Ibl but not i�.11ue standards of tll`oe SINIII��roo-,4° uu „.
I... ..._.........................E,....,,,,,,,,.....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,......,,,v,,,,,,,..............._.....................................................................................................................................................................................
,
C. Consistent with the Applicability provisions of YMC 17.01.020, SMP standards shall apply to
expansions or alterations of uses or developments and to new development or redevelopment of a
property as follows:
1. The Shoreline Administrator shall determine the extent of compliance with SMP provisions.
2. The required provisions shall be related to and in proportion to the proposal. For example, if
an upper story is added to a structure, requirements related to building heights and views
may apply. If vegetation is removed beyond normal maintenance pursuant to YMC 17.05.030,
vegetation conservation and shoreline buffer standards may apply.
D. In order to provide consistent interpretation of SMP exemptions, streamline permitting, determine
applicable SMP standards regarding maintenance or repair activities, apply best management
practices or protocols to ensure no -net -loss of shoreline ecological function, and identify the need
for notification of activities, the City may approve multi-year programmatic shoreline exemptions
consistent with specific exempt activities allowed in YMC 17.13.050 for the following types of uses
and modifications.
DOC.
July 1, 2013 INDEX 77
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
1. Dredging
2. Private development and facilities on private lakes
3. Public Parks and Recreation
4. Transportation facilities
5. Utility facilities, including, but not limited to wastewater and water systems
Applicants for multi-year maintenance plans shall provide the following information for
consideration by the Shoreline Administrator:
1. Description of proposed maintenance activities and best management practices;
2. Type, methods, and frequency of maintenance or repair activities;
DRAFT
3. Length of requested multi-year maintenance plan. Multi-year maintenance approval should
not exceed five years, except where expressly allowed in this Master Program;
4. Specification of which activities the applicant will regularly notice the City or which do not
require advanced notice;
5. Description of aquatic habitat protection measures and any applicable permits received for
that work;
6. Description of riparian and wetland protection measures and any applicable permits received
for that work;
7. Description of stormwater management practices to reduce both water quantity and water
quality impacts and any applicable permits received for that work;
B. Description of erosion and sediment control practices that prevent off-site movement;
9. Description of re -vegetation or restoration activities following maintenance or repair; and
10. Description of chemical and nutrient use and containment practices such as Integrated Pest
Management (IPM).
11. Description of compliance with use -specific criteria in subsections F to J below.
F. Dredging. Applications for dredging maintenance plans shall demonstrate compliance with
regulations in YMC 17.07.050.
G. Private development and facilities on private lakes.
A multi-year maintenance plan for private development and facilities on private lakes shall be
consistent with covenants, codes, and restrictions of a property owners association, where
such an association exists.
2. The applicable use or modification performance standards of Chapter 17.07 shall be
demonstrated to be met by applications for multi-year maintenance plans.
H. Public Parks and Recreation.
78
A multi-year maintenance plan for public parks and recreation facilities shall describe
management objective or desired outcome for shoreline habitat and water quality topics
stated in application criteria E.3 to E.9 above, specific performance requirements for each
DOC,
INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
standard, and corrective actions that would be implemented if the performance
requirement(s) is not met.
2. Applications for parks and recreation maintenance plans shall demonstrate compliance with
regulations in YMC 17.07.100,
I. Transportation facilities.
Appendix A contains a programmatic exemption for Transportation facilities under the
responsibility of the Washington State Department of Transportation to allow for routine
maintenance and repair of existing highways and associated facilities.
2. This Appendix is considered an interpretation by the Shoreline Administrator pursuant to YMC
17.13.020 and may be addended or clarified pursuant to the process of YMC 17.13.020. It is
not subject to SMP Amendment procedures of YMC 17.13.140.
The duration of the programmatic exemption shall be eight years from the effective date of
this SMP.
4. The programmatic exemption may be renewed as part of the regular SMP Update process
consistent with the Shoreline Management Act at RCW 90.58.080.
5. Applications for transportation maintenance plans shall demonstrate compliance with
regulations in YMC 17.07.150.
Utility facilities. Applications for utility maintenance plans shall demonstrate compliance with
regulations in YMC 17.07.160.
K. City authorization of multi-year programmatic maintenance plans.
The City may approve multi-year programmatic maintenance plans that solely contain exempt
activities consistent with the interpretation process of YMC 17.13.020, when consistent with
the following criteria:
a. The policies and procedures of the SMA;
b. The provisions of WAC 173-27;
c. Chapter 10, Section 3 of the City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan; and
d. This Title 17.
The City may approve multi-year programmatic maintenance plans that include a combination
of exempt and non-exempt activities. The permit process shall follow the permit process
consistent with non-exempt activities pursuant to YMC 17.03.070, Shoreline Use and
Modification Matrix. The criteria for approval shall follow the applicable criteria for the permit
type in Chapter 17.13, e.g. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Shoreline Conditional
Use Permit.
3. The City may attach conditions to the approval of multi-year maintenance plans as necessary
to assure consistency of the project with the Act and this SMP. Additionally, nothing shall
interfere with the City's ability to require compliance with all other applicable laws and plans.
July 1, 2413 DW.
INDEX 'g
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
0'; i A Pill E I t 17.019 �I N SlK°fib IR lh, Ill, PION ION
17.09.010 General Provisions
A. Purpose of Chapter. The purpose of YMC Chapter 17.09 is to establish a single, uniform system of
procedures and standards for development within designated critical areas within the shoreline
jurisdiction of the incorporated City of Yakima ate. aF
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 "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 mr.lias,,
iiiq,Ie,,,, °„ ,,. •t " ;
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;
7. Implement the goals and requirements of the Washington Growth Management Act (RCW
36.70A), the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58), and the 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
possible;
C. The policies, standards and procedures of this 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;
2. Result in an unconstitutional regulatory taking of private 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 on the property;
4. Presume that regulatory tools are the only mechanism for protection; and,
SO DOC. July 1, 2013
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
5. Prohibit the use of valid 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 ,a.n,d,,,,i .. �.4;4N- esignated 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 to the situations below,
except that the Flood Hazard protection provisions of YMC 17.09.020 will continue to apply as
determined by YMC 17.09.020.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.
2. 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 a recreational nature) that
do not alter the environment or require a dedicated staging area, use area, or route
(including temporary signs) are not subject to this Chapter;
c. Mining, as defined in YMC 17.01.090, is carried out under a Washington Department of
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 to apply.
E. Critical Area Development Authorization Required
1. 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 17.09.010.11 or YMC 17.13.050.
2. 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.
3. 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 shall be issued in accordance with this Chapter, the Shoreline
Management Act, and permit procedures of WAC 173-27.
5. Coordination with Other Jurisdictions.
1. 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
DOC.
July 1, 2013 INDEX 81
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
permit or authorization, the Shoreline Administrator 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 Shoreline
Administrator 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.
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 Shoreline Administrator's decision on the critical area development authorization
shall be coordinated to coincide with other permits and authorizations. The Shoreline
Administrator may determine to accept the development authorization and/or permits
from the other reviewing agencies as complete compliance with the City's critical area
regulations found in this title.
INQUIRY AND EARLY ASSISTANCE
F. Critical Area Identification Form and Critical Area Report Requirements
82
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 Shoreline Administrator
or designee may conduct a site examination to review critical area conditions. The Shoreline
Administrator 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 Shoreline Administrator 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 Shoreline Administrator 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 Shoreline Administrator 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.
DOC.
INDMI/r
( July 1, 2013
FNIAT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
c. Critical areas may be affected by a proposal. The Shoreline Administrator or designee
may waive the requirement for a critical areas report utilizing the technical expertise of
other reviewing agencies if:
i. The Shoreline Administrator 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 Shoreline Administrator 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;
Determining impacts of an encroachment on a critical area and general mitigation
measures; and
d. Developing a compensatory mitigation plan.
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 Shoreline Administrator or designee
t0:
a. Establish the scope of the project and identify potential concerns that may arise;
b. Identify permits, exemptions, and authorizations, which the project proponent may
need to obtain;
c. 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;
d. Provide the proponent with resources and technical assistance (such as maps, scientific
information, other source materials, etc.); and,
e. Determine whether there is a need for a preliminary site assessment.
ABBREVIATED REVIEW ALTERNATIVES
H. Minor Activities Allowed without a Critical Areas Permit; the project may require a shoreline permit
or shoreline exemption under other provisions 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
July 1, 2013 83
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
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,
8. Noxious weed control within vegetative buffers, if the criteria listed below are met. Control
methods not meeting these criteria may still apply for a restoration exemption, or other
authorization as applicable:
a. Hand removal/spraying of individual plants or other acceptable method approved by the
administrative official;
b. No area wide vegetation removal/grubbing.
I. Mitigation requirements
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
When an alteration to a critical area is proposed, it shall be avoided, minimized, or mitigated
for as specified in YMC 17.05.O10.D:
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 Shoreline Administrator or designee.
REVIEW PROCESS
J. Application Submittal
84 I{ IIIA, pII WW�� DOC.
����I�� Au&Lgj�'92QI3j
un�m��nnnnnnnnin�wT
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
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.
The submittal shall also include all required critical areas reports prepared in conformance
with YMC 17.09.010.P and YMC 17.09.010.Q.
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).
K. Determination of Review Process
The Shoreline Administrator or designee shall determine from the application submittal, and
other available information what type of permit(s) and/or review(s) will be required under this
Chapter.
Specific information of permit type, review and process can be found in subsequent sections
of this Chapter and in YMC Chapter 17.13.
L. Development Authorization — Review Procedure. Upon submittal and acceptance of a completed
development authorization application, the Shoreline Administrator 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.
1. Development authorizations shall be processed in accordance with Statutory Noticing
Requirements in YMC 17.13.030 and with specific requirements provided in YMC Chapter
17.13, including but not limited to:
a. Submittals,
b. Completeness review,
c. Notices,
d. Hearings,
e. Decisions, and
f. Appeals.
2. In circumstances where a critical area is proposed to be altered, but the development
otherwise requires only a Shoreline Exemption, the development must be reviewed and
processed as a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or a Shoreline Variance.
July 1 2013
la n4F�1l .....::::.`• .
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
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.
a. 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 Chapter 17.13 and YMC 17.09.010.R.
M. Authorization Decisions — Basis for Action.
1. In addition to meeting the Shoreline permit -specific criteria in YMC Chapter 17.13, 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 Shoreline Administrator 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 Shoreline Administrator or designee shall include written findings and
conclusions.
N. Conditional Approval of Development Authorization. In granting any development authorization, the
Shoreline Administrator 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 Chapter 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
86
1. The Shoreline Administrator or designee may require a critical areas report, paid for by the
applicant, when it is determined necessary.
DOC.
INDEX July 1, 2013
d,..
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
A qualified professional shall prepare the report consistent with most current, accurate, and
complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of
concern. 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.
The critical area report shall:
a. Demonstrate the proposal is consistent with the purposes and standards of this
Chapter;
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 Shoreline Administrator 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 Shoreline Administrator 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 Shoreline Administrator or designee may reject or 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.
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 as specified by the City of Yakima Engineer. The City
may waive this requirement for single-family developments. Applicants are encouraged to
coordinate with the Shoreline Administrator or designee regarding electronic submittal
guidelines.
10. At a minimum, a critical areas report shall include the following information:
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;
DOC.
July i, 2013 INDEX s7
L...^....:11
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
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;
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 Shoreline Administrator 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 Shoreline Administrator 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,
vii. Analysis of anticipated success of the compensation project.
b. A review of the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical
information available that is applicable to the issues of concern supporting the proposed
mitigation;
c. 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:
88
h Ini omm a �u:.!.....:�...11(:ailA.��....... ,.u...:^.� ,. .
�fl
o id 11
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
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.
f. Monitoring Program - The mitigation plan shall include:
L 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;
g. 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:
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;
DOC.
y
July 1, 2013 INDEX
8
9
iF� PNS A_0_ Ud cru a� v: ,
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
vi. 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 17.09.040.F shall apply.
Q. Supplemental Report Requirements for Specific Critical Areas
90
Stream Corridors: When a critical areas report is required for a stream corridor or
hydrologically related critical area, it shall include the following:
A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to
protect the functional properties listed in YMC 17.09.030.E; and,
b. 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:
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
approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements and
the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington, revised March
2007 (Ecology Publication #04-06-15, or as revised);
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;
D
pp July 1, 2013
II E
F�,ev A lust', �F 'iIJ`ll:'J
.,n,,,,,,,,, llll
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
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.
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.
R. General Critical Areas Protective Measures. The standards below apply to all permits and reviews
performed under this Chapter.
Financial Guarantees. Financial guarantees may be required to ensure mitigation,
maintenance, and monitoring.
INDEX
July 1, 2013 NDEX 91
211..:.1.
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
92
DRAFT
When required mitigation pursuant to a development proposal is not completed prior to
the City of Yakima's final permit approval, the Shoreline Administrator or designee may
require the applicant to post a financial guarantee to ensure that the work will be
completed.
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 Shoreline Administrator or
designee, with terms and conditions acceptable to the City of Yakima attorney.
e. The financial guarantee shall remain in effect until the Shoreline Administrator 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 Shoreline
Administrator and his or her designee may demand payment of any financial guarantee.
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.
i. 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.
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:
Roads and utilities for the subdivision shall avoid critical areas and their buffers, as
much as possible;
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;
DOC.
INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
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 may be deemed appropriate by the Shoreline Administrator 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
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 YMC 17.09.020 and are
established as flood hazard areas. The Flood Insurance Study and maps are on file with the City of
Yakima, Washington.
B. Principles. YMC 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 YMC 17.09.020 is to:
1. Alert the county assessor, appraisers, owners, potential buyers and lessees to the natural
limitations of flood -prone land;
2. Meet the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance program; and,
3. 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.
DOC.
�/
� n.July
1, 2013
r
INDEX 93
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
1. The provisions of YMC 17.09.020 of this Chapter shall apply to any development proposed in a
special flood hazard area;
2. Flood hazard permits shall be approved by the City of Yakima. Approval shall only be granted
in accordance with YMC 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 YMC
17.09.020, but are not exempt from this SMP (Title 17) or related shoreline permit requirements in
Chapter 17.13:
The alteration or substantial improvement of any structure listed on the National Register of
Historic Places or state inventory of historic places;
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
In the interpretation and application of YMC 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.
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 YMC 17.09.020 of this Chapter and
other applicable regulations.
94
DOC.
INDEX � July i 201:.�.
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
G. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability. The degree of flood protection required by YMC 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. Flood heights may be
increased by manmade or natural causes. YMC 17.09.020 does 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.
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:
L 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.
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.
2. 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
DOC.
u„Y 1,
,� gln3,0 . ;013 �ND� 95
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
96
DRAFT
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.
Subdivision Proposals. Subdivision proposals shall:
a. Be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage;
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,
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.
4. 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.
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.
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:
IND July 1, 2013
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
a. 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;
Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads
and effects of buoyancy;
c. 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,
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.I.1.b.
3. Manufactured Homes. Manufactured homes shall be anchored in accordance with YMC
17.09.020.H.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;
b. 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:
I. Permitted Uses. Any use permitted in the zoning district in accordance with YMC Title 15 and
in the environment designation in accordance with YMC Title 17 (this Shoreline Master
Program), unless prohibited by YMC 17.09.020.x.
2. Utility Transmission Lines. Utility transmission lines shall be permitted when consistent with
YMC Title 15 and where not otherwise inconsistent with YMC 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.
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 17.05.060.C.3.c.
July 1, 2413 DOC. 97
.2,121.3 INDEX
# --
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
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.
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 lines shall be adequately protected from flood
damage.
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
L. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses include any use permitted in the zoning district in accordance with
YMC Title 15 and in the environment designation in accordance with YMC Title 17 (this Shoreline
Master Program), provided that said use is in compliance with the flood hazard protection standards
of YMC 17.09.020.H, 17.09.020.1, 17.05.050 and other applicable provisions of this Title, and will
have a negligible effect upon the floodway as certified by a registered professional engineer through
hydrologic and hydraulic analysis performed in accordance with standard engineering practice. The
analysis must demonstrate that the effect of the subject encroachment together with the
cumulative effects of all similar potential encroachments shall not:
materially cause water to be diverted from the established floodway,
2. cause erosion,
3. obstruct the natural flow of water,
4. reduce the carrying capacity of the floodway, or
S. result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.
M. Prohibited Uses. The following uses/developments are prohibited in the floodway:
98
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 and 15.04.140);
Any encroachments, including fill, new construction and other development demonstrated by
a registered professional engineer 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
INDU Rev A, p July 1, 2013
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
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
as allowed under YMC Chapter 17.11;
5. 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.J).
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 and Structures. Existing structures and uses within the special flood hazard
areas established by YMC 17.09.020 or amendments thereto, which were lawful before these
sections were adopted or amended, but which would be prohibited, or restricted under the terms of
YMC 17.09.020 of this Chapter or future amendment, are governed under YMC Chapter 17.11.
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 YMC 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 YMC 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, and any applicable shoreline permit as set forth in
Chapter 17.13 of this Title.
DOC,
July 1, 2013 INDEX 99
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
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;
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 Shoreline
Administrator to clarify the application for the enforcement of YMC 17.09.020;
S. Permit — Review. Flood hazard permit applications will be reviewed to determine:
1. The elevation and floodproofing requirements of YMC 17.09.020 of this Chapter;
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 YMC 17.09.020 of this Chapter and
YMC Title 15; and,
S. 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 Shoreline
Administrator 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 YMC 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
100
DOC.
INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
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 YMC 17.09.020. Bonds,
if required, shall be furnished by the property owner, or other person or agent in control of
the property.
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 YMC 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:
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;
The actual elevation in relation in mean sea level of flood proofing of all new or substantially
improved non-residential flood proofed structures; and,
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.
DOC.
July 1, 2013 101
:...4.::......1:.....0.1:.'x. IND
Elf
# e —1
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
FLOOD HAZARD VARIANCES
DRAFT'
AD. Procedure. Any person seeking a variance from the requirements of YMC 17.09.020 authorized
under YMC 17.09.020.AE shall make such request consistent with the procedures established in YMC
Chapter 17.13.
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 YMC 17.09.020.
AF. Conditions for Authorization. In addition to demonstrating consistency with the Shoreline Variance
criteria in YMC 17.13.080, the applicant for a variance to the provisions of YMC 17.09.020 shall show
that:
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.
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:
DOC,
IND
102
July 1, 2013
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
1. Meet the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) regarding the use of
the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is
applicable to the issues of concern;
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;
S. 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. Provide protection of natural wetland functions and values through voluntary agreements or
government incentives; 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.
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:
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;
Perennial and intermittent streams, excluding ephemeral streams, including the stream main
channel and all secondary channels within the ordinary high water mark;
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;
DOr
July 1, 2013 INDEX 103
r��V,y Lumz #.-. L) -
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
Any flood -prone area indicated by U.S. Soil Conservation Service soil survey data; and
A buffer area for a stream channel, lake, or pond or from the edge of a wetland.
D. Habitat and habitats of local importance.
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.
z. 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;
c) Species of recreational, commercial, and/or tribal importance that are
vulnerable; and
dj 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.
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.
104 INDEX LlRe�d �"M,tul��J PY 1, 20�2013
�- 1
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
c. Habitat management recommendations shall be included for use in the administration
of this section.
3. 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 7.7.09.050.1-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;
g. Providing food in the form of various insects and other benthic macroinvertebrates;
h. Supporting a diversity of wildlife habitats; or
1. Allowing for the natural occurrence of woody debris and organic matter to collect in the
aquatic environment.
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.
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
July 1, 2013 DOC'
INDEX 105
#
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
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, fakes and ponds typing system. For purposes of this chapter, the City of Yakima hereby
adopts a stream, take and pond typing system, for those features designated as critical areas in YMC
17.09.030.0 as follows:
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 RCW
Chapter 90.58;
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.
106
DOC.
INDEX July 1, 2013
INDEX
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
a. Lakes and ponds not designated as a shoreline that receive water from 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 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 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.
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).
2. 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:
a. Wetlands;
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:
DOC.
y
July 1, 2013 INDEX 107
�ra..uuir.,..
210 2013 # 4
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
1. Storage, handling, and disposal of material or substances that are dangerous or hazardous
with respect to water quality and life safety;
108
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 17.07.060.6;
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.x; and
10. uses located within the floodway that are listed in YMC 17.09.020.M.
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:
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;
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;
The following measures are incorporated into stormwater permits approved by a local, state
or federal agency and transportation projects using the Stormwater Management Manual for
Eastern Washington. Developments that do not require a stormwater permit shall also
incorporate the following elements into project design:
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;
DOC.
INDU July 1, 2013
r �
a;
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
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;
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;
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;
Development, construction, or uses within the stream corridor shall not alter or divert flood
flows, cause channel shift, erosion, and increase or accelerate the flooding of upstream 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 of Ecology 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;
12. 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;
15. Projects located within the floodway must meet the requirements of YMC 17.09.0201; and
16. Any portion of the vegetative buffer temporarily damaged or disturbed as a result of
construction activities (excluding approved permanent use areas) shall be repaired at the
completion of construction using the reclamation found in YMC 17.09.030.Q.
WATER DEPENDENCY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS
K. Use classifications. For purposes of this section, the components of any development, construction,
or use requiring a critical area development authorization shall be classified as provided below, and
shall conform to the development standards applicable to the classification provided in YMC
17.090.0301-0:
D%00
July 1, 2013 IND7 log
6;ks qd ,u iLia
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
Water -oriented uses are one of the following three categories of uses, as defined in YMC
17.01.090: water -dependent, water -related, or water -enjoyment, or a combination of such
uses.
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:
Structures shall be clustered at locations on the water's edge having the least impact to the
surface water and shore.
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 17.09.030.13.
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.
N. Water -enjoyment uses. The following provisions shall apply to water -enjoyment uses:
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.
Structures and use areas may be located within the vegetative buffer specified in YMC
17.09.030.13 provided that the location and construction shall be conducted to minimize
impacts to the shore area and the vegetative buffer.
O. Non -water -oriented uses. The following provisions shall apply to non -water -oriented uses:
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.
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.
P. Vegetative buffers. The establishment of a 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 are listed in Table 09.030-1. See YMC 17.09.040 for wetland buffer
regulations.
Vegetative buffers shall be measured from the ordinary high water mark for streams, lakes,
and ponds. The width of the buffer shall be determined according to the stream type.
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.
DOC.
110 INDEX July 1 2013
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
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.
Table 09.030-1. Standard Stream Buffers.
Stream Type [ Buffer Width
Type 1 shoreline streams
and lakes
High Intensity:
Streams: 75'
Lakes: 50'
Essential Public Facilities: 100'
Floodway/CMZ: 100'
Shoreline Residential: 20'
Urban Conservancy: 100'
Type 2 streams, lakes, 75'
and ponds
Type 3 streams 50'
(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
(ephemeral) be protected under geologically hazardous area, floodplain, stormwater,
construction, grading or other development regulations.
3. Where a legally established road or railway crosses a shoreline or critical area buffer, the
Shoreline Administrator may approve a modification of the minimum required buffer width to
the waterward edge of the improved road if a study submitted by the applicant and prepared
by a qualified professional demonstrates that the part of the buffer on the upland side of the
road sought to be reduced:
a. does not provide additional protection of the shoreline waterbody; and
b provides insignificant biological, geological or hydrological buffer functions relating to
the waterward portion of the buffer adjacent to the shoreline waterbody.
If the improved roadway corridor is wider than 20 feet, a study is not required.
4. Buffer averaging to improve stream protection may be permitted when all of the following
conditions are met:
July 1, 2013 DOC'
INDEX 111
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
a. The stream or riparian corridor has significant differences in characteristics that affect
its habitat functions.
b. The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher -functioning area of habitat or more -
sensitive portion of the stream and decreased adjacent to the lower -functioning or less -
sensitive portion as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified
professional.
c. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without
averaging.
d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than 3/ of the required width.
Buffer averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all of the
following are met:
a. There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished without
buffer averaging.
b. The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the stream or riparian corridor's
functions and values as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified
professional.
c. The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging.
d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than % of the required width.
All other proposals to reduce a stream buffer may only be approved through the Shoreline
Variance process.
Q. Reclamation. The following guidelines shall apply to the reclamation of disturbed sites resulting
from development activities within a designated hydrologically related critical area:
112
Development, construction, or uses shall include the timely restoration of disturbed features
to a natural condition or to a stabilized condition that prevents degradation;
Large-scale projects that extend over several months shall be phased to allow reclamation of
areas where work or operations have been completed;
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;
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
DOC.
V
INDEX July 1, 2013
„.
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
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.
17.09.040 Wetlands
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
Consistent with WAC 173-22-035, wetlands in shoreline jurisdiction shall be delineated using
the procedure outlined in the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable
regional supplements.
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 Chapter 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.
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.B. Wetlands and their functions will be protected
using the standards found in this section and in YMC 17.09.030,
D. Wetland Functions and Rating
Wetlands are unique landscape features that are the interface between the aquatic and
terrestrial environments. Wetlands provide the following functions:
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.
2. 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 March 2007 (Ecology Publication #04-06-15, or as
revised) which are summarized below:
DOC.
July 1, 2013 I N D 113
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
a. 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 Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Eastern Washington (WRSEW),
ii. Alkali wetlands,
iii. Natural heritage wetlands (wetlands identified by Washington Department of
Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program scientists), and
iv. Bogs.
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 WRSEW,
ii. Unassociated vernal pools, and
iii. Forested wetlands.
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
WRSEW, and
ii. Associated vernal pools.
d. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions, scoring less than 30 points in
the WRSEW. 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 WRSEW rating sheet to
complete the rating.
E. Wetland Buffers.
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 Table 09.040-1 below.
The use of the standard buffer widths requires the implementation of the measures in Table
09.040-2, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses.
If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in Table 09.040-2, then a 33%
increase in the width of all buffers is required. For example, a 75 -foot buffer with the
mitigation measures would be a 100 -foot buffer.
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.
DOCS.
114 INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
If the vegetation is degraded, then revegetation may be considered with any adjustment
to the buffer width.
Where the use is being intensified, a degraded buffer may be revegetated to maintain
the standard width.
Table 04.040-1. Standard Wetland Buffers
Table 09.040-2. Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands
easures are required, where applicable to a
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights Direct lights away from wetland
July 1, 2013 DOC'
115
INDEX
Additional buffer
Additional buffer
Additional buffer
Wetland
Standard Buffer
width if wetland
width if wetland
width if wetland
Category
Width
scores 21-25
scores 26-29
scores 30-36
habitat points
habitat points
habitat points
CategoryI:
Based on total
75 ft
Add 15 ft
Add 45 ft
Add 75 ft
score
Category I:
Forested
75 ft
Add 15 ft
Add 45 ft
Add 75 ft
Category I:
190 ft
NA
NA
NA
Bogs
Category I:
150 ft
N/A
NA
NA
Alkali
Category I:
Natural Heritage
1.90 ft
N/A
NA
NA
Wetlands
Category II:
Based on total
75ft
Add 15 ft
Add 45 ft
Add 75ft
score
Category II:
Vernal pool
150
NA
NA
NA
Category II:
Forested
75 ft
Add 15 ft
Add 45 ft
Add 75ft
Category III (all)
60 ft
Add 30 ft
Add 60 ft
NA
Category IV (all)
40 ft
NA
NA
NA
Table 09.040-2. Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands
easures are required, where applicable to a
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights Direct lights away from wetland
July 1, 2013 DOC'
115
INDEX
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT'
Disturbance
Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Noise
• Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland
• If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings
adjacent to noise source
• For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise,
such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10' heavily
vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer
Toxic runoff
• Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is
not dewatered
• Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 ft of wetland
• Apply integrated pest management
Stormwater runoff
• Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent
development
• Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer
• Use Low Intensity Development techniques (per PSAT publication on LID
techniques)
Change in water
Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious
regime
surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human
• Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to
disturbance
discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion.
• Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation
easement
Dust
Use best management practices to control dust
Disruption of
• Maintain connections to offsite areas that are undisturbed
corridors or
. Restore corridors or connections to offsite habitats by replanting
connections
116
5. Buffer averaging to improve wetland protection may be permitted when all of the following
conditions are met:
The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its habitat functions,
such as a wetland with a forested component adjacent to a degraded emergent
component or a "dual -rated" wetland with a Category I area adjacent to a lower -rated
area.
b. The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher -functioning area of habitat or more -
sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower -functioning or
less -sensitive portion as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified wetland
professional.
DOC,
INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
c. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without
averaging.
The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either % of the required width or 75
feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category III and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever
is greater.
Buffer averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all of the
following are met:
There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished without
buffer averaging.
b. The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland's functions and values
as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified wetland professional.
c. The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging.
d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either A of the required width or 75
feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category III and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever
is greater.
The Shoreline Administrator may not approve averaging reductions to the standard buffer
widths for wetlands that score medium (twenty-six 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.
8. All other proposals to reduce a wetland buffer may only be approved through the Shoreline
Variance process.
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-
06-0138).
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).
G. Wetland Mitigation Banks
1. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved for use as compensation for
unavoidable impacts to wetlands when:
a. The bank is certified under RCW Ch. 90.84 or WAC Ch. 173-700,
July 1, 2013 DOC• 117
flgN&IIV mw.�.�iJ N 21111011133d INDEX
,__
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
b. The Shoreline Administrator 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
118
1. Geologically hazardous areas are areas that are susceptible to one or more of the following,
based on WAC 365-190-120:
a. Erosion hazards;
b. Landslide hazards, which include:
i, over steepened slopes,
ii. alluvial fare/flash flooding,
iii. avalanche, and
iv. channel migration zones and stream undercutting.
c. Seismic hazards (referred to below as earthquake hazards); and,
DCC.
INDEX July 1, 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 include areas likely to become unstable, such as bluffs, steep slopes, and areas 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."
3. 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:
L Alluvial fans,
ii. Canyons,
iii. Gullies, and
iv. Small streams where catastrophic flooding can occur.
d. Stream Undercutting Hazard Areas (SU). These areas are confined to banks near main
streams and rivers where undercutting of soft materials may result.
i. High Risk areas (SU3) include steep banks of soft material adjacent to present
stream courses.
ii. Intermediate Risk areas (SU2) are banks along the edge of a flood plain but away
from the present river course.
DVC.
July 1, 2013 INDEX 119
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT'
iii. Low Risk areas (SUI) are unlabeled and combined with other Low Risk areas on the
maps.
e. 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.
g. 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.
General.
a. New development and creation of new lots that would cause foreseeable risk from
geological conditions during the life of the development or would require structural
shoreline stabilization over the life of the development (except as allowed under YMC
17.07.130) is prohibited.
New stabilization structures for existing primary residential structures allowed only
where no alternatives (including relocation or reconstruction of existing structures), are
feasible, and less expensive than the proposed stabilization measure, and then only if no
net loss of ecological functions will result.
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 17.09.050.13 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.
Doe.
120IND7 July 1, 2013
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
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.
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 17.09.050.1) and by implementing the development standards of
YMC 17.09.OSO.E.
D. Development Review Procedure for Geologically Hazardous Areas
1, The Shoreline Administrator 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.
Developments that receive an affirmative Determination of Hazard by the Shoreline
Administrator 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 Shoreline Administrator 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.
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;
The geo-technical report shall incorporate a submitted assessment which includes
the design of all facilities;
DCOPPQ
July 1, 2013 121
...................................
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
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,
c. Be consistent with YMC 17.09.050.E.
E. General Protection Requirements
1. 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.
2. 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
122
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.
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
DOC.
INDEXrP.yy JUly 1, 280131
# _.._
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
already covered under existing state, federal, or county review processes and have
detailed permit review);
Establish additional review for septic systems, which are covered under existing City of
Yakima review processes;
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.
I.�V":rill:.11"d '�VCkll'h.. (I Ii .QGa..I qi l.�Ilf:11' 11'"i ll' VU'"fie MIV"e� w . ,•..n I,•.,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, n..........................•,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,........................_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...(. R A � a Ir e h owe a II ea.ri wu i.11a � cu itug,�•a 11 II eclh a u° II n ,,, elf'fec1.
...................................................................................•,..........,,...........g,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.....
pu°....a.�,�gii ll:::r....used....:for...I�g.1a_II�II: '...:waiell'” as d���flilrue�i IIS 'w��, ;QCµ"i-1.�90...�P:��9 '2.)
. E;AIfIlA: 'IurIXve .
...... _. _. _. _: _. _. _. _. _ �........................................_.........................................................................•,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..g.............. Piling
g ..lirl.g�.:...•; "II;;>;c"i% ii p, a°r assr�ciated with Ilii'irflilltlV°��I[:lir�lln a°fates that cu"•egg("! a llnu•, II"'u K:�tu::wlu'utliall '
......... a---- .................. ..................,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:;...............................� "�._ "�"Ind." "n,.m !!,"�„ ,"�"i" .!!„p
o'l ,,.rollJlll” dwa'ter reso9.rces or cointlr'rV1'VIII..u't. V::"'U"V II If ic;:,k .1, 11 't'tJl''I:'..Ve II'" a '*p16�:"IVI" .. „I,.
g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_._._._._._._._._._._ .............t ......................_•„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,1,,,,,•.......................1.E...!!..1..�:.....f .f":iro u u n �'wat �* Ir . II Ih e
�dl"II" u"~P !li"ing...ii;l"Iru�ia. b....h ;ve bleMa�n i eIrntiil�ii based."..ta!I::ii...law cal„ conditld .3ii'�s.
�":::......... "h aellllhiead IPP otectiioin Aii°eas.'m elll'aIXaacl iir�u"otecdoii'n au"a:aas si°4ll Ilse defiu°'neri II3 the Illacoluuundaries of
..............................•............................................................,,.................................................................................................,,,,,,,....,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I°Ik c terl uwaii° time. ref Ir"ou�ndwa°I:ii:! r tu'":IXvu::.1 olr'
................"....., ,,,,,.•,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!..................,",,,,............,,,,1....................................................... " o ILV II'.•h d a II" IIestablished 8..ii II'� .. �t "m,°II"r a'te CII'"n't "Irl a
........................ IL....................................................................................................................................................,,,,,,,......................................................
.E.pcov U!!rrn �ljeI i:iin those sett'2r
.................................... ......."I•,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,iiw�,..u,.oundwatelrtuneof travel is
..............................................................................................
I'�” :t....a�:...ii,.ea; sonaliblg,,," "e"l"li"Inr„pa lien clrlull:elrioin Gii''o accolydai nce witlhl WA,(,. 4l6„,290-.135,
” Sole Solmuu'°cc Ar l.m. .
.k II'il"�tU.s" ..ale " �..... ",IX'il",• r P if IE airs: areas ti' at '�da"�1'e II�eleiC^p i _ I.. .
"E"1�,vironrrr�.:Mtal.....I II::gtectiilon..:r .ga��^luuc u.ulrsii..uau'n„l: tin the If°edem' nl Safe i Dlriiii 'ou' alC:elr Act”
y,1..........................................................................................................................................................
," ;GiLN. CIX�I tlll;ill!G ! „�,,,!f,"olui{,;V"a;;d,"" „c�,,,�G•:"�; IY I i' V' .. ement tIX"IX: c l d Il tlll: ie IYd V.gll'"Id a eIX II'iG �Y'Vap?IX��IiV lelrn't 'all'"eu�I!:a
fareareas SII:�"a"t....ha:.v...... !!:""g.!n...." ................................................................................ ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,..........................................................................................................................I..............................._........................!.....
....tlrn„luY"""tl;;"Ir;;,,•!!;E.aiira, ement ,SII°'rally"aii'u� dereloii:aedaualrsll•aaii"'h°t to,°haa.
1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
S ecial PIr'otectlioii°I Aii'"eas., l e.ciial rgItectlion alreas are those alreaas de'I�lined b 'WAC :l7 ..
p..................................i...................................._..••.................................................................................................................................................................................................,......„Y,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. 2 C..Y
Cq,
loje r;;atel r,.;mr 4,,,91'A' "Ili a.0 firer a tale Ar uifelr ftechar. e Areas” A Fe u`echar• . I' �.,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, „ ............,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, n,,,,,,,,,,,, ",,......... ,,,,,,,,j.........,.....i,,,,,,,,.... q,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...ge a I ea., th a I'. a ii e
.....................
mr;nder,.Iely„orll°'hIilIhlvvll,.iilInelralblletode•u°ada'i;liolroii°u:e,collet.liu:urnIiaec°au..useofhydii°o:,,eolr:a lc
.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•...........................IN:7...............................................................................,,1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•......,1,,,,,,,,,�k„M,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,N,,,N,•
CII'h"s�_Iwm�"!cte,i lisil:Jks'arle thiC��iC” alr'eas �•�liC!hineauied l a lW IX II'" P.aieUG , ::•IIQ ntll•.� 1' nll"'C."; aVK d M' ;i
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,",,,,,.................".................................................g................. a,ii c co Iri a ii ce
„ ,,,,,IL.....................................................................................................................
"ut�a,,,;'�;II'�"g,,,, ta"tg..... a.IGI"air l!� int”1,�l"f,,,,I,EI�mmollo�;'���°;u„uildel`wl�'mes.
5. toodera°tell olr" i::!.i II'�II 5u.usc:e;atilble A�....... er Recl'Iau'° e Au"eas, A ,Iuif'eu' Ire�:1.1al' . m m s � " n
y,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,..................................IL............I...........,,,......,,,„,,�,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..... q,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I c m fru a rrr u.......................... „” l" , y
degradatlloin �:,oii„ rler�Il��tiou'..n Ilaeacauase c,.uf l,.0 dii„o�IX: ollo�liu:;, cll°oaumac .. mw�,,.i N
���������������R���N .............. ......�I .. V'''.W............................................ °'."::.�...1..::u.:'.�. .^..a....6A Il e
.n X .....................d..
......,,,,,".............................................. Iirn1: Ilal"ne cr'iIXl,eii'"la established by IXl,ll'ne SIC:at:e IC)IX;:.,aalr'"trna iirt o„f I u::oloy°
t 'nose alreaus rnee�.........
9,, ,. 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 "�:;=Pm°i%•a,�a""II A..,iuii,;fig"i;;,,,"1"Il.:a.!!'::l....:r,ea t�usGdauu°e eta:aclwlruneii°cot•"`In.mll,allicaltiolr Iu -t....
......................................................................... ....................................................................
.0 1 tt>'W: I: i rl ua iia m:;e.....11: aei .• ,,,,,, fe,Il,,,,,,,;tll::me...,E, I:a'IValls ,e,lf„ •r,,;il:lc . fifer l� ..... " a wrtg,mm,,,, ' IXC.., ' i
.. �. .. ff e cox
(Irs ull::alliraliui ': The approximate location and extent of critical aquifer recharge areas
July 1, 2013r 123
rRev a..uminriil .:l�.r....210 3 i
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
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).
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.
D. I1'elrfornialnice Stale"pdard�a C;r,e,II'1Y•;DIY,ja, lige"lull ll'"n;;MII'r'llie�
3.., Activities i��u) l lie ielrrttedin a cIYlil:icalftqaIc'alnt c.m show
, ......;................ .........i... r,,,,ecYYe e
2'.11k;,,, , li*,,,,,Ialp ,.p:psed 'act6vlit 'wiilVll not cn.nunri :^ rror'�I ar°liilinar°its to eu°itelr° th ,m, ,i oiler acid tlhnat tgoa:n
P!r:o!..1 �1 ....: ,q; ny,ii.�:'.....y!rillil.....q�.:ot �mdveu'.sM affect'the Irechar", liif'n of the ar a.nlil'e�.
Z, Tl -ie ::uro' Dead act,liv'II"I r riIIIust cinirn'il witf,w'Ithe'watersoluirr.1 l.. r'd,;Dt Y;:tjoro Iriea:N,�i,1Ie,,,�"IY';nerilts and
r,ecornM'iri,g,u dafl,oi s,,,, ,f,,,the U.S. IFIY"nvir'onme ntall Proter.;:ti,Dn A,,,er'rc � a:sn'ulin. i Sta'ILe
.. u••ro In
,,,, ,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_...................................... A ......................... ...............................
. ,pig, !I::'::i.!!:::q:!...p:l�...lH.q'"..I�:�:Qi...... ,in,a,:�.....th,Ef,,,,YIke„ ,u,lY;l;;q, ,,,,,...............:�q„q,!f;;q..-'y....�:::1'eaIItlh IC:Astrict.
F .......If air„ .. Irnr' a,Ir'n ^,,,; ri, ; „q:::.: .P.�"..'.�.ufili .....a�!'.:' es.
.............................::.::.'.P....„,(...:...:.u.11....:;i,,!rug;..:llalr"m'qs ro,noser::l "B:o IkJe gocat:en lilrn a n::r utnr::aq a . u..uG°der IY°r char::. e 'area
ply,;, ,,,; ii,>��II,,,,Il,!;�,(;a,��,,,,IV1!Iwu,i.jr. 'iir"n node Ir oa,Jilre!rrnemlts and rrnrrsik aMrilYlclCorrl�r to tlne folggowlir°i..
re ........u'ir.ernents:
...........................................................
a.. p llrmdelr. Iros,rr�d lialrilla's. Algll Irrew uruder„•ror.�r°id etorma:e "laciiiities'u°cu iosed for use iilrn I:Ik°ne
�•��•!r,�' u,:. o'f Ik°na'zardou.us ,..nu.ubstance., or Ihnazar'°dr,:rou� bastes si°IGallq bye rwlieslip.„Irie-d and Constructed
so as ..o:
L Prevent Irelleases d..ue to colr'r"osiouv or' structulrral faiillulre for t:ll°'ne o aer°'al,io14 Ilife of'1t1 e
t 11,21
rr. IR�e .. u°o'��ect�e, a aruul�t corr�o�ror�u u.;oui:�u::rur�lt�d o°�� Irnor°ir;oll°,II°'osrvo matunu"Ball steel cllad
li,thn,o,ir-Icorlrp.s..1i..................................:........::.....-�.:.::.. d„ c° . � »ecoumdar' u,:or°i'It�ilinrr"or�lnll
!, rooster rYll rir eulnr ul to urmriude a
systelrn'll:o u'event I:Ik"re Ireliease u, r'C.Ik'iuea't1ned release of alrn sta'::nlred Bull stau�cu„,s ar'Ird
�,ii. Use rnatu�q�,ukJll iur fll,ie Y;orr tlru�ct'iorn or Hiniin:. Oftlhie tank fl,mat is c::irlrm "almldge wifitin ithe
s'ulbst'alrnc'e to 'be stored.
124 D110C. July 1, 2013
PP �V.. ....... ..... ...¢...!012
.::..:.... .
IIID' � .1 . �r .............
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROG9111
�.2 .... .............................
i ri tji les I [g.lpK.)sp,(j for use iin the
L) --A-b-u v -r -,g— L1.1 m..�L —far, I ............... ..................................................................................................................... .
storage (.)f hazarcftms suLbstainc.,es or hzlizardot.js wastes shaill �be deqjlgiriled and coinsit'rualeid
... ......................................................................................................................
sin as tcr
........... . ...... —
L�Noitagl1,D'wtllilr.!r1p,1leaseof�all-,�azar-idok,i!ssiul�)�,ivainceit,�c)t�IiiiI V,C
............................................................. couindw�aters
or
c er
H. Havent area
_.Ha le �a )n�imar lc�orq, eir 1!i1aing 2.�[ �u 1i 1,.e r
irritaimiT . ............................. . �:: .: e
....... ... .... .......... ... . .............. e qt.
,anid
Ni. a ik
. ....... .. -ig . ...... ....... ................... ........ .. ngj.1..,.t �..i.ql.t o taink, stiruictuir'le, 0.1 .........................d �e
i
Lstern builli outside the tank
'Vie 1-,� i1cle vii1cjng_!ngg
................ . ....... . ...................... - _!k&onid1ii.,lclt eid
....... ............................................................................................ GU71a:9 "H"rrm all, 11................ ............................................................... . . ... fti-fin a
g..!2.r ..................... —
c.l.o.......v........r...... .re.......d StIr'lUCtUre cagableof witling1110F,17jg-y )ecittd�athiler cc:mdifloins.
Chemicals usled iri the 11
,,p rocess in fvig�� h lidlie ri— �a ir, a ind se rivilici
........................................................................... 10"M ................................. ..................................................................................................................................
.!Y-otects thern froffli wielathill and P. rio,Odes ccmitainirnient s[mig[d 11i 101CCUir.
.......................................... - ........................... I -------------------
.............................
.................................................................................... I ......................................................................................................................................................
............. N.g O..!j weHs sil--411 i:!)le aflowed �in i "Llifeir' rei IF' arle�ascm �m'lrg�s tg�pdtgr yp
......... ..... ... ...... a.!] ifer recha �, sled for vieKiiclie
...............................
r1r...ip Ikr gjjd-s� _D w6his le isding m tj-e si
x �te p.joir.Lo facirlity est .�!.? shiment i Lue
Ey �j
-,� �sa j � r �cwed b �itlh le S ta �te D i rta° le rat if, Ec: d . . . . . p i" to
............
....................
rn le n c e im e i� ii it of t 1-,� e
............................... — - --------proposed alcifivit,v.
. ........................................................................................
3. Residential Use of Plesticides and NlUtideirvt of holus;ehigild
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. !� Lrt d �rb � ii! � ��k c w it �irj i i ... . ............................................................................... p
p �1�iiciiid& i i �des
... .. ..............................
airld feriffliligirs slvaUl not excleed ibirni�.-:"s iaarild ratill-S SIPiecifield c)in th,
,4. Us & Recila irr�eid 'Wa tip, ir foir Surface Plercolation or [1irect Riechaw. r,�e Mateir rieu
................................................. . ................... - - ------------------- S for
........................................................................................ . .....
a cl,aiirT-iiid.:"d,w�a�tleir rnust �be in aiccioirdairncie,Mth the aid,111011ptied water, or siewar 001171 rpl-,erisive
........................................................................................
pla.0.5 !h.al L, Li . .. . IDP )a �rt rn P n t �snf E �cnl Q Y
. p � t �� G.!! ..
a. klsie� & redlaimeid wateirjc:w sili.iffacip. E!
............................................................................................................ im: riciolation must, YT: pt t1tie
. ............................................................................................
criteria givie: in in �RCW 90.41 anid,90.46,08 1. l)., .......... [1,-�iie State Depa .,o[c� y
. ............................................. I ..................................................................................................... I..���:��.:Q.'.!�..P..![..:���p..� ........................ gil i rtiment of �Eir
...............................................................................................
may&steal !jE!j.pd:lrliitUcaa7r l u Jscha rigg �jirrflts in piccoii dainciewilt1hi FICW..1910,
.................................... .. .................. 1.11, ... ............................................................. ............... ..
Direct ii be hn acicoirdaniu.:.� wft:[,� ithie staindairlds dieve�cvpprj hy-
i�
................. -- .................................... U
11 r-) r] IN, —0 11
. .....
Ftp" "x.9'0. 90.46.1042�
........................................................I ........................................ .
ohibited Firoi �C 1 � c �e r R ELc h a r i le ..as. The frAkmil irhd i ar��,:,
s g.. i.r. ............................................................................ m 1 .......... A.�,�.iijif ..................................................................... ,
,p
Egf-bfteid iin crjldica�l alic le areas:
I a in & GI I s . I airldfiUls iniciluidi hazaircicmis gir dai
. ...... . ........ f i
-1 ----------- & ............................................................................ n.!,.y U
I Url 11 - si- L g.stle irnignicip y 2. t., g e c 1
............................... . . . ...... ................... ............ ...................... . ... ....
w
i waste airid iniert and dirmohitilgirii waste [gand
.................. .......... ............................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.......... .. U.in.d.e[p Qg.[!�id [.!��Jjg i ;ri Wivjils. Class I UH �anid IIV l and subdia 5
. ........ ....... ....... ........ ... ........ ............................................................ . . . 1 ........................................ .......................... s s e " ' s 5 ' F " 0 .2, ,".i D..10 3..ff �15 E.10.: A ............. W.O.
„aWI
0�:3 I., .5; ..... .3..... ..3.......,. ....51...... ;X !!L:& 4U 11;�)10 12and 5N24 of Clas 'V w(. 1 Is'
..........
3. 'Wood Treatment 1'-"a1cfliflesAV1oc)d trleatiirii�E,,nt'if�alcii�Iiit�e�s that aUlowilan
.............. . ......................................................................................... ................................ y ii ............................................
tin sluirfa.1ces (.�� p i n a ri.rn de )..;.
................................................ ....... ...... ...................... ...... .. ......................................................................................... .................... .... atiiljira�l and i�
............................................ . .. 111.1 ....... . ....................... ........... : .......................
4, Stoira,,-m.:,, Pir-m:(2-sjsJ �nx r �Dis . o�rjM of Riachola: citive SigEmit.air*es, Fac:flides tf,�a: 1: sibm
.......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................... . ...... LrLI-W,-,--I,--Jrej,,.)ro�".,,Ps,,,_or
d.i p SL
S f rizildipactivit, , abst;:�r -
_g ( g S,
......... .........................
5. 10in .1 1 11 rock- a, i
;j�w �m- 1-i �rrj ro �Ic " nd sanidd ia,� 1 1 d ��Ea e i n n;,s loicalted Mthin'the im rieira� resoluirce
........ ....... ... .................. .
Mj.n � i k �::i
................ . .............................................................................................
DOCill.
July 1, 2013 125
�X
22 �q.2 3.1
CITT OF YAMMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
6. Other Prohibited Usies or Activides,
,a. ActivWes that WOLdd sk::" redtxe the rge=chai ..,e to&,,iuofii:irs (:,g,iirreintiv or
piptentiaHy used asaLpg)table wat
[a I I i1r_r SoUrce,
b, 44ctivities that would siarifficainflIv redt,nce the rechame to i,flfers, ti,u
La2sipq!�,!ii �rceof
G. SubmittalReIlLdrevnents.
........................................................................... ............................................ ................
1- .:1 flications fbr ai- develf, :)rriient or division o,f hand w hich re-iWires review bv 'Yalkh-.ria
..............
Qoum,L�aroj whicjh as 1k.kcateid 4ithin a m p.,.)pd,Critkal A(Lufferr Rgch� �\.
__[gg �'..e a o r W e il.i]i e..;.@ d,
. ..... .... ...... ... ........... .... . .. .. . ..... . ... .....
Protection Area shaH be re i
............................................................ her
..... . ... .....
hazandous matiarig!Ljagg_��.itions) �.yfl.l be stored train jorted or &
........................................................................................................... ................................. ...... ...... ... ........ .... ......... ..........
rc orumectic)n wk1h th Dr If actM,t , If there is VnstrffUent inforrnaflon to detie�rmime
whiether hazardous materials mffli L)e used the Shoreline AckniMstrator rami v re unrest ziddNJonaf
infomation Maclditk)n tc:V an,1111v submittal re uiriernents ouflineid un YlViC 17.09.01
2� . . ............ . ... .. [,.he Ad.7 jetermin-aflon:
a. No i-tagardous miaterials are involved.
b., .I I z a rdous mater -Us are invol,niecj- h0VVE"Jp....r ex1sfirll- Iam,i,s or r" Lflattions ade
U.1
Via" Hazardous irrmteriak ar'e 4ivolvedand thillig inropcs hi,,g[s thtpootenflr;nfl to siLmilficanfly
ion Areas" however, siufficient
information is not ayaflaWe to evahiate theiolo,tenti", i h-njpact of contamination, 11-ig f it%,r
M YI. alified .. F'Dundwate,ir siriia�ntist
in iorder to Idlplterrmnwlrne the Dotential h--------- -L contarydriation on thirr rel. iii pr:,
Ff...,moofc-P 0-f
4am
of e*J.st4::ig4,pA-j-&
n4 n 4144m",11.A--
G"e
L+Rd-01A1d4fe44a4)4.v". rWtk . . ...... &If4i:.. d+_-
pF+w+,+Je4a4el:.4
able -op ............
T4
Amtk eL_
peffn#-Fpv4IClom ............ Thp,
126Av July 1, 2013
,
IND. EJX lo- U 9 � j s t 2 _,o2 0, 13
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
plri':..t�snpst-11'�euilr� rp'.
4; .................... . „ �.
' .... .....Ila
le...l . ..,, w:........... N.
i�l'•w::�'w:;N'��, �", i . � � �� ,. �w ... .. ��. �� . �., .. �� „o ��w��'w�.... ^ • :�'G�,tt,:Y'�l<iIL.."�'
lIIV!„ �,i,.....!r�
.. 'a'„p .M
. r
wl^„II"AIII"`111III,`.111'Xi 17.1 1, IEXI5III1ING�aIllIII'`�iIlli„�.��V(.„r 111I,0lll,"Fall
Nonconforming uses or developments are shoreline uses or development which were lawfully
constructed or established prior to the effective date of this Master Program, or approved amendments
to the Master Program, but which do not conform to present regulations or standards of the Master
Program. The intent of this chapter is to provide regulations regarding nonconforming uses, structures,
and lots as well as to establish residences as pre-existing legal uses, conforming to the Master Program
as allowed by the Act.
WAVrowimam-TIT M.,
A. Uses and developments that were legally established and are nonconforming with regard to the use
regulations of the Master Program may continue as legal nonconforming uses. Such uses shall not
be enlarged or expanded unless expressly allowed by YMC 17.11.010.6 and 17.11.040.
Nonconforming single-family residential uses that are located landward of the ordinary high water
mark may be enlarged or expanded in conformance with applicable dimensional standards by the
addition of space to the main structure or by the addition of normal appurtenances as defined in
WAC 173-27-040(2)(g) upon approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit by the Hearing
Examiner.
C. A legally established use, prior to the effective date of the Master Program, which is listed as a
conditional use but for which a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit has not been obtained shall be
considered a nonconforming use.
D. A structure which is being or has been used for a nonconforming use may be used for a different
nonconforming use only upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Hearing Examiner. A
Conditional Use Permit may be approved only upon a finding that:
No reasonable alternative conforming use is practical; and
2. The proposed use will be at least as consistent with the policies and provisions of the Act and
the Master Program and as compatible with the uses in the area as the preexisting use.
July 1 2013 INDEX 127
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
In addition, such conditions may be attached to the permit as are deemed necessary to assure
compliance with the above findings, the requirements of the Master Program and the Shoreline
Management Act and to assure that the use will not become a nuisance or a hazard. A use
authorized pursuant to YMC 17.11.010.1) shall be considered a conforming use for purposes of this
section.
If a nonconforming use is discontinued for twelve consecutive months or for twelve months during
any two-year period, the nonconforming rights shall expire and any subsequent use shall be
required to conform to this title.
17.11.020 Nonconforming Structures
A. Structures that were legally established and are used for a conforming use but which are
nonconforming with regard to setbacks, buffers or yards; area; bulk; height or density may be
maintained and repaired and may be enlarged or expanded provided that said 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.
A structure for which a variance has been issued shall be considered a legal nonconforming
structure and the requirements of this section shall apply as they apply to preexisting
nonconformities.
C. A nonconforming structure which is moved any distance must be brought into conformance with
the Master Program and the Act.
D. If a nonconforming development/structure is damaged to an extent not exceeding fiCt:Y...p..i.'rc: nt_in
flood hazard aireas and seventy-five percent.,
ercent ,1'n t,P� u" ,lrata,iilrtd', it of sh_pi-eline_jur-i diction of the
replacement cost of the original development, it may be reconstructed to those configurations
existing immediately prior to the time the development was damaged, provided that application is
made for the permits necessary to restore the development within six months of the date the
damage occurred, all permits are obtained and the restoration is completed within two years of
permit issuance.
17.11.030 Nonconforming Lots
A. In any district, any permitted use or structure may be erected on any existing lot or parcel. This
provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the minimum dimensional requirements of
this SMP, provided that such structure is allowed within the shoreline environment and all uses of
the nonconforming lot shall comply with all other provisions of the SMP and underlying zoning
requirements including setbacks, dimensional standards, and lot coverage requirements.
B. Structures and customary accessory buildings on non -conforming lots shall be set back from the
OHWM to the greatest extent feasible. Development proposed inside required buffers shall go
through mitigation sequencing , shall require a mitigation plan and ShoreHirpe Vaiijainice. irnelr,YMC
�EJl°:gen!...iunable to meet the provisions of `(11K 17.09,„,1 ,;3 .
17.11.040 Pre-existing Legal Uses — Conforming Residential Structures
Notwithstanding YMC 17.11.010 to 030, the following shall apply to preexisting legal residential
structures constructed prior to the effective date of this SMP:
128
DOS.
INDEX
#I
L. -L.
July 1, 2013
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
A. Residential structures and appurtenant structures that were legally established and are used for a
conforming use, but that do not meet standards for the following shall be considered a conforming
structure: Setbacks, buffers, or yards; area; bulk; height; or density.
B. 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.
C. For purposes of this section, "appurtenant structures" means garages, sheds, and other legally
established structures. "Appurtenant structures" does not include bulkheads and other shoreline
modifications or over -water structures.
D. Nothing in this YMC 17.11.040: (a) Restricts the ability of this SMP to limit redevelopment,
expansion, or replacement of over -water structures located in hazardous areas, such as floodplains
and geologically hazardous areas; or (b) affects the application of other federal, state, or City
requirements to residential structures.
17.11.050 Additional Requirements for Certain Uses
Non -conforming uses and structures not covered by RCW 90.58.270(S), RCW 90.58.620, and not
addressed by the SMP must comply with WAC 173-27-080.
17.13.010 Roles and Responsibilities
The City shall administer the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), collectively Title 17 and the associated
goals and policies contained in Comprehensive Plan Chapter 10, Section 3, according to the following
roles and responsibilities:
A. Shoreline Administrator. The Shoreline Administrator in the City of Yakima is the Community
Development Director. The Shoreline Administrator shall have overall administrative responsibility
of the SMP. The Shoreline Administrator or his/her designee is hereby vested with the authority to:
Administrate this SMP.
Make field inspections as needed, and prepare or require reports on shoreline permit
applications.
3. Grant or deny exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permit requirements of
this SMP.
4. Authorize, approve or deny Shoreline Substantial Development Permits.
5. Authorize, approve or deny Shoreline Conditional Use Permits except for those involving non-
conforming uses, which shall be the responsibility of the Hearing Examiner.
6. Make written recommendations to the Hearing Examiner, Planning Commission, or City
Council as appropriate.
7. Advise interested persons and prospective applicants as to the administrative procedures and
related components of this SMP.
0(m.
July 01 1. 201;�,3 ,,,��' INDEX 129
8
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
8. Collect fees for all necessary permits as provided in City ordinances or resolutions. The
determination of which fees are required shall be made by the City.
9. Make administrative decisions and interpretations of the policies and regulations of this SMP
and the Act in accordance with the Yakima Municipal Code.
B. SEPA Official. The responsible SEPA official or his/her designee is authorized to conduct
environmental review of all use and development activities subject to this SMP, pursuant to WAC
197-11 and RCW 43.21C. The responsible SEPA official is designated in accordance with the City's
SEPA implementation ordinance.
C. Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner shall have the authority to:
Decide on appeals from administrative decisions issued by the Shoreline Administrator of this
SMP.
2. Grant or deny variances from this SMP.
3. Grant or deny Shoreline Conditional Use Permits associated with non -conforming uses.
4. The Hearing Examiner may, at the request of the Shoreline Administrator, receive and
examine available information, conduct public hearings and prepare records and reports
thereof, and issue recommendations to the council based upon findings and conclusions on
applications for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits and Conditional Use Permits.
D. Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is vested with the responsibility to review the SMP
as part of regular SMP updates required by RCW 90.58.080 as a major element of the City's planning
and regulatory program, and make recommendations for amendments thereof to the City Council.
E. City Council. The City Council is vested with authority to:
Initiate an amendment to this SMP according to the procedures prescribed in WAC 173-26-
100.
Adopt all amendments to this SMP, after consideration of the recommendation of the
planning commission, where established. Amendments shall become effective upon approval
by Ecology,
17.13.020 Interpretation
A. The City shall make administrative decisions and interpretations of the policies and regulations of
this SMP and the Act in accordance with the Yakima Municipal Code.
B. The City shall consult with Ecology to ensure that any formal written interpretations are consistent
with the purpose and intent of chapter 90.58 RCW and 173-26 WAC.
C. The application of this SMP is intended to be consistent with constitutional and other legal
limitations on the regulation of private property. The Shoreline Administrator shall give adequate
consideration to mitigation measures and other possible methods to prevent undue or
unreasonable hardships upon property owners.
17.13.030 Statutory Noticing Requirements
A. Applicants shall follow the noticing requirements of the City. At a minimum, the City shall provide
notice in accordance with WAC 173-27-110, and may provide for additional noticing requirements.
130 `DOC��.yy
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Per WAC 173-27-120 the City shall comply with special procedures (public notice timelines, appeal
periods, etc.) for limited utility extensions and bulkheads.
B. The following subsections provide a summary of noticing days. The City shall consult the most
current version of WAC 173-27-110 and 120 to confirm the days. In case of conflict, state statutes
or rules shall control:
1. Issuance of notice of application. Notice of application shall be provided within fourteen days
after the determination of completeness of the application.
2. Statement of public comment period. The notice of application shall state the public
comment period which shall be not less than thirty days following the date of notice of
application, unless otherwise specified for limited utility extensions or single family bulkheads
below.
Notice of application prior to hearing. If an open record predecision hearing, as defined in
RCW 36.708.020, is required for the requested project permits, the notice of application shall
be provided at least fifteen days prior to the open record hearing.
4. Limited utility extension or single-family bulkhead. An application for a Substantial
Development Permit for a limited utility extension or for the construction of a bulkhead or
other measures to protect a single-family residence and its appurtenant structures from
shoreline erosion shall be subject to all of the requirements of this chapter except that the
following time periods and procedures shall be used:
The public comment period shall be twenty days. The notice provided shall state the
manner in which the public may obtain a copy of the City's decision on the application
no later than two days following its issuance;
b. The City shall issue its decision to grant or deny the permit within twenty-one days of
the last day of the comment period specified in subsection (2)(a) of this section; and
c. If there is an appeal of the decision to grant or deny the permit to the Hearing Examiner,
the appeal shall be finally determined by the Hearing Examiner within thirty days.
17.13.040 Application Requirements
A. A complete application for a Shoreline Substantial Development, Shoreline Conditional Use, or
Shoreline Variance Permit shall contain, at a minimum, the information listed in WAC 173-27-180. In
addition, the applicant, including those applying for exemption status, shall provide the following
materials:
An assessment of the existing ecological functions and/or processes provided by topographic,
physical and vegetation characteristics of the site and any impacts to those functions and/or
processes, to accompany development proposals, provided that proposals for single-family
residences, as long as they meet the exemption criteria, shall be exempt from this
requirement if proposal is located outside required buffers. When the project results in
adverse impacts to ecological function and/or processes, a mitigation plan must be provided
that describes how proposed mitigation compensates for the lost function or process.
Site plan or division of land depicting to scale the location of buildable areas, existing and
proposed impervious surfaces (building(s), accessory structures, driveways), and allowed
DOC.
July 1, 2013 INDEX 131
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
landscaping and yards (including proposed water access trails, view corridors, wildfire
defensible space, if applicable), general location of utilities, well and septic system, if
applicable and location of storage and staging of materials and equipment during
construction. Plans shall show area calculations of each feature.
3. The location of any mapped channel migration zone floodplain, and/or floodway boundary
and critical Areas, if known, and respective setback/buffer areas on and within 250 feet of the
vicinity of the project site and all applicable buffers.
4. Where a view analysis is required per WAC 173-27-1.80, it shall address the following:
a. The analysis shall include vacant existing parcels of record as well as existing structures.
Vacant parcels of record shall be assumed to be developed with structures complying
with the applicable regulations of the City and the maximum height limitation allowed
under the SMP.
b. The view corridor analysis shall include residential buildings or public properties located
outside of the shoreline jurisdiction if it can be clearly demonstrated that the subject
property has significant water views.
B. The Shoreline Administrator may vary or waive these additional application requirements according
to administrative application requirements on a case by case basis, but all applications for a
substantial development, conditional use, or variance permit shall contain the information found in
WAC 173-26-180.
C. The Shoreline Administrator may require additional specific information depending on the nature of
the proposal and the presence of sensitive ecological features or issues related to compliance with
other City requirements, and the provisions of this Title.
17.13.050 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permits
A. The City shall exempt from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit requirement the shoreline
developments listed in WAC 173-27-040 and RCW 90.58.030 (3)(e), 90.58.140(9), 90.58.147,
90.58.355 and 90.58.515.
B. Letters of exemption shall be issued when a letter of exemption is required by the provisions of
WAC 173-27-050. Otherwise the exemption status shall be documented in the project application
file.
17.13.060 Shoreline Substantial Development Permits
A. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall be required for all development of shorelines,
unless the proposal is specifically exempt per YMC 17.13.050.
B. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall be granted only when the development proposed
is consistent with:
1. The policies and procedures of the SMA;
2. The provisions of WAC 173-27;
3. Chapter 10, Section 3 of the City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan; and
4. This Title 17.
DOC.
NDEX
132 IJuly 1, 2013
i Fkf!)L fljjg a 7'L ?demi
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
C. The City may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the
project with the Act and this SMP. Additionally, nothing shall interfere with the City's ability to
require compliance with all other applicable laws and plans.
17.13.070 Shoreline Conditional Use Permits
A. This section provides procedures and criteria guiding the review of Shoreline Conditional Use
Permits, which require careful review to ensure the use can be properly installed and operated in a
manner that meets the goals of the Act and this Program in accordance with any needed
performance standards. After a Shoreline Conditional Use application has been approved by the
City, the City shall submit the permit to Ecology for Ecology's approval, approval with conditions or
denial. Ecology shall review the file, in accordance with WAC 173-27-200.
B. Uses specifically classified or set forth in this Shoreline Master Program as conditional uses shall be
subject to review and condition by the City and by the Department of Ecology.
C. Other uses which are not classified or listed or set forth in this SMP may be authorized as
conditional uses provided the applicant can demonstrate consistency with the requirements of this
section and the requirements for conditional uses contained in this SMP.
D. Uses which are specifically prohibited by this SMP may not be authorized as a conditional use.
E. Uses which are classified or set forth in the applicable master program as conditional uses may be
authorized provided that the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
I. That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the master
program;
2. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;
3. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other
authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive
plan and SMP;
4. That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment
in which it is to be located; and
5. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
In the granting of all Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, consideration shall be given to the
cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if Shoreline
Conditional Use Permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar
circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of
RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
G. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the City or
Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or to assure consistency of the
project with the SMA and this SMP.
H. Nothing shall interfere with the City's ability to require compliance with all other applicable plans
and laws.
DOG.
INDEX
July 1 2013 133
';y Ag. ";..; A
............
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
17.13.080 Shoreline Variance Permits
A. The purpose of a variance is to grant relief to specific bulk or dimensional requirements set forth in
this Shoreline Master Program where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to
the property such that the strict implementation of this Shoreline Master Program would impose
unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Variances
from the use regulations of the SMP are prohibited.
B. After a Shoreline Variance application has been approved by the City, the City shall submit the
permit to Ecology for Ecology's approval, approval with conditions or denial. Ecology shall review
the file in accordance with WAC 173-27-200.
134
1. Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result
in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must
demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall
suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
2. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the OHWM, as
defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW
90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the
following:
a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in
the SMP precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property;
That the hardship described in criterion "a" of this subsection is specifically related to
the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or
natural features and the application of the SMP, and not, for example, from deed
restrictions or the applicant's own actions;
c. That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area
and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and SMP and will not
cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment;
d. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other
properties in the area;
e. That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and
f. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the OHWM,
as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h),
may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in
the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property;
b. That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under Regulation B.2 above;
and
c. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely
affected.
DOC.
INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
C. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of
additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if variances were granted to other
developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variances
shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial
adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
17.13.090 Duration of Permits
Time duration requirements for Shoreline Substantial Development, Shoreline Variance, and Shoreline
Conditional Use Permits shall be consistent with the following provisions.
A. General provisions. The time requirements of this section shall apply to all Shoreline Substantial
Development Permits and to any development authorized pursuant to a Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit or Shoreline Variance authorized by this Chapter. Upon a finding of good cause, based on
the requirements and circumstances of the project proposed and consistent with the policy and
provisions of this SMP and this Chapter, the City may adopt different time limits from those set forth
in subsections B and C of this section as a part of an action on a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit.
B. Commencement. Construction activities shall be commenced or, where no construction activities
are involved, the use or activity shall be commenced within two years of the effective date of a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, or Shoreline Variance.
Commencement means taking the action on the shoreline project for which the permit was granted
shall begin. For example, beginning actual construction or entering into binding agreements or
contractual obligations to undertake a program of actual construction. However, the City may
authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a
request for extension has been filed with a complete extension application submittal before the
expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record on the Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, or Shoreline Variance and to
Ecology.
C. Termination. Authorization to conduct development activities shall terminate five years after the
effective date of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, or
Shoreline Variance. However, the City may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed
one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration
date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record on the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, or Shoreline Variance, and to Ecology.
D. Effective date. The effective date of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit, or Shoreline Variance shall be the date of receipt as provided in RCW
90.58.140(6). The permit time periods in subsections B and C of this section do not include the time
during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to pending administrative appeals or
legal actions or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the
development that authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonably related
administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals. The applicant shall be responsible
for informing the City of the pendency of other permit applications filed with agencies other than
the City and of any related administrative and legal actions on any permit or approval. If no notice
of the pendency of other permits or approvals is given by the applicant to the City prior to the date
of the last action by the City to grant permits and approvals necessary to authorize the development
July 1, 2013 DOC. 135
INDU
# t
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
to proceed, including administrative and legal actions of the City, and actions under other City
development regulations, the date of the last action by the City shall be the effective date.
E. Revisions. Revisions to permits may be authorized after original permit authorization has expired,
provided that this procedure shall not be used to extend the original permit time requirements or to
authorize substantial development after the time limits of the original permit.
F. Notification to Ecology. The City shall notify Ecology in writing of any change to the effective date of
a permit, as authorized by this section, with an explanation of the basis for approval of the change.
Any change to the time limits of a permit other than those authorized by RCW 90.58.143 as
amended shall require a new permit application.
17.13.100 Initiation of Development
A. Amortization to begin construction. Each permit for a Substantial Development, Shoreline
Conditional Use or Shoreline Variance, issued by the City shall contain a provision that construction
pursuant to the permit shall not begin and is not authorized until twenty-one (21) days from the
date of receipt with Ecology as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130, or until all review
proceedings initiated within twenty-one (21) days from the date of receipt of the decision, except as
provided in RCW 90.58.140(5)(a) and (b). The date of receipt for a Substantial Development Permit
means that date the applicant receives written notice from Ecology that it has received the decision.
With regard to a permit for a shoreline variance or a shoreline conditional use, date of receipt
means the date the City or applicant receives the written decision of Ecology.
B. Forms. Permits for substantial development, shoreline conditional use, or shoreline variance may be
in any form prescribed and used by the City, including a combined permit application form. Such
forms will be supplied by the City.
C. Data sheet. A permit data sheet shall be submitted to Ecology with each shoreline permit. The
permit data sheet form shall be consistent with WAC 173-27-990.
D. Construction Prior to Expiration of Appeal Deadline. Construction undertaken pursuant to a permit
is at the applicant's own risk until the expiration of the appeals deadline.
17.13.110 Review Process
A. After the City's approval of a conditional use or variance permit, the City shall submit the permit to
the department for Ecology's approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Ecology shall render anc
transmit to the City and the applicant its final decision approving, approving with conditions, or
disapproving the permit within thirty days of the date of submittal by the City pursuant to WAC 173-
27-110.
B. Ecology shall review the complete file submitted by the City on conditional use and variance permits
and any other information submitted or available that is relevant to the application. Ecology shall
base its determination to approve, approve with conditions or deny a Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit or Shoreline Variance on consistency with the policy and provisions of the SMA and, except
as provided in WAC 173-27-210, the criteria in WAC 173-27-160 and 173-27-170.
C. The City shall provide appropriate notification of the Ecology's final decision to those interested
persons having requested notification from local government pursuant to WAC 173-27-130.
136
DOC.
INDEX
July 1, 2013
���:�...
DRAFT
17.13.120 Appeals
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
A. Administrative review decisions by the Administrator, based on a provision of this SMP, may be the
subject of an appeal to the Hearing Examiner by any aggrieved person. Such appeals shall be an
open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
B. Appeals of exemptions are allowed only for exemptions where a letter is required pursuant to YMC
17.13.050.
C. Appeals must be submitted within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of decision or written
interpretation together with the applicable appeal fee. Appeals submitted by the applicant or
aggrieved person shall contain:
1. The decision or interpretation being appealed, including the file number reference and the
specific objections in the decision document;
2. The name and address of the appellant and his/her interest(s) in the application or proposed
development;
3. The specific reasons why the appellant believes the decision or interpretation to be
erroneous, including identification of each finding of fact, each conclusion, and each condition
or action ordered which the appellant alleges is erroneous. The appellant shall have the
burden of proving the decision or interpretation is erroneous;
4. The specific relief sought by the appellant; and
5. The appeal fee established by the City.
D. Per WAC 173-27-120, the City shall comply with special procedures for limited utility extensions and
bulkheads. If there is an appeal of the decision to grant or deny the permit to the Hearing Examiner,
the appeal shall be finally determined by the Hearing Examiner within thirty days.
E. Appeals to the Shoreline Hearings Board of a final decision on a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Variance, or a decision on an appeal of an
administrative action, may be filed by the applicant or any aggrieved party pursuant to RCW
90.58.180 within thirty (30) days of receipt of the final decision by the City or by Ecology as provided
for in RCW 90.58.140(6).
17.13.130 Amendments to Permits
A. A permit revision is required whenever the applicant proposes substantive changes to the design,
terms or conditions of a project from that which is approved in the permit. Changes are substantive
if they materially alter the project in a manner that relates to its conformance to the terms and
conditions of the permit, this SMP, and/or the policies and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW.
Changes which are not substantive in effect do not require approval of a revision.
B. When an applicant seeks to revise a permit, the City shall request from the applicant detailed plans
and text describing the proposed changes. Proposed changes must be within the scope and intent
of the original permit, otherwise a new permit may be required.
C. If the City determines that the proposed changes are within the scope and intent of the original
permit, and are consistent with this SMP and the Act, the City may approve a revision.
D. "Within the scope and intent of the original permit" means all of the following:
July 1, 2013
DOC.
INDEX 137
# 5 __ /
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
No additional over water construction is involved except that pier, dock, or float construction
may be increased by five hundred (500) square feet or ten percent (10%) from the provisions
of the original permit, whichever is less;
Ground area coverage and height may be increased a maximum often percent (10%) from the
provisions of the original permit;
3. The revised permit does not authorize development to exceed height, lot coverage, setback,
or any other requirements of this SMP except as authorized under a Shoreline Variance
granted as the original permit or a part thereof;
4. Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with any conditions attached to the original
permit and with this SMP;
The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and
6. No adverse environmental impact will be caused by the project revision.
E. The revision approval, including the revised site plans and text clearly indicating the authorized
changes, and the final ruling on consistency with this section shall be filed with Ecology. In addition,
the City shall notify parties of record of their action.
If the revision to the original permit involves a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline
Variance, the City shall submit the revision to Ecology for approval, approval with conditions, or
denial, and shall indicate that the revision is being submitted under the requirements of this
subsection. Ecology shall render and transmit to the City and the applicant its final decision within
fifteen (15) days of the date of Ecology's receipt of the submittal from the City. The City shall notify
parties of record of Ecology's final decision.
G. The revised permit is effective immediately upon final decision by the City or, when appropriate per
subsection F, upon final action by Ecology. Construction undertaken pursuant to a permit is at the
applicant's own risk until the expiration of the appeals deadline.
Filing. Appeals of a revised permit shall be in accordance with RCW 90.58.180 and shall be
filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of receipt of the City's action by Ecology or,
when appropriate under Shoreline Variances or Conditional Uses, the date Ecology's final
decision is transmitted to the City and the applicant.
Basis of appeals. Appeals shall be based only upon contentions of noncompliance with the
provisions of subsections A and B. Appeals shall be based on the revised portion of the
permit.
Risk. Construction undertaken pursuant to that portion of a revised permit not authorized
under the original permit is at the applicant's own risk until the expiration of the appeals
deadline.
4. Scope of decision. If an appeal is successful in proving that a revision is not within the scope
and intent of the original permit, the decision shall have no bearing on the original permit.
,Duly 1., 201:3
DRAFT
17.13.140 SMP Amendments
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
A. This Shoreline Master Program carries out the policies of the Shoreline Management Act for the
City. It shall be reviewed and amended as appropriate in accordance with the review periods
required in the Act and in order to:
To assure that the master program complies with applicable law and guidelines in effect at the
time of the review; and
To assure consistency of the master program with the City's comprehensive plan and
development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, if applicable, and other local
requirements.
B. This SMP and all amendments thereto shall become effective immediately upon final approval and
adoption by Ecology.
C. The SMP maybe amended annually or more frequently as needed pursuant to the Growth
Management Act, RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)(iii).
D. Initiation. Future amendments to this Shoreline Management Plan maybe initiated either by any
person, resident, property owner, business owner, governmental or non-governmental agency,
Shoreline Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council as appropriate.
Application. Applications for shoreline master program amendments shall specify the changes
requested and any and all reasons therefore. Applications shall be made on forms specified by the
City. Such applications shall contain information specified in the City's procedures for
Comprehensive Plan and development regulation amendments pursuant to RCW 36.70A, the
Growth Management Act, and information necessary to meet minimum public review procedures in
subsection F.
F. Public Review Process — Minimum Requirements. The City shall accomplish the amendments in
accordance with the procedures of the Shoreline Management Act, Growth Management Act, and
implementing rules including, but not limited to, RCW 90.58.080, WAC 173-26-100, RCW 36.70A.106
and 130, and Part Six, Chapter 365-196 WAC.
G. Roles and Responsibilities. Proposals for amendment of the Shoreline Management Plan shall be
heard by the Planning Commission. After conducting a hearing and evaluating testimony regarding
the application, including a recommendation from the Shoreline Administrator, the Planning
Commission shall submit its recommendation to the City Council, who shall approve or deny the
proposed amendment.
H. Finding. Prior to approval, the City shall make a finding that the amendment would accomplish #1 or
#2, and must accomplish #3:
The proposed amendment would make this Program more consistent with the Act and/or any
applicable Department of Ecology Guidelines;
The proposed amendment would make this Program more equitable in its application to
persons or property due to changed conditions in an area;
This Program and any future amendment hereto shall ensure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions and processes on a programmatic basis in accordance with the baseline
functions present as of the effective date of this SMP.
DOC..
July 1, 2013 INDEX 139
a 013
# /
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
I. After approval or disapproval of a Program amendment by the Department of Ecology as provided in
RCW 90.58.090, Ecology shall publish a notice that the Program amendment has been approved or
disapproved by Ecology pursuant to the notice publication requirements of RCW 36.70A.290.
17.13.150 Enforcement
The City shall apply 173-27 WAC Part II, Shoreline Management Act Enforcement, to enforce the
provisions of this SMP whenever a person has violated any provision of the Act, this SMP, or other
regulation promulgated under the Act.
17.13.160 Monitoring
A. The City will track all shoreline permits and exemption activities to evaluate whether the SMP is
achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Activities to be tracked using the City's
permit system include development, conservation, restoration and mitigation, such as:
1. New shoreline development
2. Shoreline Variances and the nature of the variance
3. Compliance issues
4. Net changes in impervious surface areas, including associated stormwater management
5. Net changes in fill or armoring
6. Net change in linear feet of flood hazard structures
7. Net changes in vegetation (area, character)
Using the information collected per subsection A, a no net loss report shall be prepared every eight
years as part of the City's Shoreline Master Program evaluation or Comprehensive Plan Amendment
process. Should the no net loss report show degradation of the baseline condition documented in
the City's Shoreline Analysis Report, changes to the SMP and/or Shoreline Restoration Plan shall be
proposed at the time of the eight-year update to prevent further degradation and address the loss
in ecological functions.
INDEX
1 140 Rev A.u.jp fl 'gip!„.7()x,3
4'�' m " IV p,,,�i m
�Nlt}i ” III III III ��VI 1pIII �r"��11 �'4^^II�. �� o ��I gel III �� 4
ry „��.��� � +I� by"" 'I' II �",, 0�
�I � III III 1�� U� � III �� '11�” � I<" III II ��I@o- l e� i��i�
1 pp�� ��l ryry�����, r �„ilP i � a v 1 u qU � y p ����„� o w ���� pm w ii ����� ',,
151'
III 1 IV n��'Q6,�����' �Qn i . �� ,����1 Il��V1 ^IVI�I �d'"^l�. I�� III ��I ',. � ���� �����u III �h�lii�� III""�lY Ile Ion �ol� ��li � A�� III S S �I�,��l III D �FO
II (III
'�N��o°''I� °" ��i���,"�ad� 11 �� II` II`°"����@ �i,� u� IP ��° �U� Ill'�mll
� �� I� ;tkq °�Ilf IV �P �ii III 'I� � ���°'fin III a� 7r i'"�����d°ll
Ih '°III,�i I� ' 11111III ��4� n�h°'��, @"'��mlk S �I ) o� �� i��b °°IV ��o-°'liw� IIS ' I� i�m'�j I'`���Jl � SuC�'���� Ila �� II III IV
C
III IV t XII lIIIII ("1111 (), II'1�1l
This Programmatic Exemption (PE) between City of Yakima (City) and the Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) South Central Region, in accordance with the current City of Yakima
Shoreline Master Program, establishes procedures for classifying and documenting WSDOT projects
within the City Shoreline jurisdiction as programmatically exempt from further City review for a period
of eight (8) years from the effective date of the Yakima SMP. WSDOT projects that do not fall under the
purview of this PE shall undergo standard City review.
Location/Legal Description:
All WSDOT, South Central Region projects associated with state route locations within City of Yakima as
outlined in WAC 173-18-430. For more information on City of Yakima shoreline jurisdiction, please refer
the current City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program (SMP), City of Yakima Municipal Code (YMC) Title
17.
Exemption Citation
• WAC 197-11-800
(2) Other minor new construction (c)
(3) Repair, remodeling, and maintenance activities
• WSDOT is SEPA Lead Agency on WSDOT projects. Should a SEPA Checklist be required, City of
Yakima will receive a copy of the documentation.
• WAC 173-27-040 and RCW 90.58.030(3)(e), 90.58.140(9), 90.58.147, 90.58.355 and 90.58.515,
regarding Developments exempt from substantial development requirement
• YMC 17.13.050 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permits
Proposed Activity
Normal maintenance, repair, and safety upgrades of state highways and related structures or lands.
Please refer to PE Attachment A for Functional Work Zones and PE Attachment B for further descriptions
of exempt activities.
WSDOT Standard Protection Plans, Policies, and Best Management Practices
WSDOT adheres to standard protection plans and policies, in addition to employing Best Management
Practices (BMPs), to ensure the highest level of compliance with applicable federal, state, local, and
tribal laws and policies, including regulating stormwater discharge, protecting sensitive areas and
species, promoting and protecting clean water, protecting human and environmental health, minimizing
erosion, and addressing emergencies. WSDOT's protection plans and policies are available upon request.
Additional Permit Requirements
It is understood that this PE does not excuse WSDOT from compliance with any other federal, state, or
local regulations or permits affecting these actions. This includes obtaining necessary Hydraulic Project
Approvals from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, compliance with Washington State
DOC.
July 1, 2013 IN A 1
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
Department of Ecology standards, and compliance with the Critical Areas regulations as included in the
City of Yakima SMP.
Notification Procedures
Prior to work within City shoreline jurisdiction, WSDOT Environmental Staff will mail the City designee a
memo stating the appropriate PE Exemption Citation (found in this PE, Attachment B) and the following
basic project information: brief work description, location (lat/long and a vicinity map, as well as a parcel
number if applicable), WSDOT Functional Work Zone, and estimated construction timing.
Exceptions to individual notification will include any work listed in Attachment C.
If the City does not reply to a notification, it will be perceived as a concurrence.
M
INDEX July 1, 2013
IeYA mLum!Al 0 !M
A IC 1 FLJII"��JZ 10 Y``NJ,A CYBPECFIIS VIIIIS
Figure 1. Functional Zones
Zone 1: Vegetation Free
Zone 2: Operational
Zone 3: Transition/Buffer
-------------
Zone 2 to rkght qf iraY line
L P - ro - vide surface drainage . ............. Mi
Control w eeds
1 Reduce fire potential
Prevent erosion
Prevent erosion
1 --provide visibility and mainte-
Maintain hydraulic capacity of
Mi
nance of roadside hardware
ditches
Prevent pavement breakup by
Maintain design width for
Maintain and enhance visual
invasive plants
vehicle recovery
quality
--------- -- J
Provide sight distance for
Provide sight distance for
Preserve wetlands and wildlife
passing, stopping, and at
passing, stopping, and at
habitat
L intersections
intersections
Prevent the buildup of I wind-
Provide vegetative cover but
--------------------------------
Eliminate danger trees causing
blown debris and winter sand at
eliminate vegetative obstruc-
excessive shade on the road
pavement edge
tions (trees and shrubs with
pavement and frost poten-
trunk diameter of 4" or more)
tial) or hazard tree removal
Blend and/or screen adjacent
Keep clear of obstructions and
I
surroundings to meet goals
hazards
and objectives of the Roadside
Classification Plan
Accommodate underground
Accommodate utilities
utilities
DOC.
July 1, 2013 INDEX, A-3
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
�q ��,,,.� 1 � tl � , �y it ���� ���., ""'d �`lU � .III °„�„� i� � ,,,�..,, mi to ,u ,,,,� ,�, � � � „„�, � i. n. �„�„° It I Ilf. N �„��� � � ���� i� °f. ' i 9 9 ”. iii
�� �n� III 11 ��u a��„ uC III I1 III ��,A 116������ 11��l IF IIB, 11°' 1 �I ��1�,� III ilh���i � �I� IIh IIhI ”) � Illm �� � III III ��ti0� IIS 1 III IIh � �� til �� ,�a����� Q1,�1� III �,R� III N11 II IIV ���dl �m,�,u I�° II°n�Ra II iG "�, IIh ,1� IIh 1 1��JI 1 IIN����� ��� '�I��” �I��� III I i1°�°l1 III SII 1�1
W S II) 0 11gµ III VI J 1"WW1 C III IIXXI`,SII A , Z C�)11�Il IIE S
A highway facility is made up of several components within the right of way: the highway, the shoulder,
roadside slope, ditch, and adjacent land between the ditch and the right of way line or fence, often
referred to as the clear zone. In order to maintain a functioning state highway system, WSDOT highway
facilities require regular maintenance and repair, as well as upgrades to safety standards in response to
evolving transportation needs. Descriptions of normal maintenance and repair activities, including safety
upgrades, are provided below and include the WSDOT Functional Zones in which they may occur (see PE
Attachment A).These activities are not considered new development, as they maintain the function of
the existing highway facilities. Without the following activities, the highway facilities would not meet
federal transportation standards set forth by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Bank protection and scour repair Zones 1 & 2
Highways adjacent to water courses, drainage ways, and embankments throughout the state are
protected in a variety of ways against damage due to high water. Structures and in-kind repairs such as
barbs, rip -rap, pile revetments, retaining walls and cribs, rock and wire mesh (gabions), and vegetation
must be inspected during storms or periods of high water, as well as at least once each spring or after
major high water periods, and repairs made where required. In-kind repairs merit a notification as
described in this PE, including a justification to the amount of material being used (i.e. how WSDOT
justifies an "in-kind" replacement) In-kind scour repair activities may involve the use of jacking platforms
or footing work to fill voids and replace structures or banks to as -built, or natural conditions. Inspections
shall occur as per normal maintenance operations without notification as described in YCC 16D.03.05.
Bridge repair Zone 1
Normal maintenance and repair of bridge components above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM)
including repairing structural components (i.e., trusses, abutment, deck, piers, etc.). Other bridge repair
and maintenance are discussed in the PE, Attachment C (2).
Culvert replacement Zones 1, 2, & 3
From time to time culvert maintenance and repair is no longer adequate and a culvert needs to be
replaced to minimize the possibility of damage to the roadbed by water saturating the fill material.
Scour areas are repaired during these actions and necessary armoring typically occurs to protect outfall
areas. Culvert maintenance is addressed in the PE, Attachment C (3)(b).
Intelligent transportation systems Zones 1, 2, & 3
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improve transportation safety and mobility and enhance
productivity through the use of advanced communication technologies and their integration into the
transportation infrastructure. These systems encompass a broad range of communications -based
information and electronics technologies. Due to the dynamic nature of ITS, these systems quickly
become outdated and will need repair, upgrade, and/or replacement. Installation of new signs, signals,
and other electronic communication devises is required to keep the public safe and informed as traffic
volumes increase and specifications change. Normal maintenance and repair of ITS components may
include installation of new poles, installation, repair, and maintenance of cable vaults and junction
boxes, tree removal for communication `line of sight' (allowing communication between devices), repair
A-4 DOC. July 1, 2013
INDEX
# m
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
or replacement of existing poles and footings, repair or replacement of cameras and communication or
electrical equipment, removing, replacing, or relocating highway signs within the highway right of way,
installation of or repair to Highway Advisory Radio equipment (flashing light signs) and Variable Message
Signs (VMS), and trenching associated with connecting electrical signs and equipment with the nearest
communication devices and power source. Any new or maintenance work that disturbs the ground shall
require notification to the City as per the notification section of this PE. All other work may be
considered part of Attachment C of this PE and requires no notification. For example, a new sign
requires notification, whereas replacement or repair of equipment on an existing pole does not.
Traffic barrier installation Zones 1 & 2
Traffic barriers are used to reduce the severity of accidents that occur when errant vehicles leave the
traveled way. However, traffic barriers are obstacles that vehicles will encounter and are only used
when justified by accident history or other minimum design and safety criteria (e.g., slope ratio, fixed
objects, or water). When paired with increasing traffic volumes and vehicle accident rates, design
standards may change to require traffic barriers such as guardrail or cable barrier to be installed in new
locations. These structures are not new development, but rather normal maintenance and repair,
including safety upgrades of state highway facilities as required by the FHWA. Any roadway prism
expansion or use of fill that expands the roadway footprint will require notification to the City, as per
the Notification requirement of this PE, and may need to go through the permitting process.
Replacement -in-kind or repair to these traffic barriers is addressed in the PE, Attachment C.
Cable barrier
Cable barrier, sometimes referred to as guard cable or high-tension cable barrier, is a type of roadside or
median barrier consisting of steel wire cables (typically three or four) mounted on weak posts. As is the
case with any roadside barrier, its primary purpose is to prevent a vehicle from leaving the traveled way
and striking a fixed object or terrain feature that is less forgiving than itself. Also similar to most
roadside barriers, cable barriers function by capturing and/or redirecting the errant vehicle.
Guardrail
Guardrail prevents vehicles from veering off the roadway or into oncoming traffic, crashing against solid
objects or falling into a ravine. A secondary objective is keeping the vehicle upright while deflected along
the guardrail.
Shield re -directional landforms
Landforms, such as berms, may be used to delineate and redirect errant vehicles. The current practice is
to surround landforms with guardrail or cable to prevent vehicle roll-over.
Shoulders and slopes Zones 1 & 2
Shoulder repair
Shoulder damage can be caused by erosion from adjacent waterways, heavy precipitation, or water
overflowing the roadway. Repairing this damage must occur regularly to maintain a functional roadway
prism. Removing buildup of sand, dirt, and vegetation at the edge of paved shoulder allows for proper
drainage. Grading/reshaping shoulders by pulling aggregate from the shoulder back towards the
roadway (and away from slopes and potential water) is done using a motor grader or other equipment.
DOG.
� ly IN A-5
201
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
This may include the addition of more aggregate to fill in areas where there is not adequate material to
reshape the shoulder. Shoulder repair activities on slopes above shoreline waterbodies will follow
notification procedures as outlined in this Exemption. Those shoulder repair activities above ditches will
not require notification, as stated within the PE, Attachment C (8)(a) (Figure 2 below).
Typical 2 -Lane Roadway
B
� — �itaci�initr�t
Y � �� �ld�l �otifilcatior
B
B
B
fi. B
ORMAW HM' AttaehmentC VMTM ,�,,,
P14o�'�ottf�[�Et�7�1 i
¢fncilj Nom, w,%)cjrkin medians) )
1
Figure 2. Notification requirement for shoulder repair work by roadway prism location.
Slope flattening
Non-standard roadbeds and ditches should be modified to produce a relatively flat, shallow slope to
enhance motorist safety. Slope flattening activities on slopes above shoreline waterbodies will follow
notification procedures as outlined in this PE. Those slope flattening activities above ditches will not
require notification, as stated in the PE, Attachment C (8)(b) (see Figures 2 and 3 for clarification of work
areas).
Slope repair/slide and rock fall debris cleanup
Removing material from slides or eroded slopes which have blocked ditches or covered or undermined
part or all of the road shoulder or travel lane is important for proper roadway function. This includes
repairing slopes that have been damaged from erosion or embankment failure. Slope repair may include
stabilization activities such as wire mesh netting, bolting, installation of catchment fencing or gabion
basket walls, and typical rock removal procedures such as scaling or controlled blasting activities
intended to remove loose rock. These repair and clean-up activities on slopes above shoreline
waterbodies will follow notification procedures as outlined in this Exemption. Those activities above
ditches will not require notification, as stated within Attachment C (8)(c) (see Figure 3 below).
A-6 DOC® July 1, 2013
INDUIRey d�uul�aA:��...::....:��.�.:�.
,,,,,,, ....
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Typical 2 -Lane Roadway
Attar-I.me�nt C -
-, AttaclhmerM
01111113111110M MM
i
i
Figure 3. Notification requirement for slope repair/slide and rock fall debris clean-up work.
�.,1111 A
A weigh in motion (WIM) is a scale facility capable of weighing a vehicle without the vehicle stopping,
through the use of Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN), which allow the
driver to be notified without stopping. These WIM facilities are typically located where there is already
adequate room within the roadway prism. Only facilities located within an existing roadway are covered
under this exemption. WIM facilities require pavement/shoulder excavation, installation of electronic
scale and communication devises, pavement overlay (concrete and/or asphalt), and pavement markings.
Both WIM and CVISN require periodic maintenance.
Hazard/danger tree removal Zones 1, 2J-&3
The Regional Road Maintenance Program routinely identifies and eliminates hazard/danger trees that
endanger state highways. As with all WSDOT activities, proper approvals will be obtained prior to work,
unless there is an emergency situation.
July 1, 2013
R,Ey�12gµ:gt.,.2!0u 0 ;
IIIIIII' I.
III
"
I
JN
I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
A..7
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT'
ps�l NMl., in ` ������i V� n i�L " iP ,u¶ °il ns X111 �i. `I'...... ��➢ 41 i. �� �� N1" 9i �� pil 4 "'� I Iii �����I "I I..
� I�� ll IFA ��� I��o� IV � II i���ll7 III������� IIS mll 11 9,, � . I� �� i fi Il mIC i.,.�� �I ��, "� �li� ie,.� IIS III Ili�ai III III IIS 16..... ��" ��h �tii II Ill��� f �au li�h II�� 116������ II������I IV�i ����o- III �. II 94 �ie,��>J i���i Ill ��i,Ili,
The following typical WSDOT activities meet the definitions and thresholds identified in YCC 16D.03.05:
Minor Activities Allowed without a Permit or Exemption, and will be considered exempt from further
individual review under this PE.
Auxiliary facilities Zones 2 & 3
Historical markers
WSDOT maintains road approaches, parking areas, litter barrels, and advance advisory signing
associated with historical markers and their related structures.
Park and ride lots
Maintenance of park and ride lots is critical for customer and vehicular safety, accessibility, utilization,
and the protection of infrastructure. These activities are similar to safety rest areas and viewpoints in
the following descriptions.
Safety rest areas
Safety rest areas are located adjacent to the highway and within highway right of way. Regular
maintenance of rest area property includes scheduled maintenance of septic tanks, drain fields, pumps,
filters, and back-flow prevention devices, in addition to the water supply (springs or wells). Rest area
maintenance and repair also includes maintenance of structures/buildings, pavement surfacing and
markings, and vegetation management.
Stockpiles
WSDOT maintains stockpiles of sand and salt, ready for winter use. Stockpile sites are to be cleared of all
vegetation (including trees and brush), rocks, or other debris. Stockpiles cannot be located in the
floodplain.
Viewpoints
Viewpoints generally consist of a parking area with litter barrels. Parking areas, fences, and guardrail
must be kept in good repair, and undesirable brush and other debris must be removed.
Weigh Stations
WSDOT weigh stations that are outside of the roadway prism require periodic maintenance and repairs
including, but not limited to paving, pavement marking, vegetation management, and communication
equipment upgrades.
Bridge superstructure, deck repair/rehabilitation, and maintenance Zone 1
Normal maintenance and repair of bridge components above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM)
includes: cleaning and painting, cleaning and repairing bridge drains by removing debris, silt, or other
blockages from bridge drain covers or inlets, repairing or replacing failed expansion joints on bridge
decks or pavement seats at bridge ends, and repair and maintenance of non-structural portions of the
DOC.
A-8 INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
bridge (e.g., traffic gates, bridge house, navigation lights, etc.). All work of this nature shall comply with
WSDOT's current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Bridge Washing Permit.
Drainage Zones 1, 2 & 3
Catch basin maintenance and repair
A catch basin (i.e., storm drain inlet, curb inlet, etc.) is a component of the storm drain system that
typically includes a grate or curb inlet (where stormwater enters the catch basin), paired with a sump to
capture sediment, debris, and associated pollutants. Catch basins act as pretreatment by capturing large
sediments, while a sump removes liquids and smaller sediments. The performance of these systems
depends on routine maintenance to remove accumulated debris and maintain capacity. This can be
accomplished through mechanical removal of sediment and debris from the catch basin using
equipment such as a vactor truck, as well as repairing or replacing catch basins and manholes to insure
proper drainage flow.
Culvert inspection, cleaning, and repairs
Routine culvert cleaning is necessary to keep them functioning properly and to avoid damage and undue
wear. Cleaning can be accomplished using mechanical equipment such as a vactor, flusher, or backhoe.
Areas around culvert ends need to be inspected and any scoured areas repaired as necessary with rip
rap or other protection. Culverts need to be inspected at least twice a year and repaired or replaced if
badly worn or broken to minimize the possibility of damage to the roadbed by water saturating the fill
material. Culvert replacement is addressed in the PE, Attachment B (2).
Detention/retention basin maintenance
A detention basin temporarily stores water after a storm, but eventually empties at a controlled rate to
a downstream waterbody. A retention basin is a type of BMP used to manage stormwater runoff to
prevent flooding and downstream erosion, and improve water quality in an adjacent waterbody. These
ponds are typically surrounded by vegetation, and storm water is typically channeled to a retention
basin through a system of street storm drains, and a network of drain channels or underground pipes.
The basins are designed to allow relatively large flows of water to enter, but outlet structures are only
designed to function during very large storm events. To function correctly the controlled outfall or outlet
pipe must be free of debris and accumulated settled materials must be removed on a schedule based on
experience at each site. If oil separators are combined with these facilities, timely removal and proper
disposal of oils is essential. Other maintenance of these structures includes structural repair, vegetation
management, and culvert repair (see (2)(b) above).
Ditch maintenance
Roadside ditches are necessary conveyance structures to move stormwater through or away from the
highway right of way. Sedimentation, vegetation, litter, and other debris accumulate over time, reducing
the efficacy of stormwater conveyance, and often creating a potential threat to the adjacent roadway.
Regular inspection, maintenance, and repair of roadside ditches (including gutters) is required to
maintain a safely operating highway system. Vegetation will generally only be removed when flow is
blocked and by using BMPs that minimize erosion and sediment escape to waterbodies.
DOC.
July 1, 2013 IND, A_g
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
Under drains are often constructed in the sub -grade to intercept subsurface water from springs and
seepage water from the surface or percolating from below. Control of this water is essential to ensure
the stability of the sub -grade upon which the highway is constructed. Normal maintenance and repair of
these drains include regular inspection (on the same schedule as culverts) and maintaining open, clean
outlets. Choked under drains can be cleaned by high pressure flushing with water or flexible sewer rods.
In cases where roots effectively block the drainage, the use of herbicides may be indicated. Whatever
method of cleaning is used, erosion and sediment control will require consideration and appropriate
BMPs may need to be installed.
Landscape maintenance Zones 2 & 3
Maintenance of the roadside from the edge of the pavement to the right of way line includes all
vegetation control activities, formal landscaped areas, and litter pick up. WSDOT must maintain design
width for vehicle recovery, provide appropriate sight distance at interchanges and at intersections,
maintain hydraulic capacity of ditches, accommodate underground utilities, control weeds, prevent
erosion, maintain and enhance visual quality, install and repair fences, and control vegetation by
burning within the right of way.
Right of way fences Zone 3
WSDOT right of way fences will be maintained.
Dowel bar retrofit
Reestablishing the load transfer efficiencies of the existing concrete joints and transverse cracks by
cutting slots, inserting epoxy -coated dowel bars, and filling cut slots with high -early strength non -shrink
concrete.
Pavement maintenance and repair
Maintaining and repairing roadway pavement may be accomplished through the following methods:
Crack and joint sealing
Repairing traveled lane or shoulder pavement surfaces by installing fill material into pavement cracks.
Work includes cleaning and routing cracks in preparation for sealing.
Pavement milling/full depth patching
Excavating failed pavement and underlying base material, replacing sub grade material, and patching
with new pavement (asphalt and concrete). This work includes disposal of removed pavement and sub
grade material.
Overlays
Covering the defective area with an overlay of a suitable material to renew the surface, sealing the
defective area, and stabilizing the affected pavement.
A-10
INDEX July 1, 2013
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Hot mix asphalt (HMA)
Hot mix asphalt is a bituminous concrete made principally from asphalt binder and aggregate. It is
distinguished from other bituminous products by its constituent materials, mixture design methods and
elevated mixing temperature (thus the term "hot mix').
Aggregate (chip) seal
A single spray application, usually consisting of liquid or emulsified asphalt, immediately followed by a
single layer of aggregate. This type of seal reduces the infiltration of air and water into the mat, and may
be used to improve skid resistance of slippery pavements.
Pavement markings
Recessed raised pavement markers
Recessed raised pavement markers (RRPMs) are installed either as positioning guides along with center
line and fog line markings or they are installed as a complete substitute for long line markings. Recessed
RPM applications consist of the installation of an RPM in a groove that has been cut into the pavement,
and are utilized in areas where snow removal operations use steel blades.
Striping
Pavement markings are divided into two categories: long line and transverse. Long line markings are
markings applied parallel to the roadway, such as center line or edge line. Typically long line markings
are renewed with a spray application of new material applied from a striping truck. Transverse markings
are lines or symbols within the travel lane such as crosswalk, stop line, or traffic arrows. Typically
transverse and symbol markings are renewed by hand, by spray, or extruded application of new
material.
Guide post installation and replacement
Guide posts are delineation devices with retroreflective properties installed on roadway shoulders, and
used to aid in nighttime driving. Guide posts are placed from 2-8 feet outside the outer shoulder edge.
Rumble strip installation and repair
Rumble strips are grooves or rows of raised pavement markers placed perpendicular to the direction of
travel to alert inattentive drivers that they are leaving the traffic lane. This safety feature has greatly
reduced traffic accidents. There are three kinds of rumble strips: roadway, shoulder, and centerline
rumble strips. Rumble strips can be rolled -in (during paving), or milled in (after, or separate from
paving).
Signs
WSDOT uses signing throughout the highway system as the primary mechanism to provide regulatory,
warning, and guidance information to users, thereby promoting highway safety and efficiency. Sign
maintenance (including upgrades as needs arise) is crucial to support safe, legal, and orderly travel on
public roadways and transportation facilities.
DOC.
July 1, 2013 INDEX A-11
Z�13: :!:
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Snow and ice removal
DRAFT
Removal of snow and ice from the roadway is extremely important to traveler safety and freight
mobility within the state. State highways must be plowed, sanded, or deiced, and cleared as quickly as
possible during inclement weather. Prior to the snow season, maintenance crews must prepare
roadways for effective plowing which includes cleaning ditches, smoothing shoulders, cleaning sand and
other debris from under guardrail, removing weeds, grass, and brush that may cause snow drifting,
clearing right of way fences of debris, and erecting snow stakes if necessary, to indicate hazards or the
edge of the roadway which may eventually be covered in snow.
Traffic Barriers Zones 1 & 2
Traffic barriers, described in the PE, Attachment B, are obstacles that often struck by vehicles and
require prompt repair or in-kind replacement to retain proper function. These activities occur routinely
through the Regional Road Maintenance Program.
Cable barrier repair or in-kind replacement or extension
For description, see Attachment B (5)(a).
Guardrail repair or in-kind replacement or extension
For description, see Attachment B (5)(b).
Shield re -directional landforms— repair or in-kind replacement or extension
For description, see Attachment B (5)(c).
Shoulders and side slopes Zones 1 & 2
Those shoulder repair activities located above ditches will not require notification.
Shoulder repair
For description, see Attachment B (6)(a).
Slope flattening
For description, see Attachment B (6)(b).
Slope repair/slide and rock fall debris cleanup
For description, see Attachment B (6)(c).
A-12 INDE III July 1':;!():13
CITY OFvA0MASHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
A F) F) X B, �,) ��E S A 111!1�11) ��FY �2S 1� c, 01 0 ��R 5
The following stream reaches within Yakima County are designated critical areas under the City of
YaWmm'sCritical Areas (nShoreline Jurisdiction (YM[Chapter 17.O9):
1. Bachelor Creek: From source at Ahtanum Creek (SEC13-TWP12N-RGE16 EWM) downstream to its
mouth atAhtanunnCreek (SEC1'T\N'P13N-RGE1AE).
I. Cottonwood Canyon Creek: From the south line of SEC32-TWP13N-RGE17E, downstream to mouth
atWide Hollow Creek (SEC36'TVVP13N-RGE17E).
3. Hatton Creek: From its source at AhtanunoCreek (SE[18'T\NP1ZN'RGE17)downstream toits
confluence with AhtanumCreek (SE[1B'T\NP1ZN-RGE18E).
4. Wide Hollow Creek: From the east line ofthe SVV1/4ofthe NVV1/4(SECZ8'T\NP13NRGE17E)
downstream tothe mouth atthe Yakima River.
July 1, 2013 B-1
)3z:8:mgo� 2911: Z313
ZONING PROPOSED
r r CHAPTER
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
4
TXT#003-13,
r
Il"
Addendum 1 Yakima County11 1 y„Analysis
fj
t i%�
C-1 Addendum to Yakima County's Cumulative Impacts Analysis 08/08/2013
CITY OF
GRANT • G1200051
ADDENDUM TO THE YAKIMA COUNTY
IMPACTSCUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
or City of Shoreline• •
Prepared by:
Prepared For:
City of Yakima
129 North 2-1 Street
Yakirna, WA 98901
p 425.822.5242
f 425.827.8136
watershedco.com
2025 First Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle WA 98121
Ju "---,ALi gust 22013
The Watershed Company
Reference Number:
121207
Cite this document as:
The Watershed Company. �It; -A.ug!j,, ..2013. Addendum to the Yakima County
1: I&� . ..........
Cumulative Impacts Analysis for the City of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program.
Prepared for the City of Yakima.
The Watershed Company Contacts:
Amy Summe/Sarah Sandstrom
BEAK Contact:
Lisa Grueter
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page #
1 IntroductionI,I(.
..............................................................................................
.............
2 Methodology............................................................................................................2
3 Areas of Divergence in the Proposed City of Yakima SMP......................................2
3.1 Shoreline Jurisdiction..........................................................................................2
3.1.1 Shoreline Waterbodies...........................................................................................
2
3.1.2 Shorelands....................................................................................
... 44
3.2 Environment Designations and Allowed Uses ....................................................
44
3.2.1 Environment Designations ................................ .....
.................................
........... ....i,4,
3.2.2 Allowed Uses
3.3 Regulations for Shoreline Uses and Modifications .............................................
g a
3.4 Critical Areas Regulations............................................................................
"i,�����,�,12
3.4.1 Wetlands'---'" ............................................................
i n, "fi. Via'.
3.4.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat and the Stream Corridor System ..........................
124 1° 2
3.4.3 Flood Hazard Areas .......................... ...... ................
1 3
3.4.4 Geologically Hazardous Areas ....................................................
...... 14!14
3.5 Shoreline Restoration Plan........................................................................
..............
4 Net Effect on Ecological Function.......................................................................
°'i�l�°��'i�w�°���
5 References..............................................................................................ti�.......
,�"�������m.l..t
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of changes in the proposed City of Yakima SMP compared to
the Yakima County Regional SMP and the anticipated effect on ecological
functions .f'''i
Table 2. Proposed shoreline buffer widths in .......................................................
h � ....".
.....
e High Intensity and Shoreline
Residential environment designations. !
....31,'
Table 3. Summary of key features of the proposed SMP that differ from the
Regional SMP and effects on ecological functions ............................. 16�4�!'
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Distribution of environment designations by area in City limits . .......... 55
Figure 2. Distribution of environment designations by area in City limits and the
Urban Growth Areas. ......_..„a„a55
The Watershed Company and BERK
JlAyAu.uou..u;: t 2013
ADDENDUM TO THE YAKIMA COUNTY
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS
For the City of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program
1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Yakima participated in a regional Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
update process with Yakima County. The Yakima County Regional SMP was
completed in 2007 and approved by Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology) in 2010, along with supporting documents, including a regional
analysis report, restoration plan, and cumulative impacts analysis (CIA), which
demonstrated no net loss on a County basis. The City's shorelines were
addressed in the supporting documents, including the CIA. Near the end of the
County's local adoption process, the City chose to complete the update
independently. The City subsequently adopted the County's supporting
documents and adapted the County's SMP to prepare a locally based SMP that
meets State Guidelines and the Shoreline Management Act requirements.
This CIA addendum identifies the major areas where the proposed City SMP
diverges from the County's SMP, and it updates and amends the Regional CIA
accordingly and determines whether no net Ioss of shoreline functions will be
maintained under the City's proposed SMP.
The State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master
Program Guidelines (SMP Guidelines; WAC 173-26) require local shoreline
plaster programs to regulate new development to "achieve no net loss of
ecological function."
As directed in the Guidelines, this CIA Addendum will consider:
"(i) current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural
processes;
(ii) reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline;
and
(iii) beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other
local, state, and federal laws."
An accompanying component of the SMP process that can bring environment
conditions to an improved level is the Shoreline Restoration Plan, which identifies
and prioritizes potential actions and programs that may be implemented on a
voluntary basis. This CIA will include and consider additional City -specific
DOC.
INDEX
i#.R.
City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
restoration elements that may not have been addressed in the County's
restoration plan.
2 METHODOLOGY
This CIA Addendum was prepared consistent with direction provided in the
Shoreline Master Program Guidelines as described above. However, information
already referenced or provided in the Regional CIA will not be repeated here.
The effects of likely development were evaluated in the context of the City's SMP
provisions. This Addendum focuses on areas of the proposed City of Yakima
SMP that substantively differ from what was included in the County's Regional
SMP and Regional CIA. These main areas of divergence include the following:
• Shoreline Jurisdiction (corrected)
• Environment Designations and Allowed Uses (customized)
• Regulations for Shoreline Uses and Modifications (updated)
• Critical Areas Regulations (customized)
• Shoreline Restoration Plan (updated)
Cumulative impacts were analyzed quantitatively where possible. Where
specific details regarding redevelopment likelihood or potential were not
available at a level that could be assessed quantitatively or the analysis would be
unnecessarily complex to reach a conclusion that could be derived more simply,
a qualitative approach was used.
3 AREAS OF DIVERGENCE IN THE
PROPOSED CITY OF YAKIMA SMP
3.1 Shoreline Jurisdiction
3.1.1 Shoreline Waterbodies
K
Cowiche Creek
.. ,
combined weight of g^ data r- not - 10 consecutive
years, United States Geologicmodeling,urvey• • I
The Watershed Company and BERK
2013
various local agency experts. Ecology concurred with this assessment on May
22, 2013 and again on June 17, 2013.
Consistent with the Yakima County Regional SMP, Washington Department of
Ecology's GIS data set shows that the Yakima and Naches Rivers are Shorelines
(20 cfs or greater), and further are Shorelines of Statewide Significance (200 cfs or
greater). Cowiche Creek is also noted in Yakima County's current SMP as a
Shoreline. However, Cowiche Creek is not identified in Ecology's suggested
shoreline data set as a Shoreline.
USGS published a report in 2003 that updated its earlier 1971 work identifying
the upstream limit of 20 cfs mean annual flow. The 2003 report predicted the
boundary point for stre-ains in southeastern Washington by applying a multiple -
linear -regression equation that relates mean annual discharge to drainage area
and mean annual precipitation (Higgins 2003). An equation was developed for
the lower Yakima hydrologic region (Higgins 2003). Cowiche Creek is not
identified in the USGS report as a waterbody with a minimum rnean annual flow
of 20 cfs.
In addition to consulting the Ecology and USGS sources mentioned above, one or
more representatives of the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Joel Hubble),
Washington Department of Ecology (Stan Isley, Chuck Springer, Gary Graff,
Cathy Reed), Yakima County Surface Water Management Division (Joel
Freudenthal), and the Yakima Tieton Irrigation District (Richard Dieker) were
also consulted. Available gauge data was reviewed and found to be generally
inconclusive. According to a full year of data from a USBR gage (2/1/91 — 2/1/92),
the mean annual flow was 16.75 cfs; this was not a drought year according to
USBR. According to Chuck Springer at Ecology, the agency only has a complete
water year of data for 2006, which showed a mean annual flow of 47 cfs, but that
was a "very atypical year." By comparison, water year 2005, which is missing
data for October and half of November, showed a mean annual flow of 11 cfs.
MOM -W, F�VL!P
(Johnna Higgins) was re -contacted to ascertain if a modeled mean annual flow
was available (it was not reported in the 2003 report). The result was a mean
annual flow of 18.76 efs, below the 20 cfs minimum for shoreline jurisdiction.
Ecology noted in an e-mail communication with the City of Yakima on June 17,
2013, that "[fln order to determine the mean annual flow within any additional
certainty, more data will be required; collecting that data will take many years."
Buchanan Lake meets the minimum shoreline jurisdiction criteria based on its
size (larger than 20 acres), and thus would be a shoreline waterbody. However,
because the lake was constructed as part of a gravel mining operation and
WX.
ma 3
# C
City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
continues to have an active Surface Mining Permit from the Washington
Department of Natural Resources, it is not regulated as a shoreline lake until
such time as the Surface Mining Permit lapses. In anticipation of that future
event, the City has pre -designated the lake and the associated shorelands.
rd
The upland extent of potential shoreline jurisdiction was also revisited by re-
examining mapping of FEMA floodplain and floodway, associated wetlands,
Ievees, and the determination of shoreline waterbodies as described above under
Section 3.1.1.
1111111 iiiiiiiiiii1li��iiij 111111 111
IL I 1 11 111
•
The first line of protection of the County's shorelines is the environment
designation (ED) assignments. According to the Guidelines (WAC 173-26-211),
the assignment of EDs must be based on the existing use pattern, the biological
and physical character of the shoreline, and the goals and aspirations of the
community as expressed through a comprehensive plan.
The Urban ED under the County's SMP grouped several distinct land uses
within the City. In place of the Urban designation, the City has proposed three
new EDs that better reflect the site-specific conditions, including: Shoreline
Residential, High Intensity, and Essential Public Facilities. The City SMP also
proposes an Aquatic designation, which was not included in the County's
Regional SMP. The Urban Conservancy ED from the County's SMP is retained,
except that one area designated as Urban on the Naches River in the City's UGA
is reclassified as Urban Conservancy to be more consistent with existing
conditions. The Floodway/CMZ ED from the County's SMP is generally retained
in the proposed City SMP (with corrections to address existing levees that limit
channel migration). Because the Urban Conservancy and Floodway/CMZ EDs
were generally retained from the County's SMP, these designations will not be
discussed further.
The final distribution of environment designations by area in the City limits is
illustrated below (Figure 1). The two most protective environment designations
(Floodway/CMZ and Urban Conservancy) comprise 69 percent of the total
shoreline area in the current City limits. If the UGAs are annexed, 82 percent of
the combined jurisdictional area will be in the most protective environment
designations (Figure 2).
)r #A.
III
�-a,;.12013
lN Aquatic
11 Essential Public Facilities
Floodway/CMZ
High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy
Figure 1. Distribution of environment designations by area in City limits.
M
M Aquatic
NO Essential Public Facilities
Floodway/CMZ
IN High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
1l Urban Conservancy
Figure 2. Distribution of environment designations by area in City limits and the Urban
Growth Areas.
A discussion of existing conditions in each of the newly proposed ElDs ani
anticipated development is provided below.
City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
0
The Shoreline Residential ED is assigned to lands that are predominantly single-
family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for
residential development.
The two shoreline areas that include Shoreline Residential designations occur
along Willow Lake and Lake Aspen. The Shoreline Residential ED areas on these
lakes are largely developed. In addition to the City's M-1 and R-3 zoning
standards for light industrial and multi -family development, development in
Lake Aspen's "Aspen Village" residential community is subject to Covenants,
Codes & Restrictions that more tightly govern the land uses and character of
development. Within shoreline jurisdiction, land zoned M-1, but designated as
Shoreline Residential, consists of a trail. Land zoned R-3 in shoreline jurisdiction
is fronted by small lot single family dwellings. No significant changes in
development are anticipated. It is likely that activities would include
maintenance, repair, and expansions of existing uses.
ERME=
Shorelands that presently support or are planned to accommodate commercial,
industrial, urban recreational, transportation, or high-intensit), water -oriented
uses are assigned to the High Intensity ED.
Willow Lake: Several vacant industrially zoned parcels that range in
size from 5 to 14 acres are located on the south and western portions
of Willow Lake, and are designated as High Intensity in the SMP.
Future use inside and adjacent to shoreline jurisdiction will include
industrial activities. One large lot has approved industrial
development extending within 37 feet of Willow Lake (Grette 2012).
k�?.ke Agfen: Pr*7,erlies -i+j1xg tke easte�U_sioie *f tke lake -ire z*7-e6
and used for B-1 Professional Business activities (e.g. office) and
accordingly designated as High Intensity. As much of the land is
currently developed for offices along the shoreline, including a
cantilevered overwater platform, no additional development is
anticipated. It is likely that activities would include maintenance,
repair, and expansions of existing uses.
Buchanan Lake: The north side of Buchanan Lake is highly altered as
a result of its present use as an active Surface Mine. The area has
Suburban Residential zoning, and following reclamation, the property
could be redeveloped. Present zoning would assume possible
residential, agricultural, and some limited service uses. However, the
The Watershed Company and BERK
44y -ALv
gtrA 2013
is in redevelopment for commercial purposes, including water
oriented recreation and retail (e.g. floating restaurant). Following
reclamation, the property owner could request a rezone.
• Yakima River - Terrace Heights Drive: General Commercial (GC)
zoning applies on the south bank near Terrace Heights Drive, and
current uses include restaurants and hotels. The Yakima River
Greenway Trail is located waterward of the commercial uses,
separating these uses from the River. These lands are already
developed and unlikely to substantively change apart from
maintenance, repair, and expansions of existing uses.
• Yakima River - Keyes Road: Land zoned for M-1 Light Industrial uses
lies along the Yakima River and is designated as High Intensity in the
SMP. Much of the land is in use for industrial purposes, but other
parcels are in single-family residential uses and could convert to
industrial uses over tine.
• Yakima River - West Birchfield Road: Land is in use for auto sales
and service uses (humane society). A levee separates development
from the River. The property is zoned Suburban Residential (SR).
Present zoning would assume possible residential, agricultural, and
some limited service uses. Given the current investment and
alteration, current development is likely to continue. It is likely that
activities would include maintenance, repair, and expansions of
existing uses if allowed by underlying zoning.
• Blue Slough: The lands along the Blue Slough are designated as M-1
Light Industrial, and there are lands developed for low intensity
industrial uses, retail, mining, and residential uses, as well as vacant
lands that could add some light industrial uses. Parcels range in size
from 2 to 15 acres. The largest undeveloped lands are two parcels
around 15 acres in size each that could add light industrial uses along
SR 24.
I
The Essential Public Facilities ED includes shorelands containing state or
regional transportation facilities and waste water handling facilities.
Within roadways, the most likely activities include repair, maintenance, and
expansion. Most repair and maintenance activities would be considered exempt
and subject to a proposed programmatic exemption for Transportation facilities
under the responsibility of the Washington State Department of Transportation
to allow for routine maintenance and repair of existing highways and associated
City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
D
facilities. This programmatic exemption is similar to one applied by Yakima
County and would be included in the SMP Appendix.
The wastewater treatment plant could also be the subject of maintenance, repair,
and expansion. A planned levee setback will require a change to how
wastewater is treated and released to the Yakima River. In order to address this
need, a new side channel is proposed with habitat improvements, and an
extended mixing zone project is planned south of the treatment plant (See
Section 3.5 for additional details).
Tile Aquatic ED applies to areas waterward of the ordinary High water mark of
shoreline lakes.
Currently, Lake Aspen and Willow Lake waters are used for boating. Docks
extend from residential areas. Ongoing maintenance needs would include
repairing existing shoreline stabilization (only in front of the residential areas)
and piers, and managing water quality and aquatic vegetation (milfoil and
algae). Aquatic vegetation control for milfoil has included a variety of
mechanical mechanisms, but success was finally achieved with introduction of
grass carp. However, the increased clarity resulting Froin control of milfoil has
resulted in algae blooms. Possible solutions could include planting native water
lily and "Floating islands" [currently in place at Buchanan Lake].
,
The SMP identifies specific uses and modifications permitted, prohibited, or
allowed as conditional uses within each ED. The proposed SMP allows a few
specific uses not identified in the County's SMP. These allowed uses and the
rationale for changes from the County SMP are as followrs:
Non-commercial aquaculture: This allows for conservation hatchery
facilities, and other facilities that benefit shoreline functions.
Public, community, and commercial boat launches, as well as private
boat launches in the High Intensity ED: Boat launches are needed to
improve access for river rescue safety and public access. Few boat
launches would be anticipated, and they would need to follow
mitigation sequencing to avoid impacts.
Piers and docks in the High Intensity, Shoreline Residential, and Aquatic
EDs: Piers and docks are only allowed on Iake shorelines, and this
allowance is consistent with existing conditions.
The Watershed Company and BERK
2013
Expansion of roads, highways, bridges, and railroads: Any expansion of
transportation infrastructure would need to follow mitigation
sequencing to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for effects on shoreline
functions.
3.3 Regulations for Shoreline Uses and Modifications
The proposed SMP contains numerous shoreline modification and use policies
and supporting regulations intended to protect the ecological functions of the
shoreline and prevent adverse cumulative impacts. The following table provides
a brief summary of the differences in the County's adopted Regional SMP and
the City's proposed SMP, as well as the likely effects of those differences on
ecological functions. As noted in Table 1, the majority of the proposed changes
to the SMP either help to improve or maintain shoreline functions, and some
changes are not directly applicable to shoreline functions (e.g., formatting
changes and public access). None of the proposed changes to regulations for
shoreline uses or modifications identified in Table ] reduce protections of
shoreline functions.
Table 1. Summary of changes in the proposed City of Yakima SMP compared to the
Yakima County Regional SMP and the anticipated effect on ecological functions.
Changes in City SMP compared to
County's Regional SMP
ulations
Effect on Ecological
Functions
Environmental
New section that applies to all areas in
Maintains- provisions protect
Protection-
shoreline jurisdiction, not just critical areas
ecological functions
17.05.020
and their buffers.
• Requires no net loss of functions (A).
• Requires mitigation sequencing and
preparation of a mitigation plan for any
shoreline use or modification that is not
entirely addressed by specific, objective
standards in the proposed SMP C -E .
Shoreline
New section that applies in and outside of
Maintains- provisions require
Vegetation
critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction.
mitigation sequencing for
Conservation-
. Requires mitigation for adverse impacts
vegetation removal
17.05.030
resulting from vegetation removal.
Water Quality,
• Added a general standard that
Maintains- implementation of
Stormwater, and
development shall maintain surface and
BMPs will help maintain water
Non -Point
groundwater quantity and quality, and
quality functions
Pollution-
maintain no net loss of ecological functions
17.05.040
(A).
• Added standards that new development
and redevelopment must comply with the
latest edition of the Stormwater
Management Manual for Eastern
Washington, and best management
practices must be employed, even if the
Manual's thresholds (e.g., area of
disturbance) are not met (C)(1).
MC.
IN
City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Changes in City SMP compared to
, County's Regional SMP
P_L,464c. Access
Section consolidated from many areas of the
'17,05,05,0
Regional SMP and added provisions
feedlots are prohibited under
consistent with the SMP Guidelines.
F locd ttaz"ard,,
New section that establishes uses and
Redutiori-
standards for modifications within the
IT 05.000
channel migration zone (CMZ) and floodway.
references mitigation sequencing and no
• Only development and subdivision in the
floodway or CMZ that will not require
recovery
structural shoreline stabilization measures
• Added standard that encourages
is allowed (F).
• Prohibits flood hazard reduction measures
that will channelize stream flows, interfere
listed species or public recreation (E).
with hydraulic processes, or undermine
Boating Facilities
existing structures or downstream banks
and Modifications
Effect on I
Functions
101 F-1
Maintains- limits potential new
restrictionslobstructions on the
CMZ and floodway
Agriculture-
Added provision prohibiting concentrated
Maintains- concentrated
17.07.010
animal feeding operations (D).
feedlots are prohibited under
City's zoning
Aquaculture-
. Added standard that specifically
Maintain sllmproves- potential
17.07.020
references mitigation sequencing and no
to bolster listed species
net loss (C).
recovery
• Added standard that encourages
aquaculture that promotes recovery of
listed species or public recreation (E).
Boating Facilities
Adds standards for boat ramps to ensure that
Maintains- Boat ramps will be
and Private
they minimize the effect on channel form and
required to minimize (and
Moorage
hydraulics (G)(1).
mitigate) for impacts per
Facilities-
Environmental Protection
17.07.030
standards 17.05.020
Commercial-
Added provision that mixed-use commercial
Improves- provides incentive
17.07.040
development in shoreline jurisdiction must
for restoration
provide public benefit such as ecological
restoration and public access (C).
Dredge and
• Added standards that new development
Maintains- Development will
Dredge
shall be sited and designed to avoid or, if
not exacerbate the need for
Disposal-
that is not possible, to minimize the need
dredging, and dredging will
17.07.050
for new and maintenance dredging (A).
require mitigation sequencing
• Added standard that where dredging is
permitted, mitigation sequencing must be
followed (B).
Fill- 17.07.060
• Fills shall meet no net loss of ecological
Maintains- provides standards
function (A)
to ensure that fill does not
• Establishes allowed applications of fill in
affect ecological functions
sensitive areas and upland areas (B -C)
• Erosion control measures and BMPs must
be implemented G
Industrial-
No substantive change
NA
17.07.070
In -Water
New Section
Maintains- Standards maintain
Structures-
. New standard that in -water structures do
functions and processes
17.07.080
not degrade water quality (C).
10
DM
INDEX
#-L-'
The Watershed Company and BERK
wi-it 2013
Changes in City SMP compared to
Effect on Ecological
County's Regional SMP
Functions
• New standard requiring in -water structures
to provide for the protection and
preservation of ecosystem -wide
processes, ecological functions, and
cultural resources (F).
Mining-
No substantive change
NA
17.07.090
Recreation-
Added provision that recreational uses shall
Maintains- ensures no net loss
17.07.100
not result in a net loss of ecosystem
functions.
Residential-
Added provision to ensure that shoreline
Maintains- minimizes
17.07.110
stabilization and flood control structures are
occurrence of new stabilization
not necessary to protect proposed
features and encourages
residences (C).
adequate shoreline setbacks
Shoreline
New section to provide standards to ensure
Improves- maximizes benefits
Habitat and
that shoreline enhancement is based on the
of shoreline enhancement
Natural System
best available science and that they are
Enhancement-
maintained and monitored for long-term
17.07.120
sustainability.
Shoreline
No substantive changes
NA
Stabilization -
17.07.130
Transportation-
Added provision requiring that new or
Maintains- limits potential
17.07.150
expanded transportation and parking
effect of new pollutant
facilities be designed and located to have the
generating impervious
least possible adverse effect on unique or
surfaces on water quality and
fragile shoreline features, and that they will
quantity, as well as habitat
not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
connectivity
functions (B).
Utilities-
Added provision prohibiting new or expanded
Maintains- minimizes habitat
17.07.160
non -water -oriented utilities within shoreline
fragmentation resulting from
jurisdiction unless no feasible alternative
new utility corridors.
exists (B).
Redevelopment,
Section added to provide a process for multi-
Maintains- provides
Repair, and
year management plans for maintenance
administrative clarity on
Maintenance-
and repair for.
exempt development. Exempt
17.07.170
1. Dredging
development must still meet
2. Private development and facilities on
SMP provisions.
private lakes
Application criteria include
3. Public Parks and Recreation
providing information
4. Transportation facilities
regarding:
5. Utility facilities, including, but not limited
• aquatic habitat protection
to wastewater and water systems
measures
• riparian and wetland
protection measures
• stormwater management
practices
• erosion and sediment control
practices
• re -vegetation or restoration
activities
• chemical and nutrient use
and containment practices
DIX•
•i*x 11
City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Existing Uses,
Structures and
Lots- 17.11
Changes in City SMP compared to
County's Re Tonal SMP
Amends standards to be consistent with
WAC requirements for existing residential
development.
Effect on Ecological
Functions
NA
The City's critical area regulations that apply outside of shoreline jurisdiction are
amended and integrated into the City's proposed SMP critical areas regulations
in order to meet Shoreline Management Act requirements and maximize
regulatory consistency and clarity. Some critical area buffers are reduced in the
proposed SMP compared to the County's Regional SMP; however, the proposed
shoreline buffers are consistent with existing conditions, and wetland buffers are
consistent with Ecology's guidance. Additional]),, because the proposed SMP
applies environmental protection and conservation standards to the entire area
of shoreline jurisdiction, and not just critical areas and their buffers (as in the
County's SMP), the City's proposed SMP is expected to maintain shoreline
functions.
3.4.1 Wetlands
m
Proposed wetland buffers are consistent with Ecology's Guidance for Small Cities
Eastern Washington Version, revised October 2012. Required buffers are reduced
compared to the County's SMP; however, because they comply with Ecology's
guidance, they are expected to maintain wetland functions.
The proposed regulations establish allowed and prohibited uses within
hydrologically related critical areas, as well as vegetative buffer standards for
streams and lakes. Unlike the County SMP, which established a 100 -foot buffer
for all shoreline streams and lakes, the City's SMP proposes regulations based on
existing conditions, environment designations, and stream typing. The 100 -foot
buffer is maintained in the Essential Public Facilities, Urban Conservancy, and
Floodway/CMZ EDs. Proposed buffers are reduced in the Shoreline Residential
and High Intensity EDs, as indicated in Table 2. Proposed buffers in the High
Intensity and Shoreline Residential EDs are consistent with, and are expected to
maintain, existing functions.
The Watershed Company and BERK
aMUE 2013
Table 2. Proposed shoreline buffer widths in the High Intensity and Shoreline Residential
environment designations.
High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Proposed Existing Conditions
Proposed
Existing Conditions
Buffer
Buffer
Streams
75 feet
City and UGA on Yakima
NA
City: NA
River: High intensity
development is separated
from the shoreline by the
Yakima Greenway Trail
and a levee. Shoreline
vegetation is limited
• UGA on Blue Slough: 30-
100 feet of intact
vegetation separates
Blue Slough from low
intensity industrial uses.
Lakes
50 feet
• City: 0-50 foot setback for
20 feet
Fully developed residential
high intensity industrial
development with structural
areas
setbacks ranging from 0-50
• Three large vacant lots.
feet, most commonly in the
One large lot has
range of 15-25 feet.
approved industrial
Vegetation commonly
development extending
consists of maintained lawn
within 37 feet of Willow
extending to the water's
Lake (Grette 2012).
1
1 edge.
For streams and ponds within shoreline jurisdiction that do not meet the
standards for Shorelines of the State, buffers apply depending on the
classification of the waterbody. Buffers on these waterbodies range from 75 feet
for Type 2 streams and lakes, to no required buffer for Type 5 ephemeral
streams. The County's SMP does not explicitly set a buffer for non -shoreline
streams and lakes. These buffers are lower than the I00 -foot standard buffer
applied to hydrologically related critical areas in the County SMP, but the
proposed City buffers appropriately reflect the varying width of vegetated
buffers needed for aquatic habitat functions.
Buffer averaging is allowed if averaging will improve stream protection, or if
averaging is necessary to allow reasonable use of a parcel (I 7.09.030(P)(4)).
Buffers may be reduced if a road or railway crosses the buffer if the reduction
would not result in a Ioss of vegetative functions (17.09.030(P)(3)).
3.4.3 Flood Hazard Areas
The proposed Flood Hazard Area regulations permits projects that avoid altering
the flow of water in the floodway, causing erosion, filling the floodway, or
increasing the base flood discharge.
Mc.
" 13
City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
MIMI�: •.: A..
The City's GeoIogicalIy Hazardous Areas regulations are similar to those found
in the County's SMP, except that Channel Migration Zones are explicitly
included in the City's Geologically Hazardous Areas regulations.
The SMP guidelines state that "master programs shall include goals, policies and
actions for restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions." Although the
SMP is intended to achieve no net loss of ecological functions through regulatory
standards, practically, despite required practices to follow mitigation sequencing
to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts on a site-specific scale, an
incremental loss of shoreline functions may still occur at a cumulative level.
These Iosses may occur through minor, exempt development; illegal
development; failed mitigation efforts; or a temporal lag between the loss of
existing functions and the realization of mitigated functions. The Restoration
Plan, and the voluntary actions described therein, can be an important
component in malting up that difference in ecological function that would
otherwise result.
The County's restoration plan included several projects underway or planned
within the City, and since the County Restoration Plan was completed, several
additional projects have been proposed or are underway within the City. City
projects identified in the County's Shoreline Restoration Plan include the
following.
• Yakima Habitat Improvement Project (YHIP)
The City of Yakima and Union Gap started a project to improve aquatic and
riparian habitats in and around the Yakima Urban Growth Area. This project
works in concert with past and ongoing efforts in the basin.
Protect Normative Structure and Function of Critical Aquatic and Terrestrial
Habitat
This program includes direct purchase of lands within 25 feet of either side of
existing streams, creeks, and rivers, and purchase of "development rights"
for lands between 25 feet and 50 feet of either side of existing streams, creeks
and rivers within the Yakima Urban Area Boundary. As resources become
available, the protected riparian corridors will be enhanced and/or restored.
within the City and its UGA include: I
JUIY, Mggg,.11, 20
* keciamatio6WT,`TfM runcting from Me I akima Mver
Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP), purchased a former
campground and its water right. As a result of the purchase and a water
right transfer, an additional 2.8 cubic feet per second of stream flow will be
provided to Blue Slough and the Yakima River.
The project will setback and upgrade the existing Drainage and Irrigation
District (DID) 1 levee on the east side of the Yakima River. The project will
restore 400 acres of floodplain and reduce flood hazards for urban
infrastructure and development. This project, led by 4ie-C4�
Yaldma COLMN Public Service s/SuiJace Water Division involves
cooperation with multiple local ,..shite , federal and tribal agencies, and is part
of an integrated approach to watershed restoration. For example, the
acquisition of the campground (above), and the relocation of the wastewater
outfall location (discussed below) were necessary to eliminate constraints
that would otherwise render the levee setback infeasible.
a City of Yakima Floodplain Ecosystem Restoration
'nie proposed levee setback, described above, has the potential to jeopardize
the functionality of the outfall structure for the City of Yakirna Regional
Wastewater Treatment Facility (YRWWTF) on the west side of the river by
effluent) to migrate away from the current outfall location. In order to
alleviate this constraint, the City proposes to construct an outfall system that
is integrated into restored floodplain surrounding the site. 77he first phase of
the project was funded in 2012 by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. This
phase will reshape a shallow gravel -pit pond in the floodplain, restore the
pond's outlet to the Yakima River, and enhance the value of intergravel flow
on the site and downstream. This project will ultimately set back the west -
bank levee, adding an additional 200 to 300 acres of floodplain restoration
within the Gap to Gap reach.
Tht
C-,4,�
�4. ",.'a' ima
y ........... ......................... ....................... .........
has led three: 1.1ood H[azard NVIanagerrugnt Pjallsfj . '11I '�'
................... .. I11-' JJJ��ylF)Jfllat
�ffleict ireas,kvithjrR tfie of Vnl-ir a. 1hese inchi d_e�., �tht� Yakima
. ...... ... ..... pLr
. .................................... . .................................... ....................................................... I ................................. —
J)VVr(nred 11by in 2)(11 J( River (�JIEJ IN/H "i w v
............. I .................. .................................................................... L P
Jal-proved b
E tj
A �tallUrn Wide I CFHIN,Tr�
......................................................
Mc.
IND"
15
City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
µ„ri;l:y ,i itj'?,) In addition to proposed structural actions, recommended
actions fell into several programmatic categories, including inventory and study,
planning and regulatory, maintenance and management, public outreach, and
flood response. Recommendations were prioritized based on anticipated flood
benefits. The majority of the proposed actions would have secondary benefits of
restoring floodplain processes and associated ecological functions.
On an individual project basis, implementation of each of the above-described
projects and programs will result in a net improvement in shoreline functions
within the City of Yakima.
4 NET EFFECT ON ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION
This Addendum to the Yakima County Regional CIA indicates that the proposed
City of Yakima SMP is expected to maintain existing shoreline functions within
the City of Yakima while accommodating the reasonably foreseeable future
shoreline development. As discussed above, major elements of the SMP that
diverge from the County's Regional SMP fall into five general categories:
1) shoreline jurisdiction, 2) environment designations and allowed uses,
3) regulations for shoreline uses and modifications, 4) critical area regulations,
and 5) voluntary components of the shoreline restoration plan. A summary of
the areas of divergence and the effect on shoreline ecological functions are
identified in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of key features of the proposed SMP that differ from the Regional SMP
and effects on ecological functions.
City SMP Features that Differ from the
Effects on Ecological Functions
Regional SMP
Cowiche Creek is excluded from shoreline
No effect on shoreline ecological functions,
jurisdiction because it does not meet minimum
Land use outside of City limits along Cowiche
flow criteria.
Creek will still be regulated by the County's
SMP until annexed by the City, at which point
it and the portion of Cowiche Creek outside of
shoreline jurisdiction in City limits would be
regulated by the City's Critical Areas
Regulations.
County's Urban ED is split into High Intensity,
No adverse effect on shoreline ecological
Shoreline Residential, and Essential Public
functions. Environment designations, allowed
Facility EDs. An Aquatic ED applies
uses, and buffers are more closely correlated
waterward of the ordinary high water mark in
with land use and ecological conditions.
lakes.
Several uses are permitted to improve public
Allowed uses are strictly regulated, such that
access, economic growth, and ecological
no net loss of functions is anticipated.
enhancement.
Several new provisions pertain to shoreline
Improved protection of ecological functions
uses and modifications, including:
throughout shoreline jurisdiction.
16
,.m
The Watershed Company and BERK
iRy tii u,g gst 2013
City SMP Features that Differ from the
Effects on Ecological Functions
Regional SMP
• Application of mitigation sequencing and
vegetation conservation throughout
shoreline jurisdiction, not just in critical
areas
• Reduced threshold For mandatory
implementation of stormwater best
management practices
• Standards to ensure that flood hazard
management measures do not impair
ecological processes
Critical area buffers are reduced in areas
• Shoreline buffers are consistent with
where existing conditions or state guidelines
existing vegetation widths in High Intensity
support the use of smaller buffers than those
and Shoreline Residential EDs. Standard
proposed in the Regional SMP,
buffer widths for non -shoreline waterbodies
are scaled to the size and functions of the
waterbody.
• Wetland buffers are consistent with
Ecology's guidance for Eastern
Washington.
Several restoration actions are planned or
Implementation of voluntary restoration
underway, including and in addition to those
actions will improve shoreline functions.
identified in the County's Restoration Plan.
Given the above provisions and areas of divergence, implementation of the
City's proposed SMP is anticipated to achieve no net loss of ecological functions
in the shorelines of the City of Yakima. Voluntary actions identified and
prioritized in the Shoreline Restoration Plan will provide the opportunity to
enhance and restore shoreline functions over time.
17
City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
18
Higgins, J.L. 2003. Determination of upstream boundary points on southeastern
Washington streams and rivers under the requirements of the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources
Investigations Report 03-4042.26 p.
1111.1.2://aU _I)_'u, jiO3-404.,?,j 3 0 xdf
L_ �10 4 42.1--
.......................................... ........................................................
Washington Department of Ecology. 2011. Shoreline Master Program Guidelines.
Chapter 173-26 WAC, Part 111.
Washington Department of Ecology. 2012. Appendix 8-D.- Guidance on Widths of
Buffers and Ratios for Compensatory Mitigation for Use with the Eastern
Washington Wetland Rating System. In Wetlands in Washington State Volume
2.
Yakima County. Nn date. Yakima County Shoreline Mater [sic] Program Update
Cumulative Impacts Analysis.
)1'a1,,'JTna1(..o Ity Q.!2.pil t :) lltd,!�Iiic Servh:es. 20106. N aiches IZivier rn���
1. � .1 ( V1 ': I
-11, . i . ........................ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I ........................ r, . ............
lRood: I iaza T -1(j MamlKt��� X.g]s i : j 14� . .. . . . . . . Yakarna N'Jaj,ioi
....................................................... . ......................................................................... ................. ......... ............ I . ............. ................................................................................... ................ I. C I . ...... 2„
Yakim� �C t "� i ap,. Aig
............................................ a . . ............... jrli( 2'j) -]I.,
.................
a
Yl-dina Cou
.................................................................................. j'j_artTner01(,)1 Paal lua. ua^I- -ices. 20107. Ljf_,p�eeak�.irnn Rj�jMj:
.......................................... "I ....................................
F
1(.)(,.:)d 111jaziard !AanUgmiu�nt E'Lan, Yalriffin Cour ty, Yale,;
................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................. ma
Jtiic)Ti Cit irn, 1 .13: 9
........................................ ... . .... � ..................... ..a
Yakima County Department of Public Services. 2012. Alitanum-Wide Hollow
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan. Yakima County, Yakaina
Nation, City of Yakima, City of Union Gap. September 2012.
AMENDMENTZONING TEXT PROPOSED • R
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
TXT#003-13,P
CHAPTER 1
Comprehensive Plan: Shoreline Element
CITY OF YAKIMA
Grant No. G1200051
C 11ty
„, I� ou1°�� mm I l�IU'M;�IIk uuuu „uau����ol„ a
�IIIII ,lapin IIomIU.�llll lu umol u�������f.. 'NI����IIII�. '+Hll�m�ni,' lu Uml � h� p pomml muumupppUll� I,omlm � ��INa@um�, l��uul�l louu ''..
Il�p„ � Il�mllll m Iplu� mp ��III � �m�p>� I,m S
1�1#11'11
pmllllIlmllllllllllllllllll ^yillllulll ImIIIV iuuuu �i @ �� pml Y ""�"”' l Dlpoll ^ iiuuu N""1��1111'� III uum N IomN� � 1� �INI
July 1, 2013
Planning Commission Draft
"11111" ` uii S III ICS o iii iawiir"
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
SMP Section 1: Shoreline Element...................................................................................................1
Purpose and Relationship of the Shoreline Management Act to the Growth
ManagementAct.........................................................................
Profile of Shoreline Jurisdiction in Yakima........................................................................
22.
Development of Goals and Policies.....................................................................................1,.
General Shoreline Planning Sub -element ...............
g ..........................................................
!3 ;;w
Shoreline Environment Designations.........................................................................114
High Intensity Environment Policies................................................................
135
Essential Public Facilities Policies ..
Shoreline Residential Environment Policies ................. ....................................6
FloodwaY /Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) Environment Policies ............................
66!
Urban Conservancy Environment Policies..................................................................
77
Aquatic Environment — Lakes.....................................................................................'°
7
Economic Development Sub-element...........................................................................
11
Commercial and Service Development.......................................................................11,
Industrial Development.........................................................................1
Public Access and Recreation Sub-element......................................................................
819
PublicAccess...............................................................................................................111.
.......
Recreational Development
.... 11
Circulation Sub -element (Transportation & Parkin
9
Shoreline Uses and Modifications Sub-element...........................................................
1.144)
Agriculture..............................................................................................................
101.9
Aquaculture............................................................................................. .....::1,01IC
Boating and Private Moorage Facilities..................................................................
10,10
Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal ...............
11
Fill............................................................................................................................:..IL..°1.,.
;1
n -Water Structures................................................................................................
Mining................................................................................. ....................................
Residential Development........................................................................................:i.2�1,2..
............
Shoreline Stabilization............................................................................................
.......� 21;21;a.....
Signs........................................................................................................................
'1.113
......
Utilities....................................................................................................................
].m1J:
...........
ExistingUses............................................................................. ..............................
. 11,,,.d:PW
...........
Redevelopment, Repair, and Maintenance............................................................:IL'1;1
Conservation Element...................................................................................................11341
...........
EnvironmentalProtection.......................................................................................1.3,4:3.
...........
Critical Areas & Vegetation Conservation..............................................................1.444
Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects .............................
1!''IIIYf';1
Water Quality, Stormwater Management, and Nonpoint Pollution ........................,,5.15
Historic, Cultural, Scientific, and Educational Resources Element................................161E
Flood Hazard Management Element.............................................................................1
��
i�',116
DRAFT
&1I 1111 III 5` s Ilk ( 111 �I 0 1",�,J� , III a S III 1 (), IR IlE, 1h 111 I'N�JHl
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Purpose and Relationship of the Shoreline Management Act to the Growth
Management Act
The Growth Management Act (GMA) was amended in 1995 to add the goals and policies of the state
Shoreline Management Act (SMA) as one of the goals of the GMA. The purpose of the SMA is stated in
RCW 90.58.020 as follows:
"The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state ore among the most valuable and fragile of its
natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization,
protection, restoration, and preservation. In addition it finds that ever increasing pressures of
additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the
management and development of the shorelines of the state. The legislature further finds that much
of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that
unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in
the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the
public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the some time, recognizing and
protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefor, a clear and
urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and
local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of
the state's shorelines.
It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning
for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the
development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of
the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy
contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and
wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of
navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. ***
In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic
qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible
consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To this end uses shall
be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural
environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the
natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be
given priority for single-family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline
recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements
facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which
are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other
development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the
shorelines of the state. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and shorelands of the
state shall be recognized by the department. Shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be
appropriately classified and these classifications shall be revised when circumstances warrant
regardless of whether the change in circumstances occurs through man-made causes or natural
causes. Any areas resulting from alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and shorelands
.30Ci.
July 1, 2013 Cy
Rev Au{�D
August 8, 2013 U
v�
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
of the state no longer meeting the definition of "shorelines of the state" shall not be subject to the
provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW.
Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to
minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the
shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water."
The Shoreline Management Act policy has been refined to include provisions for uses along the
shoreline, public access to shorelines, preservation and restoration of the shoreline resources and
ecology, promotion of long-term over short-term benefit, and other actions to promote the state-wide
interest of appropriate use of shoreline over local interest.
In addition to incorporating the state SMA goals and policies, the Growth Management Act also provides
that "the goals and policies of a shoreline master program for a county or city...shall be considered an
element of the county or city's comprehensive plan." The City of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) was originally approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology in June 1974. In 2013,
the SMP was updated consistent with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 173-26, State
master program approval/amendment procedures and master program guidelines (Guidelines). The
Guidelines are administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The SMP
becomes effective 14 days after conclusion of both the City's SMP development and adoption process
followed by Ecology's review and approval process.
Profile of Shoreline Jurisdiction in Yakima
The entire shoreline jurisdiction within the City limits and Urban Growth Area (UGA), including
unincorporated territory and the waterbodies themselves, amounts to approximately 1,533 acres (733
acres non-UGA, 800 acres UGA). The City of Yakima has two rivers and three lakes which are identified
as "shorelines of the state": the Yakima River, the Naches River, Willow Lake, Lake Aspen, and Rotary
Lake. Buchanan Lake and its shorelands (approximately 76 acres) will be considered part of the City's
shoreline jurisdiction when the Washington Department of Natural Resources Surface Mine Reclamation
Permit lapses or is terminated, or when the City receives a permit application for new development on
or uses of Buchanan Lake.
In accordance with state law, the jurisdiction of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program encompasses the
shoreline waterbodies; land within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of these waterways; and
their floodways, certain portions of 100 -year floodplains and channel migration zones, and associated
wetlands.
Development of Goals and Policies
The goals and policies presented here are categorized according to Master Program elements as
mandated by the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The elements are identified in the SMA as generic
classes of activities for which goals and policies shall be developed and systematically applied to
different shoreline uses in these classes, when deemed appropriate by the local jurisdiction.
The general goal and policy statements found within each element of the Master Program are intended
to provide the policy basis for administration of the City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program. All
elements are equal in their importance and no element has a greater standing or relevance than any
other element. The Master Program Elements are as follows.
A. Shoreline use element for considering: X)C
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
1. The proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the use on shorelines
and adjacent land areas, including, but not limited to, housing, business, industry,
transportation, agriculture, natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and
grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of the land;
2. The pattern of distribution and location requirements of water uses including, but not limited
to, aquaculture, recreation, and transportation; and
3. Establishing the importance of locating water -oriented uses, particularly those that are water -
dependent, within the shoreline jurisdiction area.
B. Economic development element for the location and design of industries, transportation facilities,
port facilities, tourist facilities, commerce and other developments that are particularly dependent
on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state;
C. Public access element for provision for public access to shorelines, particularly publicly owned
areas;
D. Recreational element for preserving and enlarging recreational opportunities including but not
limited to parks, beaches, and recreational areas;
E. Circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major
thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities, all
correlated with the shoreline use element;
F. Conservation element for the preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to scenic
vistas, aesthetics, and critical areas' functions and values, fisheries and wildlife protection, and
shoreline ecological functions;
G. Historical/cultural/scientific/and educational element for protecting and restoring buildings, sites
and areas having historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific, or educational values; and
H. Flood control element forgiving consideration to the state-wide interest in the prevention and
minimization of flood damages, and construction, modification, and restoration of flood -damaged
structures consistent with FEMA Standards.
General Shoreline Planning Sub -element
10.3.1. Implement the general policies and goals of the Shoreline Management Act as listed below
(WAC 173-26-176(3)):
10.3.1.1. Utilize Shorelines for economically productive uses that are particularly dependent on
Shoreline location or use.
10.3.1.2. Utilize Shorelines and the waters they encompass for public access and recreation.
10.3.1.3. Protect and restore the ecological functions of Shorelines.
10.3.1.4. Protect the public right of navigation and corollary uses of waters of the state.
10.3.1.5. Protect and restore buildings and sites having historic, cultural, and educational value.
10.3.1.6. Plan for public facilities and uses correlated with other shoreline uses.
10.3.1.7. Prevent and minimize flood damages.
10.3.1.8. Recognize and protect private property rights.
10.3.1.9. Preferentially accommodate single-family uses.
WC.
July 1, 2013 +N
Rg &&u 8 28n 2x11.:3
I
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
10.3.1.10. Coordinate shoreline management with other relevant local, state, and federal programs.
10.3.2. Protection measures for Shorelines of Statewide Significance should follow the Shoreline
Management Act principles in order of preference as listed below (RCW 90.58.020):
10.3.2.1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest;
10.3.2.2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
10.3.2.3. Result in long term over short term benefit;
10.3.2.4. Protect the resource and ecology of the shoreline;
10.3.2.5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines;
10.3.2.6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;
10.3.2.7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or
necessary.
10.3.3. Establish a system of shoreline uses that:
10.3.3.1. Gives preference to uses with minimal impacts that are dependent upon their proximity to
the water;
10.3.3.2. Is consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural
environment;
10.3.3.3. Protects the public's health, safety, and welfare; ecological functions; and property rights;
and
10.3.3.4. Establishes conditional uses to provide extra protection for the shoreline.
10.3.4. Assure that new shoreline development in the City of Yakima is consistent with a viable
pattern of use suitable to the character and physical limitations of the land and water.
10.3.5. Encourage sound management of renewable and nonrenewable natural resources.
10.3.6. In general when determining the order of preference between conflicts of shoreline uses
the following order should be observed:
10.3.6.1. Water -dependent commercial uses are preferred over non -water- dependent commercial
uses;
10.3.6.2. Water -related and water -enjoyment commercial uses are preferred over non -water -
oriented commercial uses; and
10.3.6.3. Non- water -oriented commercial uses should only be allowed in limited situations.
Shoreline Environment Designations
10.3.7. The City of Yakima's Shorelines are classified into specific environment designations based
on existing and future land use patterns, as well as the biological and the physical
character of the shoreline. Land uses and activities which are permitted within these
environment designations should be limited to those land uses that are consistent with the
character of the identified environment designation.
4
WC.
INDEX
DRAFT
High Intensity Environment Policies
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
10.3.8. High Intensity Environment: The purpose of the "High Intensity" environment is to provide
for high-intensity water -oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while
protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that
have been previously degraded.
10.3.9. Specific criteria for designation of the High Intensity environment include areas or
properties that:
10.3.9.1. Presently support high intensity land uses including commercial, industrial, urban
recreational, transportation, or high-intensity water -oriented uses.
10.3.9.2. Are planned to accommodate urban expansion of uses listed in 10.3.9.1.
10.3.10. Water -oriented commercial, industrial, and recreation uses should be given high priority in
the High Intensity environment. First priority should be given to water -dependent uses.
Second priority should be given to water -related and water -enjoyment uses. Nonwater-
oriented uses should not be allowed except as part of mixed-use developments.
Nonwater-oriented uses may also be allowed in limited situations where they do not
conflict with or limit opportunities for water -oriented uses or on sites where there is no
direct access to the shoreline. Public benefits such as ecological restoration or public
access may be required in association with nonwater-oriented development.
10.3.11. New stand-alone residential uses in the High Intensity environment should be discouraged.
10.3.12. When considering shoreline environment designation amendment proposals, full
utilization of existing high intensity areas should be achieved before further expansion of
intensive development is allowed.
10.3.13. Development in the High Intensity designation should assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions as a result of new development. Where applicable, new development
should include environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline to comply with any
relevant state and federal law.
10.3.14. Where feasible, visual and physical public access should be required as part of
development in the High Intensity designation unless it already exists to serve the
development or other safety, security, or fragile environmental conditions apply.
10.3.15. Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such as sign control regulations,
appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance
of natural vegetative separation.
Essential Public Facilities Policies
10.3.16. The purpose of the Essential Public Facilities environment is to support planning and
maintenance of existing essential public facilities.
10.3.17. Assign an "Essential Public Facilities" environment designation to lands containing those
facilities that are typically difficult to site or relocate, such as state or regional
transportation facilities and waste water handling facilities.
10.3.18. Essential public facilities and their accessory or supporting uses are allowed in the
Essential Public Facilities environment.
July 1, 2013
WC.
No"
........
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
10.3.19. Allowed new development in the Essential Public Facilities designation should assure no
net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
10.3.20. Where applicable, new and expanded development should include environmental cleanup
and restoration of the shoreline to comply with any relevant state and federal law.
10.3.21. Expansion and improvement of existing facilities should be allowed, with mitigation
sequencing applied to avoid and then minimize adverse impacts to the extent consistent
with the specific facility and public needs, with mitigation required for any remaining
adverse impacts.
Shoreline Residential Environment Policies
10.3.22. The purpose of the "Shoreline Residential" environment is to accommodate residential
development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with the SMP. An additional
purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.
10.3.23. Assign a "Shoreline Residential` environment designation to areas that are predominantly
single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for
residential development.
10.3.24. Development standards addressing the development envelope, water quality, and
vegetation should assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account
the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of
infrastructure and services available, and other comprehensive planning considerations.
10.3.25. Multifamily and multi -lot residential and recreational developments should provide public
access and joint use for community recreational facilities.
10.3.26. Access, utilities, and public services should be available and adequate to serve existing
needs and/or planned future development.
10.3.27. Commercial development should be limited to water -oriented uses and allowed only when
the underlying zoning permits such uses.
Floodway / Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) Environment Policies
10.3.28. The Floodway/CMZ environment is intended to protect the water areas; islands,
associated overflow channels, and channel migration areas. This environment provides for
the movement of the river within its floodplain, and emphasizes preservation of the
natural hydraulic, geologic and biological functions of the City's shorelines that are
constrained by biophysical limitations.
10.3.29. The Floodway/CMZ designation is assigned to shoreline areas that are within a mapped
Channel Migration Zone and/or within a designated FEMA Floodway. The extent of the
Floodway/CMZ designation should never extend beyond the limitations of the Shoreline
CMZ found in WAC 173-26-221(3)(b). Areas separated from the active river channel by
existing legal artificial channel constraints should not be considered as part of the CMZ.
In addition, areas that are separated from the active channel by legally existing artificial
structure(s) including transportation facilities, built above or constructed to remain intact
through the one hundred -year flood, should also not be considered part of the CMZ.
WC.
WDEX
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
10.3.30. Commercial, industrial, mining, nonwater-oriented recreation, roads, utilities, parking
areas, and residences should generally not be located in the Floodway/CMZ environment.
Other uses (recreation, resource, etc.) should be carefully limited to protect shoreline
functions.
10.3.31. Activities that may degrade the value of the Floodway/CMZ environment should be
limited, and development in hazardous areas should be restricted.
10.3.32. Modifications that harden or fix stream banks and channels should be discouraged.
Urban Conservancy Environment Policies
10.3.33. The Urban Conservancy environment is intended to protect and restore ecological
functions of open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and
developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses.
10.3.34. Specific criteria for designation of the Urban Conservancy environment include areas or
properties that:
10.3.34.1. Lie in the city limits and urban growth areas;
10.3.34.2. Are planned for development that is compatible with the principals of maintaining or
restoring the ecological functions of the area;
10.3.34.3. Are suitable for water -enjoyment uses;
10.3.34.4. Are open space or floodplains, or;
10.3.34.5. Are areas that retain important ecological functions which should not be more intensively
developed.
10.3.35. Allowed uses forthe Urban Conservancy environment generally include uses which
preserve the natural character of the area, and promote the preservation of open space,
floodplains or sensitive lands. Uses allowed under this designation should focus on
recreation. Commercial, industrial and residential uses should be limited, and when
allowed result in restoration of ecological functions. Public access and recreation
objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and significant ecological impacts
mitigated.
Aquatic Environment — hakes
10.3.36. The purpose of the "Aquatic" environment is to protect, restore, and manage the unique
characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high-water mark of
shoreline lakes.
10.3.37. Specific criteria for the Aquatic designation are lands waterward of the ordinary high water
mark of shoreline lakes.
10.3.38. Allow new over -water structures only for water -dependent uses, public access, or
ecological restoration. The size of new over -water structures should be limited to the
minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use.
10.3.39. In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of
water resources, multiple use of over -water facilities should be encouraged.
WC.
July 1, 2013 :
...iG.u:?.:....p.....
. .:
I
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
10.3.40. Uses that could adversely impact the ecological functions of critical freshwater habitats
should not be allowed except where necessary to achieve the objectives of the Shoreline
Management Act, and then only when their impacts are mitigated according to mitigation
sequencing as necessary to assure no net loss of ecological functions.
10.3.41. Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent degradation
of water quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions.
10.3.42. When considering development or activities in the Aquatic environment, the City should
favor development and activities associated with preferred uses of the Shoreline
Management Act and apply development standards that consider water quality,
navigation, presence of aquatic vegetation, existing critical habitats, aesthetics, public
access, and views.
Economic Development Sub -element
Commercial and Service Development
10.3.43. Limit commercial and service development to those activities that are dependent upon a
shoreline location. Nonwater-oriented commercial uses may be allowed when part of a
mixed-use development including water dependent activities, or on sites separated from
the shoreline, or when public benefits such as public access and ecological restoration are
provided.
10.3.44. Commercial and service uses which are not shoreline dependent should be encouraged to
locate upland.
Industrial Development
10.3.45. Allocate sufficient quantities of suitable land for water -related industry.
10.3.45. Discourage industries which have proven to be environmentally hazardous in shoreline
areas.
Public Access and Recreation Sub -element
Public Access
10.3.47. Protect navigation of waters of the state, the space needed for water -dependent uses, and
views of the water through development standards.
10.3.48. Transportation and parking plans within Shoreline jurisdiction shall include systems for
public access, including pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation where appropriate.
10.3.49. Whenever possible shoreline development by public entities such as the City of Yakima,
Yakima, County, Yakima Greenway, Washington State Department of Transportation, and
Federal Highway Administration should incorporate both physical and visual public access
to shoreline areas which are compliant with the various entities safety and security access
plans. However, adopted public access plans as described in WAC 173-26-221(4)(c) that
more effectively allow public access thru alternative means may be accepted in lieu of the
above site specific access requirements.
DOC..
INDEX
# .�.
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
10.3.50. Development standards for dedicated and improved public access to the shoreline and
visual quality should be required for public and private developments, with few
exceptions, except where it is demonstrated to be infeasible due to reasons of safety,
security, or impact to the shoreline environment, or constitutional or legal limitations.
10.3.51. Promote and enhance diversified types of public access to shorelines in the City of Yakima
that accommodate intensified uses without significantly impacting natural areas, and do
not infringe upon property rights.
10.3.52. Access to recreational areas should emphasize multiple points of access (parking areas,
trails or bicycle paths).
10.3.53. Development standards should be established to assure preservation of unique, fragile,
and scenic elements, and to protect existing views from public property or large numbers
of residences.
10.3.54. When considering shoreline issues where there is a conflict between water dependent
uses, public access, or maintenance of an existing view from adjacent properties, public
access or water dependent use should have priority unless there is a compelling reason to
the contrary.
10.3.55. Road and railroad facilities should be properly designed, to provide to the greatest extent
practical, scenic corridors, rest areas, view points, and other public oriented facilities.
10.3.56. Wherever feasible, utilities should be placed underground.
Recreational Development
10.3.57. Assure preservation and expansion of diverse, convenient recreational opportunities along
shorelines for public use, consistent with the capacity of the land by ensuring that
shoreline recreational development is given priority and is primarily related to access,
enjoyment and use of the water and Shorelines of the State. This policy may be
accomplished by ensuring that shoreline recreational development is given priority and is
primarily related to access, enjoyment and use of the water and Shorelines of the State.
10.3.58. Land uses designated for a specific shoreline recreational area should be planned to satisfy
a diversity of demands, and must be compatible with each other and the environment.
10.3.59. Where feasible, encourage the use of public lands for recreational facilities as an
economical alternative to new acquisitions by local agencies.
10.3.60. Locate, design, construct and operate recreational facilities to prevent undue adverse
impacts to natural resources and adjacent or nearby private properties.
Circulation Sub -element (Transportation & Parking)
10.3.61. Encourage a transportation network capable of delivering people, goods, and services, and
resulting in minimal disruption of the shorelines' natural system.
10.3.62. When major highways, freeways and railways are required to be located along stream
drainages or lake shores, the facilities should be sufficiently setback, and minimal land
area consumed so that a useable shoreline area remains.
10.3.63. Access roads and parking areas should be located upland, awayfrom the shoreline
whenever possible, and access to the water should be provided by pathways or other
methods.
July 1, 201µµ3 p
DOC,
NMU
11 ......
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
10.3.64. Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and should be allowed only as
necessary to support an authorized use.
10.3.65. Proper design, location, and construction of road and railroad facilities should be exercised
to:
10.3.65.1. Minimize erosion and permit the natural movement of water;
10.3.65.2. Use existing topography and preserve natural conditions to the greatest practical extent.
10.3.66. Loops or spurs of old highways with high aesthetic quality or bicycle route potential should
be kept in service.
Shoreline Uses and Modifications Sub -element
Agriculture
10.3.67. Allow lawfully established agricultural activities occurring on agricultural lands to continue.
10.3.68. New agricultural activities on land not currently used for agriculture, conversion of
agricultural lands to other uses, and other development on agricultural land that does not
meet the definition of agricultural activities (including any agricultural development not
specifically exempted by the provisions of RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(iv)) should meet shoreline
requirements.
10.3.69. Prohibit concentrated feeding operations in shoreline jurisdiction.
Aquaculture
10.3.70. Consider aquaculture a preferred shoreline use when consistent with the control of
pollution and prevention of damage to the environment.
10.3.71. Ensure that aquaculture uses do not conflict with other water -dependent uses or
navigation, spread disease, establish non-native species that cause significant ecological
impact, or significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
10.3.72. Protect spawning areas designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
from conflicting uses.
Boating and Private Moorage Facilities
10.3.73. Ensure that boating facilities are located only at sites with suitable environmental
conditions, shoreline configuration, access, and neighboring uses.
10.3.74. Piers and docks should only be allowed for water -dependent uses and public access,
except that water -enjoyment and water -related uses may sometimes be included as part
of a mixed-use development.
10.3.75. Applications for new piers and docks must show a specific need and must be the minimum
size necessary.
10.3.76. Encourage the cooperative use of shared docks.
Oft.
10 1 -
DRAFT
Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
10.3.77. Dredging should only be permitted for maintaining existing navigation uses, not for
obtaining fill material or mining.
10.3.78. The deposition of spoils in water areas should only be allowed for habitat improvement or
when the alternative is more detrimental than depositing in water areas.
10.3.79. Normal and reasonable land grading and filling should be allowed where necessary to
develop a land area for a permitted use provided:
10.3.79.1.. There is no substantial changes made in the natural drainage patterns; and
10.3.79.2. There is no reduction of flood water storage capacity that might endanger other areas.
10.3.79.3. Filling within the ordinary high water mark should only be allowed when necessary to
support water -dependent uses, public access, transportation facilities, mitigation,
restoration, enhancement, and certain special situations listed in WAC 173-26-231(3)(c).
10.3.80. In evaluating fill projects, such factors as total water surface reduction, navigation
restriction, impediment to water flow and circulation, impediment to irrigation systems,
reduction of water quality, and destruction of fish and wildlife habitat should be examined.
10.3.81. Shoreline fills or cuts should be located and designed to avoid creating hazards to adjacent
life, property, natural resources systems, and to ensure that the perimeters of the fill
incorporate appropriate mechanisms for erosion prevention.
In -Water Structures
10.3.82. Location and planning of in -water structures should consider the full range of public
interests, watershed functions and processes, and environmental concerns, with a special
emphasis on protecting and restoring priority habitats and species.
10.3.83. All in -water structures should provide for the protection and preservation of ecosystem -
wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural resources, including, but not limited to,
fish and wildlife, water resources, shorelines, critical areas, hydrogeological processes, and
natural scenic vistas.
Mining
10.3.84. Removal of sand, gravel, and minerals should be allowed from only the least sensitive
shoreline areas and should comply with the below policies:
10.3.84.1. Due to the risk of avulsion and mine pit capture by the rivers, mining within the stream
channel and channel migration zones should not be allowed; and
10.3.84.2. Restoration or enhancement of ecological functions is encouraged.
10.3.85. Require land reclamation plans of any mining venture proposed within a shoreline.
DOC.
July 1, 2013 INDEX 11
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
10.3.86. Mining reclamation plans shall incorporate this SMP's restoration goal to the greatest
extent feasible, and shall be done in conformance with the Washington State Surface
Mining Act (RCW 78.44).
10.3.87. Ensure that mining and associated activities are designed and conducted consistent with
the applicable environment designation and the applicable critical areas ordinance.
10.3.88. Ensure that proposed subsequent uses of mined property and the reclamation of
disturbed shoreline areas are consistent with the applicable environment designation and
that appropriate ecological functions are required within the reclamation plan.
Residential Development
10.3.89. Design subdivisions at a density, level of site coverage, and occupancy that is compatible
with the physical capabilities of the shoreline, and ensure proposals are located to prevent
the need for new shore stabilization or flood hazard reduction measures.
10.3.90. Restrict subdivisions in areas subject to flooding.
10.3.91. Encourage cluster development wherever feasible to:
10.3.91.1. Maximize use of shorelines by residents,
10.3.91.2. Maximize both on-site and off-site aesthetic appeal, and
10.3.91.3. Minimize disruption of the natural shorelines.
Shoreline Stabilization
10.3.92. Shoreline modifications should only be allowed where they are shown to be necessary to
support or protect an allowed primary structure or a legally existing shoreline use that is in
danger of loss or substantial damage, or they are necessary for mitigation or enhancement
work.
10.3.93. Shoreline modifications should be limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish the
objective, while still protecting ecological functions. Give preference to shoreline
modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions.
10.3.94. New structural stabilization measures should only be allowed:
10.3.94.1. When they are necessary to protect an existing primary structure,
10.3.94.2. Are in support of new and existing development, or
10.3.94.3. Are necessary to protect projects where restoration of ecological functions or hazardous
substance remediation projects is taking place.
10.3.95. Flood protection and stabilization measures which result in or tend toward channelization
of streams such as, hardening of stream banks, or fixing channel locations should be
avoided.
10.3.96. All shore stabilization activities should be designed and constructed to accepted
engineering standards.
DOC.
12
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Signs
10.3.97. Outdoor sign size, spacing and lighting should conform to the Scenic Vistas Act (RCW
47.42) and standards in the Zoning Ordinance.
Utilities
10.3.98. New utility production and processing facilities, such as power plants and sewage
treatment plants, or parts of those facilities that are non -water -oriented should not be
allowed in shoreline areas unless it can be demonstrated that no other feasible option is
available. Expansion, updating, and maintenance of existing facilities is allowed but should
be designed to minimize impacts as much as possible.
10.3.99. Wherever possible, transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power
lines, cables, and pipelines, should be located outside of the shoreline area. If location
within the shoreline cannot be prevented, utilities should be confined in a single corridor
or within an existing right-of-way or underground consistent with policy 10.3.50.
10.3.100. New sewage treatment, water reclamation, and power plants should be located where
they do not interfere with and are compatible with recreational, residential or other public
uses of the shoreline.
10.3.101. New waste water treatment ponds for industrial uses should be located upland when
feasible.
Existing Uses
10.3.102. The SMP should recognize existing uses and developments in the shoreline, and allow
them to continue consistent with their lawfully established condition.
10.3.103. The City should apply applicable SMP provisions to the shoreline use or development
proposed in shoreline jurisdiction, considering the size, location, duration and scope of the
proposal where appropriate.
Redevelopment, Repair, and Maintenance
10.3.104. The SMP should recognize existing uses and developments in the shoreline, and allow
them to continue consistent with their lawfully established condition.
10.3.105. The City should apply applicable SMP provisions to the shoreline use or development
proposed in shoreline jurisdiction, considering the size, location, duration and scope of the
proposal where appropriate.
Conservation Element
Environmental Protection
10.3.106. Maintain, restore and where necessary improve the shoreline terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems so that they maintain viable, reproducing populations of plants and animals
while providing the maximum public benefit of limited amounts of shoreline areas.
July 1, 2013
DOC,
INDEX
13
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
Critical Areas & Vegetation Conservation
10.3.107. New development or uses, including the subdivision of land, should not be established
when it is foreseeable that the development or use would require structural flood hazard
reduction measures within the channel migration zone or floodway.
10.3.108. New structural flood hazard reduction measures in shoreline jurisdiction should only be
allowed when the following can be demonstrated:
10.3.108.1. The structural flood hazard reduction measure is necessary to protect an existing
development,
10.3.108.2. Nonstructural measures are not feasible,
10.3.108.3. Impacts on ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully
mitigated so as to assure no net loss of ecological functions, and
10.3.108.4. Appropriate vegetation conservation actions are undertaken.
10.3.109. Protect all shorelines of the state so that there is no net loss of ecological functions from
both individual permitted or exempt development.
10.3.110. Evaluate and consider cumulative impacts of development on shoreline ecological
functions to ensure no net loss of ecological function.
10.3.111. Develop a means to allocate the burden of addressing cumulative effects.
10.3.112. Provide, where feasible and desirable, restoration of degraded areas along the City's
shorelines.
10.3.113. Critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction are protected through the critical area policies
and standards of the City of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program and Comprehensive Plan
Natural Environment Chapter.
10.3.114. Protect shoreline streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands through the application of
vegetative buffers.
10.3.115. Existing agriculture should be encouraged to provide through voluntary means:
10.3.115.1. Maintenance of a permanent vegetative buffer between tilled areas and associated water
10.3.116. Buffer requirements for new agriculture uses on non-agricultural lands should be applied.
10.3.117. Provide a permitting process which allows government agencies, and public and private
groups to submit and gain approval for long-term maintenance plans which comply with
the requirements of the City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program.
10.3.118. Natural vegetation within shoreline jurisdiction should be retained to the greatest extent
feasible by applying the stream corridor and wetland buffer requirements.
10.3.119. Selective pruning of trees for safety and view protection, and the removal of noxious
weeds is allowed.
DOC.
14
bodies,
10.3.115.2.
Reduction of bank erosion,
10.3.115.3.
Reduction of surface runoff,
10.3.115.4.
Reduction of siltation,
10.3.115.5.
Improvement of water quality, and
10.3.115.6.
Habitat for fish and wildlife.
10.3.116. Buffer requirements for new agriculture uses on non-agricultural lands should be applied.
10.3.117. Provide a permitting process which allows government agencies, and public and private
groups to submit and gain approval for long-term maintenance plans which comply with
the requirements of the City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program.
10.3.118. Natural vegetation within shoreline jurisdiction should be retained to the greatest extent
feasible by applying the stream corridor and wetland buffer requirements.
10.3.119. Selective pruning of trees for safety and view protection, and the removal of noxious
weeds is allowed.
DOC.
14
DRAFT CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
10.3.120. Shoreline construction/maintenance projects which disturb areas of the shoreline should
be restored to a state which is equal or greater than the original project condition. When
replanting is required, native species should be planted and maintained until new
vegetation is established.
Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects
10.3.121. Restoration and enhancement of shorelines should be designed using principles of
landscape and conservation ecology and should restore or enhance chemical, physical, and
biological watershed processes that create and sustain shoreline habitat structures and
functions.
10.3.122. Restoration and enhancement actions should improve shoreline ecological functions and
processes and should target meeting the needs of sensitive plant, fish and wildlife species
as identified by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of
Natural Resources, .�" Il aim Natiolr National Marine Fisheries Service, and/or U.S. Fish and
,,,,,......
Wildlife Service.
10.3.123. The City should, and private entities are encouraged to, seek funding from State, Federal,
private and other sources to implement restoration, enhancement, and acquisition
projects, particularly those that are identified in the Restoration Plan of this SMP or the
local watershed plans.
10.3.124. The City should develop processing guidelines that will streamline the review of
restoration -only projects.
10.3.125. Allow for the use of tax incentive programs, mitigation banking, grants, land swaps, or
other programs, as they are developed, to encourage restoration and enhancement of
shoreline ecological functions and to protect habitat for fish, wildlife and plants.
Water Quality, Stormwater Management, and Nonpoint Pollution
10.3.126. Shoreline water quality should be protected as follows:
10.3.126.1. Rely on the City's Stormwater program and Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual
for Eastern Washington which meet state and federal stormwater control requirements
where possible;
10.3.126.2. Utilize Critical Aquifer Recharge Area protection measures;
10.3.126.3. Control drainage and surface runoff from all facilities requiring large quantities of
fertilizers and pesticides to prevent contamination of water areas;
10.3.126.4. All developments should comply with Yakima County Health regulations, when applicable;
10.3.126.5. Handle and dispose of pesticides in accordance with provisions of the Washington
Pesticide Application Act (RCW 17.21) and the Washington Pesticide Act (RCW 14.47);
10.3.1.26.6. Proper design, location, and construction of all facilities should be exercised to prevent
the entry of pollutants or waste materials into waterbodies;
10.3.126.7. When earthen materials are moved within shoreline areas, measures to adequately
protect water quality should be provided;
10.3.126.8. Water quality protection measures should not impact recreation opportunities;
10.3.126.9. New development and redevelopment proposals should be connected to city sewer; and
WC.
July 1, 2013 INDEX 15
:^.I .; .... # I I�
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
10.3.126.10. New development and redevelopment proposals should provide adequate stormwater
handling and possibly pre-treatment facilities.
10.3.127. Agricultural erosion control measures should conform to standards established by the
Conservation Districts of Yakima County and those agreed upon in USDA conservation
plans.
10.3.128. In planning for marina location and design, special water quality considerations should be
given to:
10.3.128.1. Fuel handling and storage facilities to minimize accidental spillage,
10.3.128.2. Proper water depth and flushing action for any area considered for overnight or long-term
moorage facilities, and
10.3.128.3. Adequate facilities to properly handle wastes from holding tanks.
10.3.129. Sanitary landfills along shoreline areas should be prohibited. The disposal of all solid
wastes should be disposed of in accordance with the Yakima County Inter -local and
Moderate Risk Solid Waste Management Plan.
Historic, Cultural, Scientific, and Educational Resources Element
10.3.130. E. w R3a*a,a,a,ra"the protection and restoration of areas and sites in the City of Yakima
having historic archaeological, cultural, educational or scientific value ..................................................... siis. with
.......
!,4rtgjr.....s at..... anal fedeiral laws.
10.3.131. Development along shorelines should include consultation with professional
archaeologists, historians, biologists, t_[;;e \A ::a i�in toirn De artmenu: ofAircluaeolo:. aired
I liistoric Preservation and ...i t_F,i,r.>„_°Yakarna flatiron to identify areas containing potentially
valuable data, and to establish procedures for salvaging the data or maintaining the area in
an undisturbed condition.
10.3.132. Shoreline permits should contain conditions of approval which require developers to
immediately stop work and notify local governments, the Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, and affe*ted .. . :�tlhe Yakama Nation, if any archaeological or
historic resources are uncovered during excavation.
10.3.133. Development which would destroy archaeological or historical sites or data may be
delayed for a reasonable time to allow the appropriate agency or organization to purchase
the site or to recover the data.
10.3.134. The City should ensure public and private development applications site and design flood
control measures consistent with appropriate engineering principles, including guidelines
of the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Yakima
County Flood Hazard Management Plan, watershed plans, restoration plans, critical area
regulations, floodplain regulations, and stormwater management plans and regulations in
order to prevent flood damage, maintain the natural hydraulic capacity of floodways, and
conserve limited resources such as fish habitat, water, and soil.
16 I _
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
10.3.135. Where feasible, non-structural methods to protect, enhance, and restore shoreline
ecological functions and processes and other shoreline resources should be encouraged as
an alternative to structural flood control works. Non-structural methods may include, but
are not limited to, shoreline buffers, land use controls, use relocation, wetland restoration,
dike removal, biotechnical measures, stormwater management programs, land or
easement acquisition, voluntary protection and enhancement projects, or incentive
programs.
10.3.136. New or expanding development or uses in shoreline jurisdiction, including subdivision of
land, that would likely require structural flood control works, such as dikes, levees,
revetments, floodwalls, channel realignment, gabions or rip -rap, within a river, floodway,
or lake should not be allowed.
10.3.137. New structural flood control works should only be allowed in shoreline jurisdiction when it
can be demonstrated by a scientific and engineering analysis that they are necessary to
protect existing development, that impacts to ecological functions and priority species and
habitats can be successfully mitigated so as to assure no net loss, that appropriate
vegetation conservation actions are undertaken, and where non-structural flood hazard
reduction measures are infeasible.
10.3.138. Flood control works and shoreline uses, development, and modifications should be
located, designed, constructed and maintained so their resultant effects on geo-hydraulic
shoreline processes will not cause significant damage to other properties or shoreline
resources, and so that the physical integrity of the shoreline corridor is maintained.
July 1, 2013 17
0 1
I ING TEXT AMENDMENT - PROPOSED CHAPTER 1
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
TXT#003-13, SEPA#013-13 I
m-4:11 momm
UR
M7 1A
�o ,c,
1 ii%i
..........
E-1 Maps Shoreline Jurisdiction n-& �Environmcnt
—Designations 08/21/2013
.w„
Proposed Environment Designation
High Intensity
Potentially A s s o ci ated Welland
JI
WATERSHED
��
Aquatic
High Intensity -Buchanan Lake
Parcels -light grey outline
��������
Original Scale: 1:51,000 @ 11x17.
Please scale accordingly.
'j, 'A"# �.d
Aquatic - Buchanan Lake
High Intensity -UGA
City Limit
Essential Public Facilities
Shoreline Residential
1`1 UGA
All features depicted on this map are approximate. They have
not been formally delineated or surveyed intended
Essential Public Facilities - Buchanan Lake
Urban Conservancy
and are for
planning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation may
�
Essential Public Facilities -UGA
Urban Conservancy
cY -Buchanan Lake
Data source: City of Yakima, FWS
be needed to confirm or verifyinformation shown on this ma p.
FloodwaylCMZ
Urban Conservancy - UGAwDEX
Dale: 8/21/2013
FloodwaylCMZ - UGA
M. mm
Name: Environment designation
AM
471
11 r r
br f 4 r .,
Sources: Esri, DeL brme,
NAvrEQ, USGS, l"Itermap,
FC, NRCAN, Esri-,lapan;
E
Proposed Environment Designation High Intensity Potentially Associated Wetland
ill 011i,
WATERSHED °r;� Aquatic High Intensity - Buchanan Lake Parcels - light grey outline
�t roti PA 1 4 r Aquatic - Buchanan Lake High Intensity - UGA �[3 City Limit
Essential Public Facilities Shoreline residential I—I UGA
All Features depicted on this map are approximate. They have Essential Public Facilities - Buchanan Lake.,� Urban Conservancy
planning purposes only. Additional site -speck evaluation may
not been formally delineated surveyed and are intended for Essential Public Facilities - UGA Urban Conservancy - Buchanan Lake INDEX
be needed to confirm or verify information shown on this map. FloodwaylCMZ® Urban Conservancy - UGA
FloodwaylCMZ - UGA
Original Scale: 1.116,800 @ 11x17.
Please scale accordingly.
Data source: City of Yakima, FWS
Date: 8/21/2013
Name: Environment designation
A41
I�nki'S`ti�h[T � 1
M wrRflillt':� i'r'lCI �ix"::(�'<<.
t_r Frtd n�I
Lo
Sources: Esn, DeLorme,
NAVTEQ, USCCS tatermap,
PC, NRCAN Esri %J Pan,
We
Proposed Environment Designation
High IntensityI
,,,; ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
g Potentially Associated Wetland
° r 1, u,,Original
WATERSHED
Aquatic
High Intensity - Buchanan Lake
Parcels - light grey outline
Scale: 1:16,800 @ 11x17.
Please scale accordingly.
Il-. `� ��� [I�'i�r�����
i m �
Aquatic -Buchanan Lake
High Intensity - UGA
City Limit
Essential Public Facilities
Shoreline Residential
1_1 UGA
All features depicted on this map are approximate, They have
Essential Public Facilities - Buchanan Lake
WI
Urban Conservancy
DOC.
not been formally delineated or surveyed and are intended for
planning purposes only. Additional site -speck evaluation may
Essential Public Facilities - UGA
Urban Conservancy - Buchanan Lake
INDEX
Data source: City of Yakima, FWS
be needed to confirm or verify information shown on this map.
Floodway/CMZ
Urban Conservancy - UGA
,# ry
Dale: 8/21/2013
Floodway/CMZ - UGA
Name: Environment designation
uch4h 'n Lake ropy' fat d" rare r Yakimas tat 'hr linea f ar NDe is rent
and rndido aat ai Permit,,$H04,. e
V 8xj�0,1 rA
�'.. int
I
High Intensity
Potentially Associated Wetland
A��c�f
1
I 51ar Fkl
High Intensity -Buchanan Lake
Sources:
NAVTE0,
PC; NRCAN,
Esri, DeLorme,
USGS, I�"ter ma
Esri Japan, P.
l'9iI�
E ' WATERSHED
4u
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
Potentially Associated Wetland
Aquatic
High Intensity -Buchanan Lake
Parcels -light grey outline
Original Scale: 1:16,800 @ 11x17.Please scale accordingly.
' Aquatic - Buchanan Lake
High Intensity - UGA
��
City Limit
Essential Public Facilities_,�
Shoreline Residential
i_I UGA
Essential Public Facilities - Buchanan Lake
I .r
Urban Conservancy
00C.
Essential Public Facilities - UGA
Urban Conservancy - Buchanan Lake
PNDU
Data source: City of Yakima, FWS
Floodway/CMZ
Urban Conservancy - UGA
Date: 8/21/2013
Floodway/CMZ - UGA
Name: Environment designation
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — PROPOSED CHAPTER 17
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
TXT#003-13, SEPA#013-13
EXHIBIT LIST
CHAPTER F
SEPA Checklist
13
N
LAND USE APPLICATION
1
CITU OF VAKIMA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY" AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
129 NORTH SECOND STREET, 2ND FLOOR, YAKIMA, WA 98901
VOICE: (509) 575-6183 FAX: (509) 575-6105
INSTRUCTIONS — PLEASE BEAD FIRST Please type or print -your answers clearly.
AwN er all questionscompletely. If3 ou Im a an) questions about this form or the application process, please ask a Planner. Remember
to bring all neccssan attachments and the required filing fee %0en the application is submitted. The Planning Dkision cannot accept an
application unless it is complete and the filing tee paid. Filing fees are not refundable.
phis application consists of four pans. PARI' I - GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART IV — CERTIFICATION are on this page.
PART 1I and 111 contain additional inl'ormation specific to � our proposal and MUST be attached to this Page to complete the application.
PART I — GENERAL INFORMA'T'ION
1. Applicant's Name. Address.
Name
City of Yakima Planning Department
And Phone Number
Street
129 North Second Street
Cit)
Yakima ST
WWA /.ip 98901
Phone (509) 575-6187
2. Applicant's Propert\ Interest
Cluck
One
❑
(honer
❑
Agent
❑
Purchaser
®
Other: Local Government
3. Properly 0mier's Name.
Name
Address. And Thune Number
Street
(IfOther'fhan Applicant)
Cit\
S f I 7.ip Phone ( )
a. Subiect Propert\'s Assessor's Parcel Number(s): Parcels N%ithin the boundaries of the Cit) of Yakima cit'. limits.
5. Properly Address: NIA 2011
G. Legal Description of 1'roprm. (if lengtltN. please attach it on a separate document) NIA CITY OF YAKIM
7. 1'ro erg's Existing Zoning: PLMMI FIG
E SR E R-I E R-2 E R-3 E 13-1 E 13-2 (0 1113 ®.SC'C ®I CCm ® 031) ® GC ® AS ® RD E M-I E 111-2
8. T. e Ol'A lication: (Check All Thal
❑ Administrative Adjustment ® FnN ironmental Checklist (SI:PA) ❑ Basement Release
❑ Tape (2) Revie+ti ❑ Right-of-Way Vacation ❑ Rezone
❑ l' pe (3) Re%ie" ❑ Transportation C'oncurrcnc� ❑ Shoreline
❑ Short Plat ❑ Non-Conlivming. Structure/Use ❑ Critical Areas
❑ Long Plat ❑ Type 3 Modification ❑ Variance
❑ Admin. Modification ❑ Interpretation by hearing Examiner ❑ Amended Plat
❑ Appeal ❑ Temporary Use Pemtii ❑ Binding Site Plan
❑ Home Occupation ❑ Cornp Plan Amendment ❑ Planned Development
❑ Short Plat Exemption: ............. E Other: Shoreline Master Program Amendment Ordinance
PART lI -- SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, PART Ill — REQUIRED A7'TAGIMENTS. & PART IV— NARRATIVE
9. SEE ATTACHED SHEETS
PART V -- CERTII-ICATION
10. 1 certirj that the infornialion on this application and the required attachments are true and correct to the best ofn» kno«ledge.
s-_ - s%
PR01V 'IY OWN[ IGNAI tJRll, DATE
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY Revised 12-08
Notes:
FILEJt
DATE FE}: PAID
RECFIV1,1) BY
Amount
Recei t No. Hearing Date
13
N
DOC. ctaz s o inr
INDEX
a
# -- 3ni3038
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
�^
(AS TAKEN FROM WAC 197-11-960)
YAKIMA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.88
PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW Ch. 43.210, requires all governmental agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared
for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist
is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts
From the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use
this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an
EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You trust
answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer
the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the
answer, or if question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the
questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning,
shoreline, and landmark desi4,nations. Answer these questions if you can. if you have problems, the governmental agencies
can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time
or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental
effects, The agency to «hich you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional
information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS
Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN
ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D).
For non-projecl actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be
read as "proposal," " ro oser," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (To be completed by the applicant.)
1. Name Of Proposed Project (If Applicable): City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program Amendment.
2. Applicant's Name & Phone: City of Yakima Planning Department, 509-575-6183.
3. Applicant's Address: 129 North Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901.
_____ .__________. _____ _________--------------------, _________ _______ --------------------- .._________
__------------------
4. Contact Person & Phone: Jeff Peters at (509) 575-6163
S. Agency Requesting Checklist: City of Yakima
6. Date The Checklist Was Prepared: June 27, 2013.
7. Proposed Timing Or Schedule (Including Phasing, If Applicable): The City of Yakima proposes to locally adopt the
updated SMP in either October or November of 2013, at which time the program will be forwarded to Ecology for final
review.
S. Do you have any plans for Future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this
proposal? If yes, explain: Not at this time.
-AIG JNiNNVId
VWINVA do AJM
DOC. ctaz s o inr
INDEX
a
# -- 3ni3038
9. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly
related to this proposal:
a. Yakima County's Review of Best Available Science For Inclusion in Critical Areas Ordinance Update October
2006
b. Yakima Countv Shoreline Characterization Final Draft Report, August 2005
c. Yakima County's Justification For Shoreline Environmental Designation Changes
d. Shoreline Assessment Summar, and Shoreline Restoration Plan for Yakima County,Washington
a. City of Yakima Draft Curnulative Impact Analysis, and Restoration Plan Addendum
b. City of Yakima Channel Migration Zone Ma
10. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting
the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: None pending
11. List ant• government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known: SEPA determination,
City of Yakima Planning Commission Public Hearin`.!. Cite Council. and Washington State Depariment of EcologN
Approval.
12. Give a brief, but complete description of your proposal, including fire proposed uses and the size of the project
and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask )-on to describe certain aspects of your
proposal. You do riot need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include
additional specific information on project description.):
The City of Yakima is updating its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) (Currently not formally incorporated within the
Yakima City Code). This action implements the Washin"ton State Shoreline Manadgement Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW),
which governs the development of Washington's shorelines. Local jurisdictions are required to update their SMPs in
accordance with the Guidelines of Washington State Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26, which was revised in 2003,
to reflect current knowledge regarding shoreline management and science.
This proposed non -project action would replace in its entirety the Yakima County Shoreline Master Program, Adopted
September 5, 1974, by City of Yakima, establish a new Title 17 Shoreline Master Program, and amend the City of
Yakima's 2025 Comprehensive Plan 2025 Natural Element chapter to include a new section titled Shoreline Master
Program Goals and Policies which reflects the proposed goals and policies of the City`s draft Shoreline Master
Program.
In accordance with the Guidelines, the updated SMP is intended to accommodate appropriate shoreline development
while also achieving no net loss of existing shoreline ecological functions. Legally established existing residential
development would generally be considered conforming under this master program; all existing legally established
development would not be subiect to the SMP since the SMP only applies to new activities or expansions.
The updated SMP and all accompanying draft documents are available on the City of Yakima Planning Department's
website at �;''p tt'� fig' Ix;lllfp�Am px h,. B J E' ',A4 s p.!. n�g,q,V L' ,q'G'' C'� "'I 'aV'dr 4,� ��' ��gi�G,, q'Vllm u�'�;� d�4iK
INDEX CITY OYAKIMA
PLANNING
- i
13. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your pro-
posed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would
occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan,
vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the
agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related
to this checklist.:
In accordance with state law. the jurisdiction of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program encompasses the shoreline
waterbodies: land within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of these waterways: and their tloodways, certain portions
of 100 -year floodplains and channel migration zones, and associated wetlands.
The entire shoreline jurisdiction within the City limits and Urban Growth Area (L)GA), including unincorporated territory
and the waterbodies themselves, amounts to approximately 1,533 acres (733 acres non-UGA, 800 acres UGA). The City of
Yakima has two rivers and three lakes which are identified as "shorelines of the state": the Yakima River, the Naches River,
Willow Lake, Lake Aspen, and Rotary Lake. Buchanan Lake and its shorelands (approximately 76 acres) will be
considered part of the City's shoreline jurisdiction when the Washington Department of Natural Resources Surface Mine
Reclamation Permit lapses or is terminated, or when the City receives a permit application for new development on or uses
of Buchanan Lake. Therefore pre -designation of Buchannan Lake is included in the SMP along with predesionated UGA
shorelines.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL. ELEMENTS (To be completed bythe applicant)
Space Reserved for
Agency Comments
I. Earth
a. General description of the site (✓ one):
Ll flat ❑ rolling ❑ hilly ❑ steep slopes ❑ mountainous ® other
The City of Yakima's shoreline jurisdiction covers a wide ranee of topographic features. including
all of the above with the exception of mountainous.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Unknown. This
will be determined with site specific shoreline applications.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel,
peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and
note any prime farmland, See United States Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service Soil Survey of Yakima County Area Washington
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If
so, describe.
See United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey
Yakima County Area Washington
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
None
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use'? If so, generally
describe. The draft ordinance includes regulations to help control erosion and other
clearing and grading impacts within shoreline jurisdiction (17.05.040).
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? NSA
DM.
INDp(
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (To be completed by the applicant)
Space Reserved for
Agency Comments
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
The draft ordinance includes re-ulations to help control erosion and other clearing and
�-rading impacts within shoreline jurisdiction and in geologically hazardous areas
(17.05.040 and 17.09.050). Building codes and stormwater regulations would also reduce
potential impacts of future individual developments proposed under the SMA.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust,
automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if
known.
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address otential impacts and mitigation measures.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If
so, generally describe.
NIA. This is a progrannnatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
NIA. This is a progranttnatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams, saiMater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)?
If ves, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or
river it flows into,
Yes. The SMP applies to all shorelines of the state, including lakes greater than 20
acres, and streams with greater than 20 cubic feet per second mean annual flow, and
associated wetlands. The streams and lakes that meet these qualifications are listed
in question 13 above.
2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
This ordinance would apply to all use and modification activities within the 200 foot
shoreline jurisdictional area.
3. Estimate the amount of rill and dredge material that would be placed in or re
moved from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
No fill or dredge material is proposed with this proposal; however, the draft ordinance
will regulate fill and dredge activities within the shoreline enviromnentl jurisdiction.
4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No
5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note Iocation on the site
plan.
Yes. All of the streams and creeks regulated by the draft Shoreline Master Program
have associated floodplains, and this draft plan provides regulations to assure that
new development complies with the requirements of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency National Flood Insurance Program.
b. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If
RECEIVED
so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
NIA
JUL 0 3 2013
WN0. CITY OF YAKIMA
INDEX PLANNING DIV.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (Tobe completed. by the applicant)
Space Reserved for
Agency Comments
b. Ground:
1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
NIA. Municipal water is "enerally available in the City. In the UGA, densities are
limited by whether there is water and sewer available.
3. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,
containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general
size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be
served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are
expected to serve.
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be
required to address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
c. Water Runoff (including storm►water):
1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow?
Will this ►►iter flow into other waters? If so, describe.
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be
requited to address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
?. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be
required to address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any:
This SMP includes regulations for control of surface water impacts, primarily
incorporating the standards from the Eastern Washington Stormwater Management
Manual. The SMP also includes regulations for new development in flood hazard
areas, includino the most current scientific information and mapping for channel
nti-ration zones within the City's stream and floodplain areas.
______ _________ -----------------------------------
________ _________ _____________4. Plants:
4.
a. Check (✓) types of vegetation found on the site:
Deciduous Tree: ® Alder Maple ® Aspen LJ Other
Evergreen Green: 0 Fir ® Cedar E Pine Other
Shrubs ® Grass ® Pasture Crop Or Grain El Other
_________ _________ _________ ,
�.______ ____________
Other Types Of Vegetation:
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
None. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitibation measures. Further, the SMP includes measures to
ensure vegetation conservation. See -d" below.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
There are minor amounts of threatened or endangered species know to live in or around
the city limits of Yakima, however this proposal does not involve any change to the land
or habitat, and is considered none -project.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
DECEIVE
The proposed ordinance includes development standards under 17.05.030 which require
preservation and/or enhancement of vegetation for new uses in shoreline environments.
The amount of vegetation to be retained on an individual dividual site is based on the Shoreline
_..........................................................I'll.,
JUL 0 3 2a
UU%;. CITY OF YAKIMA
INDEX PLANNING DIV.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (To be completedby the applicant)
'Space Reserved for
Agency Comments
Environment Designation and critical area buffers onsite.
5. Animals:
a. Check (✓) any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site:
Birds: E Hawk Heron ® Eagle ®Son birds Other
Mammals: Deer F I Bear ❑ Elk Beaver Other
Fish: Bass ® Salmon ® Trout ❑ Herring El Shellfish LJ Other
...............................................................................................-- ......................
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
The rivers contain listed salmonid species, including federally threatened fall Chinook
salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. Pacific lamprey and westslope cutthroat are present in
the watershed and designated as species of concern by USFWS. There are minor amounts
of threatened or endangered species known to live in or around the city limits of Yakima
and in the UGA, however this proposal does not involve any change to the land or habitat,
and is considered nonmj rtujecit....................................................................................................................................................
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Migratory birds may utilize property within the City limits: however, this proposal does
not involve any change to the land or habitat, and is considered non -project. The rivers
are also inigruiory corridors for salmonids and other fish.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
The proposed ordinance includes development standards under 17.05.030 which require
preservation and/or enhancement of vegetation for new uses in shoreline environments.
thus improving habitat for the preservation and enhancement of wildlife.
b. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to
meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for
heating, manufacturing, etc,
NIA. This is a pro�t,rammatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If
so, generally describe.
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals,
risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this
proposal? If so, describe.
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
1. Describe special emergency services that might be required.
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be
required to address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
?. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be
required to address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
b. Noise
RECEIVED
r V M.
.4DEX
JUL 0 3 2013
CITY OF YAKIMA
PLANNING DIV.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (To be completed by the applicant)
Space Reserved for
A enc • Comments
1. What types of noise exist in the area, which may affect your project (for
example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be
required to address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project
on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction,
operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
NIA
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
NIA
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a.
What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? NIA. This is a
programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to address
potential impacts and mitigation measures.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
Mane of the properties within the Cit\ of Yakima have been used for a- iculture purposes
in the past.
c.
Describe any structures on the site.
NIA. phis is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
d.
Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
NIA . This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and miti.,ation measures.
e.
What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classifications
which are effected by these amendments are as follows: SR, R-I, R-2, R-3, B-1, B-2. HB,
SCC, LCC, AS, GC, CBD. RD, and M-1
f.
_
What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The Comprehensive
Plan designations within the City of Yakima area as follows: Low Density Residential,
Medium Density Residential. High Density Residential, Professional Office,
Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, General Commercial, Regional
Commercial, CBD Core Commercial, and Industrial.
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site.
This proposal includes regulations for the following Shoreline Master Program
Designations:
1. High Intensity:
2. Essential Public Facilities;
3. Shoreline Residential;
4. Floodway / Channel Migration Zone;
5. Urban Conservancy; and
6. Aquatic Environment
Ii.
Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so
specify. Yes, including wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, streams, critical habitat
and flood hazard areas.
i.
Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures. The Draft CIA shows minimal future
growth on shorelines particularly in the City limits.
j.
Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NIA
k.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any.
RECEIVE
N/A. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation treasures.
_. DOC.
JUL U
E3 201
IND(CITY
OF YAKIMA
PLANNING DIV
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (To be completed by the applicant)
Space Reserved for
Agency Comments
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected
land uses and plans, if any:
The SAIp implements the Shoreline Management Act R(\\" 90.58, the Growth
Management Act W,\\' 36.70, and becomes an element of the City of Yakima's 2025
Com rehensive Plan upon adoption.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing. N/A. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals
subject to SEPA will be required to address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
The Draft CIA shows minimal future growth on shorelines ailicularl in the City limits.
b. Approximately how- many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing. NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals
subject to SEPA will be required to address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structures, not including antennas; what
are the principal exterior building materials proposed? The proposed ordinance limits
building height to the requirements of the Cite of Yakima's Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance. Further the SMP limits height to generally 35 feet except for essential public
facilities or uses with a demonstrated public benefit where impacts to public views and
substantial numbers of residences are avoided consistent with the Shoreline Mana�(yement
Act..
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
The program implements the 35 -foot height restriction in accordance with the Shoreline
Management Act. A variance would be required for any structure that exceeds such
height.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur?
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
............................................................................................................................................................................................................
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views? NIA . This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be
required to address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
..............................................................................................................................................-----_...I.................................................................
12. Recreation
.................................................................................................................................................................
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity? The Yakima Greenway is an intrigue part of the shoreline area as it boarders the
�EL+i��VE
Yakima and Naches Rivers.
DOC,
NDFA
JUL 0 3 2013
CITY OF YAKIMA
PLANNING DiV
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (To be completed, by the applicant)
Space Reserved for
Agency Comments
nts
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? if so, describe.
No. Tile proposed ordinance would enhance the existing recreational uses and allowed for
expansion.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
This proposal addresses public access requirements and development of recreational and
public access facilities.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
.........................................................................................-----...........................................................................................
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific,
or cultural important known to be on or next to the site,
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitig_ation measures.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
The proposed ordinance includes standards for areas with Historic Archaeological and
Cultural resources, includin- a tribal notification s\ -stem for new shoreline permit activity.
1.1. Transportation
........ ....... ........................................
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to
the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and miti��ation measures.
b. is site currently serviced by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance
to the nearest transit stop? NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject
to SEPA will be required to address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? NIA
How many would the project eliminate? NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future
proposals subject to SEPA will be required to address potential impacts and mitigation
measures.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing
roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether
public or private).
No. However, the ordinance contains standards for new transportation development within
the shoreline jurisdiction.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity on water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
Yes, water transportation occurs within the shoreline jurisdiction.
f How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
The SMP would guide development of new water transportation facilities,
RECEiVE
13
INDEX %P
CITY OF YG KIMk
F�.ANNN IV-
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (To be completed, by the applicant)
Space Reserved for
Agency Comments
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (For example: Fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe:
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity, which might be needed.
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subiect to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and miti-ation measures.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse
service, telephone, sanitary sever, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity, which might be needed.
NIA. This is a programmatic action. Future proposals subject to SEPA will be required to
address potential impacts and mitigation measures.
C. SIGNATURE (To be completed by the applicant.)
The above answers are tru and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying
them e its d sion
[on
Property Owner or Agot Signature Date Submitted
PLEASE COMPLETE SECTION "D" ON THE NEXT PAGE
IFTHERE IS NO PROJECT RELATED TO THIS ENVIRONMENITAL "REVI W
0 3 2013
A
]WITIL, MHz
D. SUPPLEMENT SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (To be cbmpleted by the:
Space Reserved For
,applicant.) (DO NOT USE THE FOLLOWING FOR PROJECT ACTIONS-
A encs• Comments
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list
of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the
proposal or the types of activities that would likely result from the proposal and how it would affect
the item at a ;greater intensity or at a taster rate than if the proposal were not implemented.
I. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
implementation of the draft SMP will likely not increase water discharges, air emissions, or
noise levels. The SMP provides a high level of protection to shoreline ecological functions. On
its own. the SMP, which includes the Shoreline Restoration Plan and Cumulative Impacts
Analysis. is expected to protect and improve shorelines within the City of Yakima.
accommodate the limited amount of reasonably foreseeable future shoreline development, and
result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis, based
on a qualitative analysis of the development potential of the jurisdictional shoreline, did not
identify any new adverse impacts to ecological functions or ecosystem-wide processes and
concluded that no net loss of ecolo4gical functions is expected. Site specific development
proposals N% ill be reviewed Ibr compliance with the adopted SMP and regulatory g=uidance.
.................................. _......... ............................................................... _........................................
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
As the proposal will not increase any of the above environmental conditions, no measures to
avoid or reduce these conditions have been proposed.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The draft City of Yakima SMP is predicted to provide a hig=h level of protection to shoreline
ecological functions. On its own. the SMP. which includes the Shoreline Restoration Plan and
Cumulative Impacts Analysis, is expected to protect and improve shorelines within the City of
Yakima, accommodate the limited amount of reasonably foreseeable future shoreline
development. and result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The Cumulative
Impacts Analysis. based on a qualitative analysis of the development potential of the
jurisdictional shoreline, did not identify any new adverse impacts to ecological functions or
ecosystem-wide processes and concluded that no net loss of ecological functions is expected.
Site specific development proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the adopted SMP
and regulatory guidance.
a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
Upon adoption full implementation of the City of Yakima's Draft SMP.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The preparation of an updated SMP is a non -project action. Individual projects submitted for
review under the new SMP will be required to comply with the policies and regulations in the
SMP and the City of Yakima Municipal Code (YMC). The proposed Shoreline Master
Program contains management policies and regulations intended to encourage, and in some
cases require, conservation of natural resources associated with the shoreline, in accordance
with RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26, The SMP does not have a significant effect on energy use.
Consumptive new or redeveloped uses would only be allowed to the extent already planned for
and evaluated in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
See above.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks,
wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime Farmlands?
The updated SMP has been prepared to comply with requirements in State law, including
RECEi
RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26, for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas associated
with shorelines of the State. There are policies and regulations throughout the document that
DOC.
INOEX
,lUL 0 3 2013
CITY OF YAKIMA
PLANNING DIV.
D. SUPPLEMENT SHEET FOR NONPROJ'ECT ACTIONS (To be completed by the
Space Reserved For
,applicant.) DQ NOT USE THE FOLLOWING. FOR PROJECT ACTIONS
A encu Comments
are desioned to protect and preserve shoreline habitat and functioning= conditions. In addition,
the Ciq- has adopted regulations for the protection of critical areas (YMC 15.27) that meet the
Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) requirements. Policies and
re�(,ulations in the master program will enhance public access to the shorelines and encourage
continued protection of sensitive shoreline habitat, including those habitats occupied by state
or federally listed fish and wildlife.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
None proposed.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it
would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
The purpose of the Shoreline Master Program is to manage shorelines by planning for and
fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses while ensuring development that will promote
and enhance the public interest and protect against adverse effects to the public health, the land
and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic lite. The SMP
designates six shoreline environments: Floodwa)- / Channel Mi4gration Zone (CMZ), Urban
Conservancy. High Intensity, Essential Public Facilities. Shoreline Residential, and Aquatic.
Each environment is provided designation criteria and management policies. In addition, the
SMP contains general provisions, policies and regulations for a variety of resources and uses
within the shoreline environments. These management policies, provisions and regulations are
intended to preserve shoreline processes, habitat and functional values, while giving preference
to water -dependent and water -related uses and encouraging public access. Uses with a
significant negative impact are prohibited or regulated so as to minimize impacts on the
shoreline environment.
The SMP has been evaluated for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and
municipal code.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
None proposed
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
The proposed zoning changes would not be likely to increase demand on the transportation or
public service system and utilities as the regulatory changes only address processing of various
land use applications.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
None proposed,
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposal, if adopted, will comply with and implement the Shoreline Management Act,
RCW 90.58.
% OF YAK]Mi
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — PROPOSED CHAPTER 17
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
TXT#003-13, SEPA#013-13
EXHIBIT LIST
CHAPTER G
Public Notices
", �s Y„
77-7
,a,,
G-1
Notice of Application, Environmental Review, and YPC
07/09/2013
Public Hearing
G -1a: Legal Notice and Press Release
G -lb: Parties and Agencies Notified
G -lc: Affidavit of Mailing
G-2
Notice to Department of Commerce of Intent to Adopt
07/10/2013
Amendment
G-3
Notice from Department of Commerce Regarding
07/15/2013
Confirmation of Materials Received
G-4
Notice of DNS and Retention
08/02/2013
G -4a: Parties and Agencies Notified
G -4b: Affidavit of Mailing
G-5
YPC Packet & Agenda Distribution List
08/22/2013
G-6
VPC Agenda
08/28/2013
Phone (510 , 5 7.: :" �33 aFar (tl" 9) 575 5 6 �0��'�
City of Yakima Planning Commission
PUBLIC HEARING
City Hall Council Chambers
Wednesday August 2B, 2013
3:30 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; Jeff Peters, Associate
Planner; Chris Wilson, Assistant Planner, and Rosalinda Ibarra, Administrative Assistant
Agenda
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Staff Announcements
IV. General Audience Participation Not Associated with an Item on the Agenda
V. PUBLIC HEARING:
• Shoreline Master Program update (TXT#003-13, SEPA#013-13)
(This packet is available online at: www. akimawa, ov service alapnin& under
Quick Links)
VI. Other Business
VII. Adjourn to September 94, 2013 at 2:00 pm in the Council Chambers
YPC Members & Interested Parties - Shoreline Master Program Update - TXT#003-13, SEPA#013-13
Scott Clark
7506 Barge Court
Yakima, WA 98908
Alfred A. Rose
1006 Westbrook Place
Yakima, WA 98908
----------------------
Ron Anderson
103 S 3rd St Ste#203
Yakima, WA 98902
Mike Morton
2105 Terrace Heights Drive
Yakima, WA 98901
Lenord Jordan
Lior461ecv.wa.eov
David Buchanan
davidlbucha nanllake.com
Dave Franklund
David.franklundkdfarchitecture.com
William Sauriol
sauriow@wsdot.wa. ov
Yakima County Dike District #1
Larry Meeks
1918 Riverside Road
Yakima, WA 98901
WA State Dept of Transportation
c/o Paul Gonseth
2809 Rudkin Road
Yakima, WA 98903
Dave Fonfara
8708 Cameo Court
Yakima, WA 98903
Paul Stelzer
6402 Scenic Drive
Yakima, WA 98908
Dowd Luce
2010 Evergreen Court
Yakima, WA 98902
dvdluce mail,com
Christine Parsons
,Chrlist,ine.parsons@park.wa.gov
Department of Fish & Wildlife
Eric Bartrand
1701 South 24'" Avenue
Yakima, WA 98902
Eriic-bairtrand@dfw.wa.gov
Yakima County Public Services
Joel Freudenthal
128 N 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Joel .freudenthal co. akima.wa.us
.«up-W.Iim
«
Patti Schneider
Schneiderdevelo aol.com
Yakama Nation
Phil Rigdon, Deputy Director of Natural
Resources
PO Box 151
Toppenish, WA 98948
Benjamin W. Shoval
123 East Yakima Avenue, Ste#210
Yakima, WA 98901
William Cook
7701 Graystone Court
Yakima, WA 98908
Dianna Woods
Yakima County Water Resources
Dia inn a,woods@co.va kimama.us
John Marvin
760 Pence Road
Yakima, WA 98909
Lmarvin@yakama.com
Betsy loo field
bets bloomfield cowichecan on.or
Tami Cain
CPM Yakima/ CMG Northwest
tcain oldcastlematerials.com
Jana McDonald
OMG Northwest
i,mcdonald@o,,I,dcastll,ematerial,s.com
Tod Smith
Tsrnth1011mac.com
Heaverlo Properties LLC
c/o Jesse Heaverlo
1212 Keys Road
Yakima, WA 98901
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON
CITY OF YAKIMA
RE: SEPA#013-13, TXT#003-13
City Planning Division - Shoreline Master Program Update _
City wide
1, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the Yakima City Planning Division, have
dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of DNS and Retention. A
true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was
addressed to the applicant, listed SEPA agencies, and all interested parties of
record. That said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list
retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on
the 2nd day of Aug st, 2013.
That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the
statements made herein are just and true.
i
Rosalinda Ibarra
Administrative Assistant
INDEX
YPC Members & Interested . ties - Shoreline Master Program Up =e - TXT4003-13, SEPA#013-13
Scott Clark
7506 Barge Court
Yakima, WA 98908
Alfred A. Rose
1006 Westbrook Place
Yakima, WA 98908
Ron Anderson
103 S 3rd St Ste#203
Yakima, WA 98902
Mike Morton
2105 Terrace Heights Drive
Yakima, WA 98901
Lenord Jordan
David Buchanan
david@buchananiake.com
Dave Franklund
David, franklund kdf arch itectu re.
com
William Sauriol
sauriow wsdot.wa.eov
Yakima County Dike District #1
1918 Riverside Road
Yakima, WA 98901
WA State Dept of Transportation
c/o Paul Gonseth
2809 Rudkin Road
Yakima, WA 98903
Dave Fonfara
8708 Cameo Court
Yakima, WA 98903
Paul Stelzer
6402 Scenic Drive
Yakima, WA 98908
Dowd Luce
2010 Evergreen Court
Yakima, WA 98902
dvdluce mail.com
Christine Parsons
Christine. arsons arkowaa ov
Eric Bartrand
Eric.bartrand dfw wa. ov
Joel Freudenthal
Lo�frednthaldco.r akima.wa.us
Patti Schneider
-�O O.
Benjamin W. Shoval
123 East Yakima Avenue, Ste#210
Yakima, WA 98901
William Cook
7701 Graystone Court
Yakima, WA 98908
Dianna Woods
Yakima County Water Resources
2qnna.woods _ co.vakima wa us
John Marvin
760 Pence Road
Yakima, WA 98909
"marvin akamaPcom
Betsy Bloom field
betsybloo fo dd cowich�n.
or
Tam! Cain
CPM Yakima/ OMG Northwest
tcain oldcastlematerlals.com
Jana McDonald
OMG Northwest
imcdonald olcicastlematerials,co
m
Yakama Nation
Phil Rigdon, Deputy Director of Natural Heaverlo Properties LLC
Resources c/o Jesse Heaverlo
PO Box 151 1212 Keys Road
Toppenish, WA 98948 Yakima, WA 98901
T -+IS -'3
INDEX
Ahtanum Irrigation District Ca%6ade Natu'ral Gas Department of Commerce
Beth Ann Brulotte Executive Assistant Jim Robinson Field Facilitator Growth Management Services
—ahtanqm.--net Jim robinsonLt�cn!-,c.con mvit-,wteam
. ............... ................... . . ............... . .. erce,Nva
.��,coniin, —,. —
Department of Ecology
Annie Szvetecz SEPA Policy Lead
Department of Social & Health Services
Andrew Jenkins
aia J,g.:Qi.hals a d. .mly
Jeanne Rodriguez
Jeanne.im
I . .......... —�.Anl jUP
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council -
EFSEC
Stephen Posner SEPA Officer
a) _o,: —n earLi L, t�;
Office ol'Rural and Farm Worker Housing
Marty Miller
Nlartyrp, (F g!fliL)r
West Valley School District
Angela Watts Asst. Supt. Of Business &
Operations
Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bud Robbins Superintendent
Bud.rob 31 , (,
a,)V
Yakama Nation Environmental Management
Program
Kristina Proszek Environmental Review
Coordinator
�
enviroreview, a cania com r _&yj—
Yakima County Commissioners
e
Conmiissin
oe.rsb, 1, Li�)ra
- -------------- -
Yakima County Public Services
Vern Redifer Public Services Director
Vern.redifg1p(Lee . L.s
Verna .. ....... ...
Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency
Hasan Tahat Engineering & Planning
Supervisor
dn(evyr !�ag qo
, _,a.,
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Eric Bartrand
Dept of Archaeology & Historic
Preservation
Preservation Officer
Engineering Division
Doug Mayo City Engineer
dmaivn'(,,(V.c.i. yakirn-a.majis
.. . .................... .
Dana Kallevig
levi aw
&(L
. . . . . .... . ......... -
U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, Regulatory
Branch
Karen Urelius Project Manager
WSDOT
Paul Gonseth Planning Engineer
nyv
Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs
Steve Wangemann Deputy Superintendent
for Trust Services
S.I.ey e.....wn..g.ernannbia,,!.(Yv
Yakama-Klickitat Fisheries Project
John Marvin
j.aqa io. La, aliania. ogrn
Yakima County Health District
Yakima Greenway Foundation
Al Brown Executive Direct IDOC
'I
a Q_uyatLnK g Ea iLr
_g IND
Yakima Valley Conference of Governments
Shawn Conrad Planner
con,
Department of Natural Resources
Linda Hazlett Assistant Land Manager
I -i nd a.hazleta,�jdkE.
... ... ........ . ..... . ...... -Ea goy
Dept of Archaeology & Historic
Preservation
Gretchen Kaehler Local Government
Archaeologist
G.r.e.t.c b. a e h.
Nob Hill Water Association
Eric Rhoads
Wastewater Division
Scott Schafer Wastewater Manager
WSDOT
Rick Holmstrom Development Services
holmmnld,%ysdoi,)A�
Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs
Rocco Clark Environmental Coordinator
Rocc4),C1grkdhjgMy
............ . . —..
Yakima Air Terminal
Carl Remmel Airport Asst Manager
Call.teum.1c] 1mHdrtq
. ...........
trm i _KV111 I C10 I I I
Yakima County Public Services
Steven Erickson Planning Director
-hima.-kya. uisi
Yakima Health District
Gordon Kelly Director of Environmental
Health
Yakima Valley Museum
John A. Baule Director
manager
Century Link
8 South 2nd Ave, Rni#304
Yakima, WA 98902
David Spurlock
City of Union Gap
P.O. Box 3008
Union Gap, WA 98903
Mark Teske
1e7mvie-jjt cf Fish
201 North Pearl
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Cayla Morgan
•
Airports District Office
1601 Lind Ave SW
Renton, WA 98055-4056
Ray Wondercheck
Soil Conservation District
1606 Perry Street, Ste. F
Yakima, WA 98902
I'll -eTG1TnrrM1r19y'rI —ce
1433 Lakeside Court, Ste# 102
Yakima, WA 98902
7P.0. Box 151
Toppenish, "WA 9892'01
Robert Smoot
1640 Garretson Lane
Yakima, WA 98908
10 North 9th Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Kelly McLain
P.O. Box 42560
Olympia, WA 98504
Enviroiimental Protection Agency
1200 6th Ave. MS 623
Seattle, WA 98 101
•
Z I"YMTM AT i a 11-3
PO Box 40909
Olympia, WA 98504
Paul Edmondson
Trolleys
313 North 3rd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Christine Collins
WA State Dept of Health, Office of
Drinking Water
16201 E Indiana Ave, Ste# 1500
Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Ruth Jim
Yakama Indian Natil
F` -O. Box 151
Toppenish,
Scott Robertson
Yakima Waste Systems
Yakima, WA 98901
SEPA REVIEWING AGENCIES Form List _updated 03.13,2013
Kevin Chilcote
Charter Communications
1005 North 16th Ave
Yakima, WA 98902
Gwen Clear
Department of Ecology
15 West Yakima Ave, Ste# 200
Yakima, WA 98902
Federal Aviation Administration
2200 W. Washington Ave
Yakima, WA 98903
Mike Paulson
Pacific Power
500 North Keys Rd
Yakima, WA 98901
Jeff McKee
United States Postal Service
205 W Washington Ave
Yakima, WA 98903
Robert Hodgman
WSDOT, Aviation Division
818 79th Avenue, Ste B
Turnwater, WA 98504-7335
Elaine Beraza
Yakima School District
104 North 4th Ave
Yakima, WA 98902
Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District
Sandra Hull
470 Camp 4 Rd
Yakima, WA 99908
W
Type of Notice: 3 S
File Number: SEN
Date of Mailing:
DOC.
INDEX
Name
In -House Distribution E-mail List
Division E-mail Address
Debbie Cook
Engineering
Debbie.cook@yakimawa.gov
Dana Kallevig
Dan Riddle
Engineering
Engineering
dana.kallevigkvakimawa.gov
dan.riddle@yakimawa.gov
Mark Kunkler
Legal Dept
Mark. kunkler(&,vak imawa. Loy
Jeff Cutter
Legal Dept
1efficutter6&,yakimawa. gov
Archie Matthews
ONDS
archie.matthews@yakimawa.gov
Mark Soptich
Fire Dept
mark. soptichgyakimawa. gov
Jerry Robertson
Royale Schneider
Glenn Denman
Suzanne DeBusschere
Code Administration
Code Administration
Code Administration
Code Administration
jerry.robertsonEakimqwa.go
royal q. schneiderkyak imawa. Vov
-glenn. enrnangyakitnawa.gov
Suzanne.debusschereVyakimawa.go
Dave Brown
Water/Irrigation
dave.browngyakimawa.gov
Mike Shane
Water/Irrigation
mike.shane@yakimawa.gov
Carolyn Belles
Wastewater
carol y-n.bellesavakimawa.pov
Shelley Willson
Wastewater
Shelley.willsongyakimawa.gov
Scott Schafer
Public Works Dept
scott.schafer@yakimawa.gov
James Dean
Utilities
Jarnes.deankyakimawa. gov
James Scott
Refuse Division
James.scottQyakimawa.gov
Kevin Futrell
Transit Division
kevin.futrellgyakimawa..gov
Steve Osguthorpe
Community
Development
steve.osguthorr)e@yakimawa.gov
Forte Record/File
Binder Copy
Revised 07/2013
Type of Notice: n�r. cf 704S Rq k
File Number(s): <-:2E PA IT ) (;_S- 1-3
Date of Mailing:
01 6
CIIXI,oIvw
Ibarra, Rosalinda
From:
Ibarra, Rosalinda
Sent:
Friday, August 02, 2013 1:13 PM
To:
Ahtanum Irrigation District - Beth Ann Brulotte; Cascade Natural Gas - Jim Robinson;
Department of Commerce (CTED) - Review Team; Department of Ecology - SEPA Unit;
Department of Fish and Wildlife - Eric Bartrand; Department of Natural Resources - Linda
Hazlett; Department of Social & Health Services - Andrew Jenkins; Department of Social &
Health Services - Jeanne Rodriguez; Dept Archaeology & Historic Preservation - Greg Griffith;
Dept Archaeology & Historic Preservation - Gretchen Kaehler; Desgrosellier, Bob; Energy
Facility Site Evaluation Council - Stephen Posner; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Nob Hill
Water - Eric Rhoads; Office of Rural & Farmworker Housing - Marty Miller; Riddle, Dan; US
Army Corps of Engineers - Karen M. Urelius; Schafer, Scott; West Valley School District -
Angela Watts; WSDOT - Paul Gonseth; WSDOT - Rick Holmstrom; Yakama Bureau of Indian
Affairs - Bud Robbins; Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs - Rocco Clark; Yakama Bureau of
Indian Affairs - Steve Wangemann; Yakama Nation Environmental Mgmt Program - Kristina
Proszek; Yakama-Klickitat Fisheries - John Marvin; Remmel, Lee; Yakima County
Commissioners; Yakima County Health District; Yakima County Planning Director - Steven
Erickson; Yakima County Public Services Director, Vern Redifer; Yakima Greenway
Foundation - Al Brown; Yakima Health District - Gordon Kelly; Yakima Regional Clean Air
Agency - Hasan Tahat; Yakima Valley Conference of Governments - Shawn Conrad; Yakima
Valley Museum - John A. Baule; Belles, Carolyn; Brown, David; Cook, Debbie; Cutter, Jeff;
Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Futrell, Kevin; Kunkler, Mark;
Matthews, Archie; Osguthorpe, Steve; Robertson, Jerry; Schafer, Scott; Schneider, Royale;
Scott, James; Shane, Mike; Soptich, Mark; Willson, Shelley
Cc:
'dvdluce@gmail. com'; 'Dianna Woods'; 'christine.parsons@parks.wa.gov'; 'Yakama-Klickitat
Fisheries - John Marvin'; 'Ijor461 @ecy.wa.gov; 'Department of Fish and Wildlife - Eric
Bartrand';'betsybloomfield@cowichecanyon.org'; 'david@buchananlake.com';
'Joel.freudenthal@co.yakima.wa.us'; 'tcain@oldcastlematerials. com';
'david.franklund@kdfarchitecture.com'; 'flemink@wsdot.wa.gov';
'jmcdonald@oldcastlematerials.com'; 'sauriow@wsdot.wa.gov'; 'schneiderdevelop@aol.com;
'tsmith1011@mac.com'; Al Rose; Alfred A. Rose (silvrfx40@bk,net); Benjamin W. Shoval
(ben.shoval@shoval.com); Dave Fonfara; Ensey, Rick; Paul Stelzer; Ron Anderson
(rondedicatedrealty@hotmail.com); Scott Clark (scott.clark@charter. net); William Cook
(cook.w@charter.net)
Subject:
DNS - NOTICE OF RETENTION - City of Yakima Planning - SMP Update - SEPA#013-13
Attachments:
DNS - NTC OF RETENTION - SMP Update - SEPA013-13.pdf
Rosalinda Ibarra
Community Development Administrative Assistant
rosalinda.ibarra(R7yakimawa.gov
City of Yakima i Planning Division
129 North 2nd Street, Yakima WA 98901
p: (509) 575-6183 * f: (509) 575-6105
11011111�
CITY OF YAKIMA
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE
NOTICE OF RETENTION
August 2, 2013
SEPA File No. 012-13
The City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development issued a:
[X] Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS),
[ ] Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS),
[ ] Modified DNSIMDNS,
On July 9, 2013, for this proposal under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and
WAC 197-11-340(2). This retention concerns environmental review of the non -project
action of updating the City of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program, replacing in its
entirety the Yakima County Shoreline Master Program, Adopted September 5, 1974, by
City of Yakima, establish a new Title 17 Shoreline Master Program, and amending the
City of Yakima's 2025 Comprehensive Plan 2025 Natural Element chapter to include a
new section titled Shorelines Master Program Goals and Policies which reflects the
proposed goals and policies of the City's draft Shoreline Master Program. In accordance
with the Guidelines, the updated SMP is intended to accommodate appropriate shoreline
development while also achieving no net loss of existing shoreline ecological functions. .
This threshold determination is hereby:
[X] Retained
[ ] Modified. Modifications to this threshold determination include the following:
[ ] Withdrawn. This threshold determination has been withdrawn due to the following:
[ ] Delayed. A final threshold determination has been delayed due to the following:
Summary of Comments and Responses (if applicable): None
Responsible official: Steve Os uthor e
Position/Title: Community Development Director/SEPA Responsible Official
Phone: 509 575-6183
Address: 129 N 2 nd Street Yakima WA 98901
Date: August 2, 2013 Signature: ,
You may appeal this determination to Steve Osguthorpe Community Development
Director, 129 N 2"d St., Yakima, WA 98901, no later than August 19, 2013. You must
submit a completed appeal application form with the $580 application fee. Be prepared
to make specific factual objections. Contact the City of Yakima, Planning Division, for
information on appeal procedures.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
1077 Plum Sneer SE • PO Box 42525 • Olympia, Washingran 98504-2515 &- (36,0) 725-4000
VIAV1,04COMmerCe.v1a,g0V
July 15, 2013
Jeff Peters
Associate Planner
City of Yakima
129 North 2nd Street
Yakima, Washington 98901
Dear Mr. Peters:
Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) the following materials as
required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural
requirement.
City of Yakima - Proposed Shoreline Master Program update. These materials were received on July
10, 2013 and processed with the Material ID # 19332.
We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies.
If this submitted material is an adopted amendment, then please keep this letter as documentation that you
have met the procedural requirement under RCW 36.70A.106.
If you have submitted this material as a draft amendment, then final adoption may occur no earlier than sixty
days following the date of receipt by Commerce. Please remember to submit the final adopted amendment
to Commerce within ten days of adoption.
If you have any questions, please contact Growth Management Services at
reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov, or call Dave Andersen (509) 434-4491 or Paul Johnson (360) 725-3048.
Sincerely,
Review Team
Growth Management Services
Department of Commerce
�uifioii��mi� mi�luui Illuumiu
Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment
60 Days Prior to Adoption
Indicate one (or both, if applicable):
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment
® Development Regulation Amendment
Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the following jurisdiction provides notice of intent to adopt a
proposed comprehensive plan amendment and/or development regulation amendment under
the Growth Management Act.
Jurisdiction:
City of Yakima Planning Division
Mailing Address:
129 N. 2" Street, Yakima, WA 98901
Date:
July 10, 2013
Contact Name:
Jeff Peters
Title/Position:
Associate Planner
Phone Number:
509-575-6163
E-mail Address:
jeff.peters@yakimawa.gov
Brief Description of the
The City of Yakima is updating its Shoreline Master
Proposed/Draft Amendment:
Program (SMP) (Currently not formally incorporated
If this draft amendment is provided
within the Yakima City Code). This action implements
to supplement an existing 60 -day
the Washington State Shoreline Management Act
notice already submitted, then
(Chapter 90.58 RCW), which governs the development
please provide the date the original
of Washington's shorelines. Local jurisdictions are
notice was submitted and the
required to update their SMP's in accordance with the
Commerce Material ID number
Guidelines of Washington State Administrative Code
(located in your Commerce
(WAC) 173-26, which was revised in 2003 to reflect
acknowledgement letter)
current knowledge regarding shoreline management
and science.
This proposed non -project action would replace in its
entirety the Yakima County Shoreline Master Program,
Adopted September 5, 1974, by City of Yakima,
establish a new Title 17 Shoreline Master Program, and
amend the City of Yakima's 2025 Comprehensive Plan
2025 Natural Element chapter to include a new section
titled Shorelines Master Program Goals and Policies
which reflects the proposed goals and policies of the
City's draft Shoreline Master Program.
Rev 0112013 INDEX
ii# A
REQUIRED: Attach or include a copy the proposed amendment text.
Rev 01 /2013
In accordance with the Guidelines, the updated SMP is
intended to accommodate appropriate shoreline
development while also achieving no net loss of
existing shoreline ecological functions. Legally
established existing development would generally be
considered conforming under this master program.
Is this action part of the periodic
review and update? GMA
Yes:
requires review every 8 years under
No: X
RQW 3q.70A.93 4L- 1.
Public Hearing Date:
Planning Board/Commission: August 28, 2013
Council/County Commission: October 1, 2013
Proposed Adoption Date:
October 4, 2013
REQUIRED: Attach or include a copy the proposed amendment text.
Rev 01 /2013
Peters, Jeff
To: reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov
Subject: City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program Update
Attachments: City of Yakima SMP GMS-Plan-Dev-Reg-Review-Commerce-Notice-60-Day.doc; City of
Yakima SMP - Draft 7.1.13 FINAL.pdf; Yakima CIA 7.1.13 rev - low res.pdf
To whom it may concern,
The City of Yakima is in the process of updating its Shoreline Master Program as required by the Washington State
Department of Ecology. This proposed non -project action and accompanying ordinance would replace in its entirety the
Yakima County Shoreline Master Program, Adopted September 5, 1974, by City of Yakima, establish a new Title 17
Shoreline Master Program in the City of Yakima's Municipal Code, and amend the City of Yakima's 2025 Comprehensive
Plan 2025 Natural Element chapter to include a new section titled Shorelines Master Program Goals and Policies which
reflects the proposed goals and policies of the City's draft Shoreline Master Program.
In accordance with the Guidelines, the updated SMP is intended to accommodate appropriate shoreline development
while also achieving no net loss of existing shoreline ecological functions.
In accordance with the requirements of the state department of Commerce the City of Yakima is transmitting the
required 60 -day Notice of Intent to Adopt and accompany ordinance on this day July 10, 2013. Should you or any of
your staff have questions about the attached documents, please feel free to contact me Jeff Peters at (509) 575-6163.
Sincerely,
Jeff Peters
Associate Planner
City of Yakima
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON
CITY OF YAKIMA
RE: SEPA#013-13, TXT#003-13
City Planning Division - Shoreline Master Program Update
Citv wide
I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division,
have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Application,
Environmental Review, and Yakima Planning Commission Public Hearing. A
true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was
addressed to the applicant; and SEPA reviewing agencies. That said are
individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that
said notices were mailed by me on the 9th day of T 2013.
That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the
statements made herein are just and true.
Ros linda Ibarra
Community Development
Administrative Assistant
18131411422
18137412557' - p
1 18131412403
1420 NORTH 16TH AVENUE LLC
ASPEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
ASPEN VIEW PROPERTIES LLC
1320 N 16TH AVE # A
2005 LAKEVIEW DR
PO BOX 100
YAKIMA, WA 98902
YAKIMA, WA 989021285
SELAH, WA 989420100
18131412564
18131412521
18131412520
ASPEN VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
BAKER FAMILY HOLDING TRUST
BARNHILL FAMILY TRUST
2005 LAKEVIEW DR
2007 LAKEVIEW DR
2009 LAKEVIEW DR
YAKIMA, WA 989021285
YAKIMA, WA 98902
YAKIMA, WA 989021285
19132912018
18131411434
18131243001
BLT ARBOR TRUST
BORTON C A STORAGE
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RR
440 SCHILLING RD
3216 FRUITVALE BLVD #D
PO BOX 961089
LYLE, WA 98635
YAKIMA, WA 98902
FORT WORTH, TX 761610089
19132031900
18131044003
1.9132021014
CENTRAL PREMIX CONCRETE
CHIAWANA INC
CURT BANEY INC
PO BOX 3366TA
3107 RIVER RD
475 NE BELLEVUE DR #210
SPOKANE, WA 992203366
YAKIMA, WA 98902
BEND, OR 97701
18131411421
18131412522
19133312006
DUCK VIEW LLC
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP
FISCUS MOTOR FREIGHT INC
1440 N 16TH AVE
5000 PLANO PKWY
1818 RIVERSIDE RD
YAKIMA, WA 989027112
CARROLLTON, TX 750104902
YAKIMA, WA 98901
19132012403
19132011024
19132831006
GWH HAH JHP TRUSTS
HARCO REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS LLC
HEAVERLO PROPERTIES LLC
PO BOX 9755
17035 W VALLEY HWY
1212 KEYS RD
YAKIMA, WA 98909
TUKWILA, WA 98188
YAKIMA, WA 98901
19132843403
18131411418
19132012001
HUYLAR LLC
JSG RENTAL LLC
KARS LAND LLC
517 LOCUST AVE
PO BOX 743
2117 TERRACE HEIGHTS DR
YAKIMA, WA 98901
SELAH, WA 98942
YAKIMA, WA 989012126
19132843007
18131412554
18131411405
KERMIT M ZARLEY JR LIVING TRUST
LAKE ASPEN ENTERPRISES LLC
LAKE ASPEN ENTERPRISES LLC
16600 N THOMSON PK PKWY #2081
2550 BORTON RD
3216 FRUITVALE BLVD #D
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260
YAKIMA, WA 98903
YAKIMA, WA 98902
18131411431
18131144400
18131111002
LAKE ASPEN PROPERTIES LLC
LAKE EDGE ENTERPRISES LLC
LOOKOUT POINT
4725 KONNOWAC PASS
5816 SCENIC DR
3020 S UNION AVE
WAPATO, WA 98951
YAKIMA, WA 98908
TACOMA, WA 984093317
19130723003
18131411424
19131743401
ISL, PROPERTIES LLC
LUKEHART & LUKEHART LLC
MORTON & SONS INC
PO BOX 9337
PO BOX 1125
2105 TERRACE HEIGHTS DR
YAKIMA, WA 989099337
YAKIMA, WA 989071125
AW� INK
uuu
19132842007 `
YAKIMA, WA 989012126
19132831014
18131422423
MS RIVER PARK LLCNDEX
101 HODENCAMP # 200
OLIVER ENTERPRISE LLC
PIPER HALE PROPERTIES LLC
9875 B1TI'NER RD
j=VEADOWBROOK LN
THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91360
YAKIMA, WA 98901
ZILLAH, WA 98953
18130924004
PUBLIC SERVICESCOUNTY ROAD
128 N 2ND ST 4TH FL
YAKIMA, WA 98901
19132012003
ROZA IRRIGATION DIST
PO BOX 810
SUNNYSIDE, WA 98944
18130941008
SQUIRE INGHAM CO
5231 W POWERHOUSE RD
YAKIMA, WA 98908
18131421424
THE NOEL CORPORATION
1001 S 1ST ST
YAKIMA, WA 989013403
19130731001
WASHINGTON STATE
207 GEN ADMIN BLDG
OLYMPIA, WA 98504
18131511004
WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF GAME
600 CAPITOL WAY N
OLYMPIA, WA 985011076
18131031001
YAKIMA CITY
129 N 2ND ST
YAKIMA, WA 989012613
19131732420
ALBERT E & JOANNIE L HELM
1412 HARTFORD RD
YAKIMA, WA 98901
18130942019
BILL B & SUSIE D FARRIS
5305 CLOVER LN
YAKIMA, WA 98908
18131412562
CHERRYL RAMOS MURRI
2004 LAKEVIEW DR
YAKIMA, WA 98901
19132011020
CLARENCE G & MARILYN J WYSS
704 BEACON AVE
YAKIMA, WA 98901
"8130913004
i'UBLIC SERVICESFLOOD CONTROL
128 N 2ND ST 4TH FL
YAKIMA, WA 98901
19132027015
S R INNCO INC
475 NE BELLEVUE DR #210
BEND, OR 97701
19132834003
STATE OF WA DEFT OF TRANSPORTATION
PO BOX 12560
YAKIMA, WA 989092560
18131144403
TRMR LLC
6601 N FORK RD
YAKIMA, WA 989039083
19131733001
WASHINGTON STATE DOT
PO BOX 12560
YAKIMA, WA 989092560
18131133400
WILLOW LAKE CONDOMINIUM MASTER
2300 RIVER RD #46
YAKIMA, WA 989026201
19132012402
YAKIMA GREENWAY FOUNDATION
111 S 18TH ST
YAKIMA, WA 989012149
19132014429
ALBERT R & VERNA M COLEMAN
402 KEYS RD
YAKIMA, WA 98901
18131412515
BLAINE L TAMAKI
1225 N 22ND AVE
YAKIMA, WA 98902
18131412455
CHRISTOPHER HEATH
2300 RIVER RD #41
YAKIMA, WA 98902
19132014431 IIV
CRYSTAL HILL
312 1/ 2 KEYS RD
YAKIMA, WA 98901
I
18131042003
'PUBLIC SERVICESFLOOD CONTROL
128 N 2ND ST 4TH FL
YAKIMA, WA 98901
18131412510
SMITH LIVING TRUST
2004 EVERGREEN Cr
YAKIMA, WA 98901
19132132015
STATE OF WASHINGTON
PO BOX 42650
OLYMPIA, WA 985042669
19132831012
UNITED STATES DEPT OF INTERIOR
1917 MARSH RD
YAKIMA, WA 98901
19132011035
WASHINGTON STATE PARKS
7150 CLEARWATER LANE
OLYMPIA, WA 985040001
19131731008
YAKIMA CHRISTAIN BROADCASTING
PO BOX 31000
SPOKANE, WA 99223
19132834001
ALAN S FINCH
139802 W JOHNSON RD
PROSSER, WA 99350
19131723405
B & J TRINIDAD RAMIREZ
1411 HARTFORD RD
YAKIMA, WA 98901
18131412402
CHARLOTTE MANTOOTH SEIP
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
2311 RIVER RD
19130724002
CHUCK & TERRY L GOECKLER
301 MCPHEE RD
NACRES, WA 98937
19132014439
DAN L POLITTE
1915 FRUITVALE BLVD
YAKIMA, WA 989021242
18131411429
1 18131412534' -
1 19132842008
DAVID & CHARLENE & RODNEY &
)AVID W & FLORENCE B COTRUSTEES
,DON R & SHARON L RUSSELL
FRANKLUND
WILLIAMS
1310 N 16TH AVE
2005 WHITE PINE CT
1008 N 1ST ST
YAKIMA, WA 98902
YAKIMA, WA 989021284
YAKIMA, WA 98901
19132014419
19131722404
18131214011
DONNA L PRICKETT TRUST
DWIGHT & KAREN LAURVICK
EMOGENE M MAYER
304 KEYS RD
1400 MARSH RD
804 W RIVERVIEW AVE
YAKIMA, WA 989012114
YAKIMA, WA 989012049
SELAH, WA 989421555
19132014438
19132011018
18131412535
FELICIANO & ANTONIA BENITEZ
FLOYD J & PAMALA BLINSKY
GARY J & BARBARA L MORFORD
923 E CHESTNUT AVE
210 KEYS RD
5340 FORT RD
YAKIMA, WA 98901
YAKIMA, WA 98901
TOPPENISH, WA 98948
18131411543
19131723404
18131412523
GERALD G PURKHISER
GLEN HICKS
GLENN PATRICK & PEGGY JANE
1221 N 20TH AVE
810 N 15TH ST
FEWEL
YAKIMA, WA 98902
YAKIMA, WA 98901
2003 LAKEVIEW DR
YAKIMA - WA 99909
18131412517
18131412450
18131411423
GLORIA A ANDERSON
GUY & CAROL LOUDON
HARLAN D & BARBARA DUNN
1221 N 22ND AVE
2300 RIVER RD
4725 KONNOWAC PASS RD
YAKIMA, WA 98902
YAKIMA, WA 989021292
WAPATO, WA 989519671
18131411430
18131412503
18131412561
J L SMITH
JACK & DOROTHY MC GUIRE
JAMES D & CONSTANCE S CARR
1320 N 16TH AVE STE A
2011 EVERGREEN CT
2002 LAKEVIEW DR
YAKIMA, WA 989021390
YAKIMA, WA 98902
YAKIMA, WA 989021285
19132812008
19132041422
18131412516
JASON & RAY JR FOWLER
JEFF & JANET JORGENSON BAUDINO
JERALD W & PATRICIA KILGROW
1006 S KEYS RD
502 VICTORY LANE
1223 N 22ND AVE
YAKIMA, WA 98901
YAKIMA, WA 98901
YAKIMA, WA 989021211
18131412443
19132014435
19132132027
JOHN & DOROTHY WOLF
JOHN F & LORENE ANDERSON
JOYCE F BERRY
2300 RIVER RD # 29
424 VICTORY LN
605 KEYES RD
YAKIMA, WA 989026201
YAKIMA, WA 989012133
YAKIMA, WA 98901
18131412533
19133312410
18131411539
KENNETH JOSEPH LEINGANG
L EDWARD & MARY ANN MEEKS
LLOYD H & GLORIA A BUTLER
2007 WHITE PINE CT
1918 RIVERSIDE RD
1214 N 20TH AVE
YAKIMA, WA 989021284
YAKIMA, WA 989019525
YAKIMA, WA 98902
19131723004
19132134003
19132834402
LOREN F. PATTERSON
827 N
MARGARET HOECH
DOC.
MARILYN ZARLEY
15TH ST
734 KEYS RD
16600 N THOMPSON PEAK PKY # 2081
YAKIMA, WA 989012003
YAKIMA, WA 98901 INDEX
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260
18131411540
Tr
18131412555
19131732409
MARK & SHERRY NEEDHAM
MARK P & MARCIA D JOHNSON
MELVIN D & SANDRA M ZIER
1216 N 20TH AVE
614 S 24TH AVE
718 N 15TH ST
YAKIMA, WA 989021209
YAKIMA, WA 98902
YAKIMA, WA 98901
19132041407
MICHAEL WEILER
512 KEYS RD
YAKIMA, WA 98901
19132041404
OLA R HADDICAN
518 KEYS RD
YAKIMA, WA 989012118
18131034001
PETER P HELM
4151 FRUITVALE BLVD
YAKIMA, WA 98908
18131411537
RANDOLPH LEE WALKER
1210 N 20TH AVE
YAKIMA, WA 98902
18130914004
RICHARD JOHNSON
PO BOX 2076
YAKIMA, WA 989072076
19130713404
RICHARD B & KATHLEEN HALL
931 REST HAVEN RD
YAKIMA, WA 989019381
19131743403
RICHARD F ET AL MORTON
2105 TERRACE HEIGHTS DR
YAKIMA, WA 989012126
19130724401
RICK E. DAVIS
981 REST HAVEN RD
YAKIMA, WA 98901
18131242004
ROBERT O ABRAHAMSON
2008 N 1ST ST
YAKIMA, WA 989011735
18131412454
ROGER C & NORMA D PHILLIPS
2300 RIVER RD UNIT 40
YAKIMA, WA 98902
18131412509
ROSS KATZ
2002 EVERGREEN COURT
YAKIMA, WA 98902
V 18131412560 '
vIICHAEL D & PATRICIA LINDSEY
j 2000 LAKEVIEW DR
YAKIMA, WA 98902
18131412532
PATRICIA SCHNEIDER
2009 WHITE PINE CT
YAKIMA, WA 98902
18131412514
PHILIP D & KAREN RODENBERGER
2012 EVERGREEN Cr
YAKIMA, WA 989021200
19132041406
RAWLEY & DONA AURAND
516 KEYS RD
YAKIMA, WA 989012118
19131732421
RICHARD & CARIE BOCK
1406 HARTFORD RD
YAKIMA, WA 98901
18131412536
RICHARD F & COLLEEN STRAIN
1208 N 20TH AVE
YAKIMA, WA 98902
19132132006
RICHARD J & ROXANNE STEVENS
4771 S WENAS RD
SELAH, WA 98942
19132044002
RIVER SLIVER TRUST %A B BUCHANAN
BLT
440 SCHILLING RD
LYLE, WA 98635
18131412423
RODNEY RIGGS
PO BOX 702
SELAH, WA 989420702
19131722006
RONALD V SMITH
5403 TUMAC DR
YAKIMA, WA 989015307 DOC.
19131722017
ROY & RACHEL GORD L
1404 MARSH RD
YAKIMA, WA 98901
18131412528
,MICHAEL J & COLLEEN JOHNSON
2006 WHITE PINE CT
YAKIMA, WA 98902
19132041409
PEARL RUST
510 KEYS RD
YAKIMA, WA 98901
19132014442
RAMON E & ALMA V VACA
421 VICTORY LN
YAKIMA, WA 989012156
19132132023
REWANA GRACE SCOTT
627 KEYS RD
YAKIMA, WA 989012119
19130713403
RICHARD & COLLEEN SJOGREN
937 REST HAVEN RD
YAKIMA, WA 98901
18131412518
RICHARD F & JUDITH L HAHN
1219 N 22ND AVE
YAKIMA, WA 98902
18131412446
RICHARD R & JUNE STICKNEY TRUST
2300 RIVER RD #32
YAKIMA, WA 98902
18131412558
ROBERT D & JUDITH R HALL REVOCABLE
LIVING TRUST
PO BOX 896
SUNNYSIDE, WA 98944
18131411425
RODNEY K & H DUNN DBA/KNIPPER
DUNN 17TN KNIPPER
1310N16THAVE
YAKIMA, WA 989021354
19132014423
ROSE & STEPHEN HAVERFIELD
41.6 VICTORY LN
YAKIMA, WA 98901
18131214004
RUBY D MAY
490 REST HAVEN RD
YAKIMA, WA 98901
19132833001 19132823006 19130833002
RUTH NEWLAND :AM L. ROSE SCOTT CHANEY
2004 RIVERSIDE RD 5306 AHTANUM RD 1910 ARROYO DR
YAKIA, WA 98901 YAKIA, VITA 989031052 YAKIA, WA 98901.1006
19132021004
0 R
6905 WESTACRE
YAKIMA, WA
98903 2 !'
r!
* i 1;. a !, ! •
2001 EVERGREEN CT
YAKIMA, WA 98902
19132914400
VIRGINIA M HICKS
621 . AVE
YAIGMA, WA 989024133
18131023002
TERRENCE r & SHARON.r•
TARATRUHLER
407 BRIDLE
YAIGMA, WA 989019785
19132041416
"781 26TH
SEA'Vg'-E, 1174.98
!;
18131412415
s; • V
2300 RIVER
RD
YAKIMA, WA 989021293
19132041420
THELMA WALDBY
504 VICTORY LN
19132014411
VE RNA M COLEMAN
402 KEYS • D
YA
•�!'
18131412427
O iO
qUNNYSIDE, WA 989440008
5CPA � YPC Waarg
�PA�p13-13 fi�=�3-I3
��111
c.
ff
YPC Members Interested P:. ,-s - Shoreline Master Program Upd. - TXT#003-13 SEPA#013-13.doc
Scott Clark
7506 Barge Court
Yakima, WA 98908
Alfred A. Rose
1006 Westbrook Place
Yakima, WA 98908
Ron Anderson
103 S 3rd St Ste#203
Yakima, WA 98902
Mike Morton
2105 Terrace Heights Drive
Yakima, WA 98901
Lenord Jordan
<1jor461 @ecy.wa.gov>
David Buchannan
davidt f5u hananlake.corn
'Dave Franklund'
<David.Franklund@KDFARCH
ITECTURE.COM>
'Parsons, Christine (PARKS)'
<Christine.Parsons@PARKS. W
'Sauriol, William'
<Saurio W@wsdot.wa.gov>
'Dowd Luce
r
Dave Fonfara
8708 Cameo Court
Yakima, WA 98903
Paul Stelzer
6402 Scenic Drive
Yakima, WA 98908
Dowd Luce
2010 Evergreen Court
Yakima, WA 98902
a;i;��,ift,ikic f t � u'u:uut„ aad
Christine Parsons
CM���"in.;�lll"k $%°.''a�. M,"rofiF. ,. R@�; w.:.r.%tM1a::.i•".,"''V
................................
John Marvin
<imarvin a yakama.com>
,Joel.freud nt
s
.:..._ ink.iwsdlmwa. ov
Benjamin W. ShovaI
123 East Yakima Avenue,
Ste#210
Yakima, WA 98901
William Cook
7701 Graystone Court
Yakima, WA 98908
'Dianna Woods'
<dianna.woods@co.yakima.wa.us>
John Marvin
670 Pence Road
Yakima, WA 98909
Betsy Bloomfield
<betsybloomfi eld@cowichecan
yon.org>
Tami Cain
CPM Yakima/ OMG Northwest
tgaiq st oldcastleaterials.co .._
'McDonald, Jana (CPM, OMG
Northwest)'
<j mcdonald@oldcastlematerials.
com>
Tod Smith WSDOT
Patty Schneider :.l`smith1011 L ac.corn
..C.b eiderdevelo . aol.corrn
Barnand, Eric L (DFW)
<Eri c. B artrand@dfw.wa. gov>
Type of Notice: it✓� j �C `) ,1-—� �s '
File Number: 5 ; 0 t.„
Date of Mailing: J ' -
YPC Members & Interested Pa.. _.es - Shoreline Master Program Up&
Scott Clark Dave Fonfara
7506 Barge Court 8708 Cameo Court
Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98903
Alfred A. Rose Paul Stelzer
1006 Westbrook Place 6402 Scenic Drive
Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908
Ron Anderson Dowd Luce
103 S 3rd St Ste#203 2010 Evergreen Court
Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima, WA 98902
dvdluee;grnail,com
Mike Morton Christine Parsons
2105 Terrace Heights Drive Christine.sons ark.vwa. ov
Yakima, WA 98901
Eric Bartrand
Lenord Jordan
davide,buchananlake.com
us
William Sauriol Schneiderdevela Ca'�..ao1.co
,- TXT#003-13, SEPA#013-13
Benjamin W. Shoval
123 East Yakima Avenue,
Ste#210
Yakima, WA 98901
William Cook
7701 Graystone Court
Yakima, WA 98908
Dianna Woods
Yakima County Water Resources
John Marvin
670 Pence Road
Yakima, WA 98909
Betsy Bloom field
Tami Cain
CPM Yakima/ OMG Northwest
tcain@Loidc&stlematerials.com
Jana McDonald
OMG Northwest
Ts ith1.011 rna.c.co
r �
Type of Notice: .5 ; lJ
Date of Mailing, 1WDEX
-l)
Ahtanum Irrigation District I Cascade Natural 'Gas Department of Commerce
Beth Ann Brulotte Executive Assistant Jim Robinson Field Facilitator Growth Management Services
1.7 t.fAitri. . . ...............t...a......n.......0. fie t Jiin.rohhisonLa'�m,uoll I !y...� ieva-
afn( �,mqLercey% v
........
Department of Ecology
Annie Szvetecz SEPA Policy Lead
Department of Social & Health Services
Andrew Jenkins
2 ..t -,cL
i2di 2,;,yki-1kin A, -,k% v
Jeanne Rodriguez
Jeannc,.r0CL.-UC-A!(---
L—iriv
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council -
EFSEC
Stephen Posner SEPA Officer
�immLr ce,L-U—t(%%Va C,()�
Office of Rural and Farm Worker Housing
Marty Miller
Nknym,?�klo I
West Valley School District
Angela Watts Asst. Supt. Of Business &
Operations
Q&-org.
Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bud Robbins Superintendent
Bud.rob
1 -1
Yakama Nation Environmental Management
Program
Kristina Proszek Environmental Review
Coordinator
enviroreview(a,vakama.corn
Yakima County Commissioners
Yakima County Public Services
Vern. re wmls
I � ......... . . ...... .... .. .
Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency
Hasan Tahat Engineering & Planning
Supervisor
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Eric Bartrand
k_aa3Ar ZAf:�K 110�1
....... . .... -k i: aki� - i -Vp-a-,
Dept of Archaeology & Historic
Preservation
Gaul,
Preservation Officer
...... .... 2L-Zil-V
Engineering Division
Doug Maya City Engineer
Dana Kallevig
Da i,
Linaev-
-1 llakm a
W . y
y
-&L-
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory
4P
Branch
Karen Urelius Project Manager
K,qre:n,1AJJr
WSDOT
Paul Gonseth Planning Engineer
It rlwnA V Andkot-,-�gi)]L,
Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs
Steve Wangemann Deputy Superintendent
for Trust Services
.
Stev..wa I
. . eve
Yakama-Klickitat Fisheries Project
John Marvin
YMki —Camakirn2m-m�i
Yakima Greenway Foundation
Al Brown Executive Direcl oc.
a
d A', magree,
wo
Shawn Conrad Planner
co r, d,5A!
Department of Natural Resources
Linda Hazlett Assistant Land Manager
LJOaAma tnL,,.-
Dept of Archaeology & Historic
Preservation
Gretchen Kachler Local Government
Archaeologist
GretchenXachl,ELdid ,
Nob Hill Water Association
Eric Rhoads
f.r-kc (Lunflb-1-121 1—wattL,,ag
Wastewater Division
Scott Schafer Wastewater Manager
sschafi,rLi,'r,jA,a1�,jgi& waq,.,.
.....................
WSDOT
Rick Holmstrom Development Services
11� It 4, wsdc!�a, n
P -M S t�
Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs
Rocco Clark Environmental Coordinator
R.. 0 V
... ... .... .... . . . ....
Yakima Air Terminal
Carl Remmel Airport Asst Manager
(.,,ar1rqn1 pairterminal.corn
pAL� .......... --- . . . ..... . ...... .. .
Yakima County Public Services
Steven Erickson Planning Director
te.ym&n,—, IIAI---a lluyAnml�
Yakima Health District
Gordon Kelly Director of Environmental
Health
gear do�n,kelW air as LakinraE.,us
-- -a_
Yakima Valley Museum
John A. Baule Director
key um
manager Chamber of Cot . ninerc I e Kevin utnicote
Century Link Charter Communications
1- 2 0 44104 10 North 9th Street
0 0011L ndAve, in
Yakima, WA 98902
Yakima, WA 98901
100-5 North 16th Ave
Yakima, WA 98902
David Spurlock
Kelly McLain
Gwen Clear
City of Union Gap
Department of Agriculture
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 3008
P.O. Box 42560
15 West Yakima Ave, Ste# 200
Union Gap, WA 98903
Olympia, WA 98504
Yakima, WA 98902
Mark Teske
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Fish & Wildlife
1200 6th Ave. MS 623
2200 W. Washington Ave
201 North Pearl
Seattle, WA 98101
Yakima, WA 98903
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Cayla Morgan
Federal Aviation Administration
Governor's Office of Indian Affairs
Mike Paulson
Airports District Office
PO Box 40909
Pacific Power
1601 Lind Ave SW
Olympia, WA 98504
500 North Keys Rd
Renton, WA 98055-4056
Yakima, WA 98901
Ray Wondercheck
Paul Edmondson
Jeff McKee
Soil Conservation District
Trolleys
United States Postal Service
1606 Perry Sti-cel, Ste. F
313 North 3rd Street
205 W Washington Ave
Yakima, WA 98902
Yakima, WA 98901
Yakima, WA 98903
WA State Attorney General's Office
Christine Collins
WA State Dept of Health, Office of
Robert Hodgman
1433 Lakeside Court, Ste# 102
Drinking Water
WSDOT, Aviation Division
Yakima, WA 98902
16201 E Indiana Ave, Ste# 1500
8 18 79th Avenue, Ste B
Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Turnwater, WA 98504-7335
Johnson Meninick
Ruth Jim
Elaine Beraza
Yakama Indian Nation
Yakama Indian Nation
Yakima School District
P.O. Box 151
P.O. Box 151
104 North 4th Ave
Toppenish, WA 98948
Toppenish, WA 98948
Yakima, WA 98902
Robert Smoot
Scott Robertson
Yakima-Tieton irrigation District
Yakima Valley Canal Co
Yakima Waste Systems
Sandra Hull
1640 Garretson Lane
2812 Terrace Heights Dr
470 Camp 4 Rd
Yakima, WA 98908
Yakima, WA 98901
Yakima, WA 98908
SEPA REVIEWING AGENCIES Form List _updated 03.13.2013
Type of Notice:
File Number: S02A-�LD A E -4'T X -04-c" )
Date of Mailing: '7/
Type of Notice: 09
3
File Number(s):
Date of Mailing: �. 3
In -House Distribution E-mail List
Name
Division
E-mail Address
Debbie Cook
Engineering
Debbie.cookQyakimawa.g_ov
Dana Kallevig
Engineering
dana.kallevig@yakimawa.gov
Dan Riddle
Engineering
danxiddle(a�yakimawa.gov
Mark Kunkler
Legal Dept
Mark.kunklergyakimawa.gov_
Jeff Cutter
Archie Matthews
Legal Dept
ONDS
'ef .cutter akimawa. ov
archie.matthews@yakimawa.gov
Mark Soptich
Fire Dept
mark. so tich akimawa. gov
Jerry Robertson
Code Administration
jerry.robertsonkyakimawa.gov
Royale Schneider
Code Administration
rovale. schneiderkyakimawa.gov
Glenn Denman
Code Administration
lenn.denman akimawa. ov
Suzanne DeBusschere
Code Administration
_Suzanne.debusschere
elyakimawa.p-ov
Dave Brown
Water/Irrigation
dave.brown@yakimawa.gov
Mike Shane
Water/Irrigation
mike, shane akimawa. gov
Carolyn Belles
Wastewater
carolyn.bellesgyakimawa.gov
Shelley Willson
Wastewater
Shelley.willson@yakimawa.gov
Scott Schafer
Public Works Dept
scott.schafergyakimawa gov
James Dean
Utilities
James.deangyakimawa.gov
James Scott
Refuse Division
James. scottakimawa. gov
Kevin Futrell
Transit Division
kcyin.futrellgyakimawa.gov
Steve Osguthorpe
Community
Development
steve.osputhoLpe@yakimawa.gov
thorpe@yakimawa.gov
For the Record/File
Binder Copy
Revised 07/2013
Type of Notice: 09
3
File Number(s):
Date of Mailing: �. 3
Peters, Jeff
From: Peters, Jeff
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 4:15 PM
To: Lenord Jordan; john marvin; Bartrand, Eric L (DFW); Betsy Bloomfield;
'david@buchananlake. com';(joel.freudenthal@co.yak ima.wa.us); Bartrand, Eric L (DFW);
Betsy Bloomfield; 'Cain, Tami (CPM Yakima, OMG Northwest)
<tcain@oldcastlematerials.com>(tcain@oldcastlematerials.com)'; Cathy Reed (Business
Fax); 'Dave Franklund'; 'david@buchan a Make.com'; 'Dowd Luce (dvdluce@gmail.com)';
'flemink@wsdot.wa.gov'; john marvin; 'McDonald, Jana (CPM, OMG Northwest); 'Parsons,
Christine (PARKS)'; 'Sauriol, William'; 'schneiderdevelop@aol.com'; 'tsmith1011 @mac.com'
Subject: City of Yakima Draft SMP & CIA Addendum for your review.
Attachments: City of Yakima SMP - Draft 7.1.13 FINAL.pdf; Yakima CIA 7.1.13 rev - low res.pdf
Dear Shoreline Interested Parties and Agencies,
The City of Yakima has completed its initial process of updating and development of the City's SMP, and is now moving
on to Environmental Review of the Draft Documents. On July 9, 2013, the City of Yakima will publish a legal add in the
Yakima Herald for a NOTICE OF APPLICATION, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF NOW
SIGNIFICANCE for the City of Yakima's Draft Shoreline Master Program. The comment period for this environmental
review will end on July 29, 2013. Please feel free to review the draft documents and provide your comments in writing
or via email, and thanks to all who have participated and provided input throughout this process.
Sincerely,
Jeff Peters
Associate Planner
City of Yakima
P.S. Due to the size of the documents attached the Notice of Application and SEPA Checklist are available on the
website as listed below.
1211P !. ,.yall iirnawa.. ov/p e�vices l�I ruru'in �cii .::::..-" ..:.u. ! .:::: hpiregin(:rs...nrkastem-.)iro. rami :g date
.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �Illllllllllllllllllluu
Ibarra, Rosalinda
From:
Ibarra, Rosalinda
Sent:
Tuesday, July 09, 2013 1:10 PM
To:
Ahtanum Irrigation District - Beth Ann Brulotte; Cascade Natural Gas - Jim Robinson;
Department of Commerce (CTED) - Review Team; Department of Ecology - SEPA Unit;
Department of Fish and Wildlife - Eric Bartrand; Department of Natural Resources - Linda
Hazlett; Department of Social & Health Services - Andrew Jenkins; Department of Social &
Health Services - Jeanne Rodriguez; Dept Archaeology & Historic Preservation - Greg Griffith;
Dept Archaeology & Historic Preservation - Gretchen Kaehler; Desgrosellier, Bob; Energy
Facility Site Evaluation Council - Stephen Posner; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Nob Hill
Water- Eric Rhoads; Office of Rural & Farmworker Housing - Marty Miller; Riddle, Dan; US
Army Corps of Engineers - Karen M. Urelius; Schafer, Scott; West Valley School District -
Angela Watts; WSDOT - Paul Gonseth; WSDOT - Rick Holmstrom; Yakama Bureau of Indian
Affairs - Bud Robbins; Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs - Rocco Clark; Yakama Bureau of
Indian Affairs - Steve Wangemann; Yakama Nation Environmental Mgmt Program - Kristina
Proszek; Yakama-Klickitat Fisheries - John Marvin; Remmel, Lee; Yakima County
Commissioners; Yakima County Health District; Yakima County Planning Director - Steven
Erickson; Yakima County Public Services Director, Vern Redifer; Yakima Greenway
Foundation - A] Brown; Yakima Health District - Gordon Kelly; Yakima Regional Clean Air
Agency - Hasan Tahat; Yakima Valley Conference of Governments - Shawn Conrad; Yakima
Valley Museum - John A. Baule; AI Rose; Alfred A. Rose (silvrfx40@bmi.net); Benjamin W.
Shoval (ben.shoval @shoval.com); Dave Fonfara; Ensey, Rick; Kunkler, Mark; Paul Stelzer;
Ron Anderson(rondedicatedrealty@hotmail.com); Scott Clark (scott. clark@charter. net);
William Cook (cook.w@charter.net)
Cc:
Peters, Jeff; 'Dianna Woods'; 'ch ristine. parsons@ parks.wa.gov'; Belles, Carolyn; Brown,
David; Cook, Debbie; Cutter, Jeff, Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn;
Futrell, Kevin; Matthews, Archie; Osguthorpe, Steve; Robertson, Jerry; Schafer, Scott;
Schneider, Royale; Scott, James; Shane, Mike; Soptich, Mark; Willson, Shelley; Brown,
Michael; Crockett, Ken; Daily Sun News - Bob Story; KAPP TV News; KBBO-KRSE Radio -
manager; KCJT TV News; KDNA Radio; KEPR TV News; KIMA TV - Jim Niedelman; KIMA
TV News; KIT/KATS/DMVWIKFFM - Lance Tormey; KNDO TV - Julie Stern; KNDO TV News;
KUNS-TV Univision; KVEW TV News; Lozano, Bonnie; NWCN News; NWPR - Anna King;
Randy Luvaas - Yakima Business Times; Tu Decides - Albert Torres; UNIVISION TV - Marta
Isabel Sanchez; Yakima Herald Republic - Adriana Janovich; Yakima Herald Republic - Chris
Bristol; Yakima Herald Republic - Craig Troianello; Yakima Herald Republic - Erin Snelgrove;
Yakima Herald Republic - Mai Hoang; Yakima Herald Republic - Mark Morey; Yakima Herald
Republic Newspaper; Yakima Valley Business Times; Yakima Valley Business Times -
George Finch; Beehler, Randy
Subject:
NOTICE OF APP, SEPA, AND YPC HEARING - Shoreline Master Program Update - SEPA#
013-13 TXT#003-13
Attachments:
NTC OF APP SEPA AND YPC HEARING - SMP Update - TXT003-13, SEPA013-13.pdf
Rosalinda Ibarra
Community Development Administrative Assistant
rosalinda.ibarra(iDVakimawa.,aov
City of Yakima I Planning Division
129 North 2nd Street, Yakima WA 98901
p: (509) 575-6183 * f: (509) 575-6105
INDEX
,,,,, 4 _,
� -@[Ll' LD
YA
MA.
����
r,
PUBLIC
A dally part of your life ��� ��� � � � yakima-herald.com
-Ad Proof -
This is the proof of your ad scheduled to run on the dates indicated below.
Please proof read notice carefully to check spelling and run dates,
if you need to make changes
Account #: 110358
Company Name: CITY OF YAKIMA/YAKIMA PLANNING
Contact: ROSALINDA MARRA
Address: DEPT OF COMMIECON DEVELOPEMENT
129 N 2ND STREET
YAKIMA, WA 98901-2720
Telephone: (509) 575-6164
Account Rep:
Simon Sizer
Phone #
(509) 577-7740
Email:
ssizer@yokimaherald.com
Ad ID:
340547
Start:
07/09/13
Stop:
07/09/13
Total Cost:
$246.75
Agate Lines:
244
# of inserts:
1
Ad Class:
6021
Run Dates:
Yakima Herald -Republic 07109113
CITYOFYAKIMA
NOTICE OFAPPLICATION, NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING AND DETERMINATION O
NON -SIGNIFICANCE
DATE: July 9, 2013: TO: SEPA Reviewing Agencies,
and interested Parties: FROM: Steve Osguthorpe,
City of Yakima Community Development Manager:
SUBJECT: Notice of Application, Public Hearing
and Determination of Non -Significance: NOTICE
OFA LIGATION: Project Location: Citywide:
Project Applicant: City of Yakima. Planning ll
cion: File umbers: SEPA #013-13 & TXT11003.13:
Dale of Application: July 2.2013: Date of Determi-
nation of Completeness: July 3, 2013: PROJECT
DESCRIPTION: The City of Yakima is updating its
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) (Currently riot for-
mally Incorporated within the Yakima City Code). This
action implements the Washington State Shoreline
Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW), which gov-
erns the development of Washington's shorelines.
Local jurisdictions are required to update their SMP's
in accordance with the Guidelines of Washington
Stale Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26, which was
revised in 2003 to rellect current knowledge regarding
shoreline management and science. This proposed
non -project action would replace in its entirety the
Yakima County Shoreline Master Program, Adopted
September 5, 1974, by City of Yakima, establish a
new Title 17 Shoreline Master Program, and amend
the City of Yaldri 2025 Comprehensive Plan 2025
Natural Element chapter to include a new section
tilled Shorelines Master Program Goals and Policies
which reflects the proposed goals and policies of the
City's draft Shoreline Master Program. In accordance
with the Guidelines, the updated SMP Is Intended to
accommodate appropriate shoreline development
while also achieving no net loss of existing shoreline
ecological functions. Legally established existing
development would generally be considered conform -
Ing under this master program. The updated SMP
and all accompanying draft documents are available
on the City of Yakima Planning Department's web -
silo at http:l/www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/
city-of-yaki ma-shorel i nes-master-prog ram -update.:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City of Yakima has
reviewed the proposed project for robable adverse
environmental impacts, and has JetermIned that it
does not have a probable significant adverse Impact
on the environment. An environmental impact state-
ment (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)
(c). The information railed upon In reaching [his deter-
mination Is available to the public upon request at the
City of Yakima Planning Division.
[X] This DNS is Issued under WAC § 197-11-340(2);
the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 20
days from the dale below,
REQUEST FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: Agencies,
tribes, and the public are encouraged to review and
comment on the proposed application. All written com-
ments received by July 29, 2013, will be considered
prior issuance of the final threshold determination,
Please send written comments to. Steve Osguthorpe,
Community Development Manager; City of Yakima,
Department of Community Development; 129 North
2nd Street, Yakima, Washington 98901: NOTICE; OF
DECISION: Decisions and future notices will be sent
to anyone who submits comments on this application
or request additional notice. The tile containing the
complete application Is available for public review at
the City of Yakima Planning Division, 2nd (icor City
Hall, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington, If
you have any question on this proposal, please call
Jeff Peters, Associate Planner at (509) 575-6163 or
e -mall at jeff.peters@yakimawa.gov: NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING: This application will require Iwo
public hearings; one closed record hearing before the
City of Yakima Planning Commission to be followed
by an open record public hearing before the Yakima
City Council. The public hearing before the City of
Yakima Planning Commission has been scheduled for
August, 28, 2013, beginning at 3:30 pm, in the Coun-
cil Chambers, City Hall, 129 N 2nd Street, Yakima,
WA. Any person desiring to express their views on this
matter is Invited to attend the public hearing or to sub-
mit theirwritien comments to: City of Yakima, Planning
Division, 129 N 2nd St., Yakima, WA 98901. A sea -
rate public notice will be provided for the public
hearing beforete Yakima City Council.
(340547) July 9, 2013
DM.
INDEX
# - 0i,_
Courtesy of Yakima Herald -Republic
Ibarra, Rosalinda
From: ssizer@yakimaheraid. com
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 10:58 AM
To: Ibarra, Rosalinda
Subject: Ad: 340547, CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF APPLICATION
Attachments: I BARRA-81-340547-1, pdf
I've scheduled this legal notice for 7/9, for a cost of $246.75.
CITY OF YAKIMA
NOTICE OF APPLICATION, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND DETERMINATION
OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE
DATE: July 9, 2013
TO: SEPA Reviewing Agencies, and Interested Parties
FROM: Steve Osguthorpe, Community Development Manager
SUBJECT: Notice of Application, Public Hearing and Determination of Non -
Significance
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
Project Location: Citywide.
Project Applicant: City of Yakima, Planning Division
File Numbers: SEPA #013-13 & TXT #003-13
Date of Application: July 2, 2013
Date of Determination of Completeness: July 3, 2013
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Yakima is updating its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) (Currently not
formally incorporated within the Yakima City Code). This action implements the
Washington State Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW), which governs the
development of Washington's shorelines. Local jurisdictions are required to update their
SMP's in accordance with the Guidelines of Washington State Administrative Code
(WAC) 173-26, which was revised in 2003 to reflect current knowledge regarding
shoreline management and science.
This proposed non -project action would replace in its entirety the Yakima County
Shoreline Master Program, Adopted September 5, 1974, by City of Yakima, establish a
new Title 17 Shoreline Master Program, and amend the City of Yakima's 2025
Comprehensive Plan 2025 Natural Element chapter to include a new section titled
Shorelines Master Program Goals and Policies which reflects the proposed goals and
policies of the City's draft Shoreline Master Program.
In accordance with the Guidelines, the updated SMP is intended to accommodate
appropriate shoreline development while also achieving no net loss of existing shoreline
ecological functions. Legally established existing development would generally be
considered conforming under this master program.
The updated SMP and all accompanying draft documents are available on the City of
Yakima Planning Department's website at
htt ://'www. akimawa. ov/services/ Tannin /cit -of akiima-shorellnes-master- iro iram
up�date•
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City of Yakima has reviewed the proposed project for probable adverse
environmental impacts, and has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not
IDI!
required under RCW 43„21 C.030 (2) (c). The information relied upon in reaching this
determination is available to the public upon request at the City of Yakima Planning
Division.
This DNS is issued under WAC § 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 20 days from the date below.
Responsible Official: Steve Os uthor a AICP
Position/Title: SEPA Responsible Official
Phone: 509 575-6163
Address: 129 N. 2” Street Yakima WA 9&qQ1
Date: July 9, 2013 Signature:
REQUEST FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: Agencies, tribes, and the public are
encouraged to review and comment on the proposed application. All written comments
received by July 29, 2013, will be considered prior issuance of the final threshold
determination. Please send written comments to: Steve Osguthorpe, Community
Development Manager; City of Yakima, Department of Community Development; 129
North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington 98901.
The following conditions have been identified that may be used to mitigate the adverse
environmental impacts of the proposal: No impacts identified.
Required Permits — None.
Required Studies — None.
Existing Environmental Documents: SEPAIGMA Integrated Environmental Summary.
Preliminary determination of the development regulations that will be used for
project mitigation and consistency: NIA
NOTICE OF DECISION
Decisions and future notices will be sent to anyone who submits comments on this
application or request additional notice. The file containing the complete application is
available for public review at the City of Yakima Planning Division, 2nd floor City Hall,
129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington. If you have any question on this proposal,
please call Jeff Peters, Associate Planner at (509) 575-6163 or e-mail at
Jeff. peters@
,yakimawa.gov.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This application will require two public hearings; one
closed record hearing before the City of Yakima Planning Commission to be followed by
an open record public hearing before the Yakima City Council. The public hearing
before the City of Yakima Planning Commission has been scheduled for August, 28,
2013, beginning at 3:30 pm, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 129 N 2nd Street,
Yakima, WA. Any person desiring to express their views on this matter is invited to
attend the public hearing or to submit their written comments to: City of Yakima,
Planning Division, 129 N 2nd St., Yakima, WA 98901. A separate public notice will
be provided for the public hearing before the Yakima City Council.
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — PROPOSED CHAPTER 17
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
TXT#003-13, SEPA#013-13
EXHIBIT LIST
CHAPTER H
Public Comments
H-1
.. ,7 Yy ;
21;
Comment Letter from Jesse Heaverlo, Heaverlo Properties
M
07/22/2013
H-2
Response to Jesse Heaverlo
08/13/2013
H-3
Comment Letter from Phil Rigdon and E-mail from John
07/22/2013
Marvin, Yakama Nation
H-4
Response to Yakama Nation
08/08/2013
H-5
E-mail received from Joel Freudenthal, Yakima County
07/29/2013
Public Services
H-6
Response to Joel Fruedenthal
08/08/2013
H-7
Comment Letter and Email from Eric Bartrand, Department
07/29/2013
of Fish & Wildlife
H-8
Response to Eric Bartrand
08/13/2013
H-9
Comment Letter from Larry Meeks, Yakima County Dike
07/29/2013
District #1
H-10
Response to Larry Meeks
08/20/2013
H-11
Comment Letter from Paul Gonseth, Department of
08/01/2013
Transportation
/
�
July 30, 2013
4_. tantral Region
2809 Rudkin Road
Union Gap, WA 98903-1648
(509) 577-1600 I FAX: (509) 577-1603
TTY: 1-800-833-6388
wwwmsdotma,gov
City of Yakima m I
Department of Community Development
129 North 2°d Street.PLANNING DIV.
CITY OF YAKIMA
Yakima, WA 98901
Attention: Steve Osguthorpe, Community Development Manager
Subject: SEPA #013-13 & TXT #003-13, Shoreline Master Program Update
US 12, I-82, SR 24 (City of Yakima vicinity)
We have reviewed the draft City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program and have the following
comments.
The WSDOT supports the City's update to it's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and we look forward
to working with the City as future highway projects and maintenance activities develop. The WSDOT
systems within the City limits and Urban Growth Area impacted by this SMP are US 12, I-82, SR 823
and SR 24. We have no additional comments.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this SMP update. If you have any questions
regarding our comments, please contact Rick Holmstrom at (509) 577-1633.
Sincerely, .
.12
L€ aul Gonseth, P.E.
Planning & Materials Engineer
PG: rh/mis
cc: File #7, US 12
Les Turnley, Area 2 Maintenance Superintendent
p:lplanningldevrev\YakCity_Shoreline Master Prograrn.docx
('OMMUN]7'1'DEI'ELOPML,'N7'DEIIARTAIF,.NT
Planning Division
129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington98901
Phone (509) 575-6183 4 Fax (509) 575-6105
ask.planningC&yakimawa.gov - http://www.yakimawa-goviserviceslplattninl
Larry Meeks
Director, Yakima County Dike District #1
1918 Riverside Road
Yakima, WA 98901
RE: City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program Consultant Selection
Dear Mr. Meeks:
The City of Yakima received your letter regarding the City of Yakima's Shoreline
Master Program on July 29, 2013.
In response to your concern regarding both increased regulation and effect to
Yakima County Dike District #11, the City would like to be able to exclude your
property from shoreline jurisdiction. However, the Washington State Department of
Ecology's guidance for Shoreline Master Program Updates provides direction that
properties within floodplain areas are to be included in jurisdiction based upon
existing FEMA flood mapping.
Although the City is unable to remove your property from the Shoreline Master
Program jurisdiction, we would like you to know that at this time the City is only pre -
designating your property to avoid the possibility of future conflicts between city and
county shoreline regulations. We would also like to inform you that the development
of the city's Shorelines Master Program and this pre -designation process will have
no effect on Yakima County's jurisdiction over your property, or Dike District #1 at
this time, or in the future until such time as you and your neighbors annex to the City
of Yakima.
Sincerely,
Jeff Peters
Associate Planner
City of Yakima
NEI
July 27, 2013
Mr. Steve Osguthorpe
Community Development Manager
129 North Second Street
Yakima, Washington, 98901
Mr. Osguthorpe,
RE: Shoreline Master Program
I am writing concerning the proposed updating of the Shoreline Master Program in a dual capacity and
function. I live in the affected area and I also serve on Diking District #1 in Yakima County.
As a citizen of the county, I am concerned every time there is another agency overlay placed on the
zoning map that affects my property. Let me assure you that I am not a knee jerk property rights activist;
however, I am also aware that the more agencies and jurisdictions involved in any property decision I
make only seem to erode property values and quality of life as we know it. Will this mean that any
permits we may need will have to go through the city as well as the county?
As for Diking District #1, what effect will this action have affecting our levees and the issues related to
them? What effect will it have on our jurisdiction and functions? Will this bring in another agency
relating to flood hazard management along the river corridor? This action leaves us with a lot of
questions.
I guess that any change always bring up questions and actually fears when it comes to government
jurisdictions and regulations. I hope that you can understand the concerns of private citizens and the
concerns of the Diking District.
Larry Meeks
Director, Yakima County Dike District #1
1918 Riverside Road
Yakima, Wa., 98901
509-453-2286 home, 509-961-8750 cell
N=
COMMUN17-Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Duision
129 I''Vorth :ncori.dS:°:aeF�v2rXJ' E' :
1 horse(509)575-6183 a 0 575-62'105
August 13, 2013
Eric Bartrand
Area Habitat Biologist
State of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife
1701 South 241h Avenue
Yakima WA 98902
RE: Comments on City of Yakima SMP Update
Dear Eric
The City appreciates your interest in our Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update, and
the time you have invested in providing comments. The following is the City's response
to those comments provided in a letter dated July 29, 2013.
COMMENTS ON SHORELINES MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE DRAFT 1
SEPA #013-13
Comment: An element of the proposed SMP revisions the WDFW wishes to see changed
is the exclusion of Cowiche Creek from the city's Shorelines jurisdiction. The need for
the robust regulation of development within the creek's floodplain, and the considerable
probability that the mean annual flow actually is 20 cubic feet per second or more, are
the reasons for our objection to the proposal.
Responses to these three elements presented below.
Comment: Cowiche Creek has no defined FEMA floodway. Therefore, without the
existing protections, it is conceivable that more new structures might be sited within its
historic floodway and wetlands; and further complicate the numerous ongoing efforts to
restore and protect what was once a productive salmon and trout stream.
Response: The City portions of Cowiche Creek will be managed under the City's
frequently flooded areas and critical areas regulations, which provide significant
protection to the stream and wetlands. Much of the current restoration and
protection work is occurring in the City's UGA, which is managed under Yakima
County's SMP until such time as the City may annex the area. As noted below,
yukhms
nui
IINDEX
Bartrand, E.
August 13, 2013
Page 2
these possible, but we think unlikely, consequences of a shoreline jurisdiction
determination cannot be considered when determining shoreline status.
Comment: While the most valid USGS regional regression model for Cowiche Creek
indicates a flow of 18.9 cfs, the upper bound of statistical error (f26%) boldly
encompasses the 20 cfs threshold. The latest recommendation of the USGS that we are
aware of is to include Cowiche Creek within Shorelines for this reason. Actual gaging
data do present greatly differing annual mean flows within a range of around 11 cfs to
47 cfs. However, the mean annual flow over three years of data arrives above 20 cfs, at
25 cis.
Response: In implementing the SMA shoreline jurisdiction criterion, Ecology
states in the Handbook
htt www.e .wa ov ra ams sea shorelines sm andbook Cha ter5. df):
The SMA applies starting at the point on streams with over 20 cubic feet per
second (cfs) mean annual flow. Mean annual flow is the average of the annual
mean flows over a period of many years. ("Mean annual flow" is not the same as
"annual mean flow ", which is the average daily flow over a one-year period) The
mean annual flow averages at least 10 consecutive years of stream flows...
It is important to examine updated information from Ecology and other sources
related to stream flow. Under contract with Ecology, the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) has updated its original studies identifying the point where data and
modeling locate the 20 cfs threshold. In many cases, there are significant changes
to the points where streams meet the SMA flow threshold...
Stream flow data from counties or other sources may be used to propose an
updated SMA jurisdiction point differing from the studies available at Ecology.
Please submit data and technical analysis to Ecology for review.
Statewide over the past decade, Ecology has utilized the USGS results to
determine the upstream extent of shoreline jurisdiction. Ecology has not added
the margin of error or subtracted the margin of error to determine jurisdiction for
any other waterbodies, so it would be inconsistent to do so in the case of
Cowiche Creek. While some parties may prefer that the error be added to the
USGS value, other parties may be equally committed to subtracting the error. As
noted by Ecology (and USGS) the best alternate method to the USGS modeling
study would be to provide or collect real data over an extended period of time —
10 years according to Ecology.
Bartrand, E.
August 13, 2013
Page 3
Comment There are clearly risks of error in either including or excluding Cowiche
Creek from the protections of a Shorelines ordinance. However, we point out the need
for Shorelines protections in terms of the renewed annual nuns of coho salmon that
spawn within the Yakima UGA, and greater utilizations of that reach by FSA -listed
Steelhead; which are both likely positive biological responses to the continually -
improved habitats throughout the Cowiche watershed during the last decade, and the
existing protections in place. Our hope is that the City will err on the side for continuing
these positive recovery trends.
Response. The SMA provides one criterion for determination of shoreline
streams - flow, specifically mean annual flow of more than 20 cubic feet per
second. The SMA does not provide any other criteria and does mot consider
potential ecological impacts of designation or de -designation, biological value of
the stream, or other merits. Local government, or state or federal agencies, does
not have any discretion in the application of that single criterion Given the
existing condition of the Cowiche Creek shorelands within the City, continued
application of the City's existing critical areas regulations is not expected to
meaningfully change the level of protection, nor would it interfere with
continued recovery efforts. The UGA portions of Cowiche Creek will remain
under Yakima County's SMP until such time as the City may annex the UGA.
Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional
information.
Sincerely,
Jeff Peters
509-575-6163
srcr�.
0 6 �
N
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
July 29, 2013
Steve Osguthorpe
City of Yakima D.C.E.D.
129 N. 2" d Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Subject: Comments on Shorelines Master Plan Update Draft 1 SEPA #013-13
Dear Mr. Osguthorpe:
An element of the proposed SMP revisions the WDFW wishes to see changed is the
exclusion of Cowiche Creek from the city's Shorelines jurisdiction. The meed for the
robust regulation of development within the creek's floodplain, and the considerable
probability that the mean annual flow actually is 20 cubic feet per second or more, are
the reasons for our objection to the proposal. Cowiche Creek has no defined FEMA
floodway. Therefore, without the existing protections, it is conceivable that more new
structures might be sited within its historic floodway and wetlands; and further
complicate the numerous ongoing efforts to restore and protect what was once a
productive salmon and trout stream.
While the most valid USGS regional regression model for Cowiche Creek indicates a
flow of 18.9 cfs, the upper bound of statistical error (+26%) boldly encompasses the 20
cfs threshold. The latest recommendation of the USGS that we are aware of is to
include Cowiche Creek within Shorelines for this reason. Actual gaging data do present
greatly differing annual mean flows within a range of around 11 cfs to 47 cfs. However,
the mean annual flow over three years of data arrives above 20 cfs, at 25 cfs.
There are clearly risks of error in either including or excluding Cowiche Creek from the
protections of a Shorelines ordinance. However, we point out the need for Shorelines
protections in terms of the renewed annual runs of coho salmon that spawn within the
Yakima UGA, and greater utilizations of that reach by ESA -listed Steelhead; which are
both likely positive biological responses to the continually -improved habitats throughout
the Cowiche watershed during the last decade, and the existing protections in place.
Our hope is that the City will err on the side for continuing these positive recovery
trends.
1
,> ,
�i 0 1,11, rtI I VA
NJ r), "
/-
Yakima DCED
7129113
Page 2
Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Please call me at (509) 457-9310 if
you have questions.
Sincerely,
Eric Bartrand
Area Habitat Biologist
EB:eb
Cc:
f:.
My O,
PLANNING
r: V
Peters, Jeff
From: Bartrand, Eric L (DFW) <Eric.Bartrand@dfw.wa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:55 AM
To: Skowlund, Peter (ECY)
Cc: Peters, Jeff
Subject: RE: USGS Letter re: Cowiche Creek
Peter,
I returned a phone messagel from Lennard Jordan yesterday and I asked him directly the same question I had asked
you: What is Ecology's policy in Shorelines concerning any consideration of the margins of error surrounding a mean
annual flow estimate from a regional regression equation? He apparently didn't know the answer, because he said in
such cases as Cowiche Creek: "The local government makes the call (on Shorelines) and Ecology merely ensures they
make the right call". He couldn't say what the right call was, though. Yet, I have subsequently learned that someone in
Olympia did make that call (re: Cowiche Creek)- and it is that the point estimate is used as a standard practice- and that
a local government making a "Shorelines" call Based only on a margin of error is on their own if the call is challenged
(e.g. they are unsupported by Ecology), it would have been helpful for me in my subsequent conversation with Jeff
Peters, the Yakima City Planner, if Lennard had been fully informed with the answer, and then let me know that
answer. That would have saved me 1) being not fully informed in contending some of what Jeff said to me, and 2)
having to separately contact someone outside of Ecology to get the right/full answer.
You probably know that I have worked with Lennard in the past.
Eric Bartrand
WDFW- Area Habitat Biologist
(509) 457-9310
From: Bartrand, Eric L (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:11. PM
To: Skowlund, Peter (ECY)
Cc: Teske, Mark S (DFW)
Subject: USGS Letter re: Cowiche Creek
Hi Peter,
Attached is a copy of the letter from USGS that I cited in my telephone message to you today. What is Ecology's usual
practice in determining Shorelines within margins of error ? Thanks for looking into this.
Eric Bartrand
Area Habitat Biologist
(509) 457-9310
COMtkII)NITYDEVELOPMENT DEPAIZTIVIE T
I'fannin,,
August S, 2013
Joel Freudenthal
Yakima County Public Services
Surface Water Management Division
128 N. 2M Street
Yakima, Washington 98901
RE: Conunents on City of Yakima SMP Update
Dear Joel:
The City appreciates your interest in our Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update, and
the time you have invested in providing comments. The following is the City's response
to those comments provided to us in a letter dated July 29,2013-1.
COMMENTS ON ADDENDUM TO THE YAKIMA COUNTY IMPACTS
ANALYSIS
Page 15
Requested Change: "Gap to Gap Levee Setback" - please remove or correct, "This
project, led by the City of Yakima".
Response: A change has been made as suggested - noting the lead as Yakima
County Public Services/Surface Water Division. Thank you for the correction.
Page 15
Requested Change: Last paragraph - please remove or correct, "The City, in
coordination with Yakima County, the City of Union Gap, and the Yakama Nation,
developed a flood hazard management plan to identify and prioritize flood hazard
reduction opportunities (YFCZD 2012)."
Response: A change will be made to replace the identified sentence with the
following. "Yakima County has led three Comprehensive Flood Hazard
Management Plans that affect areas within the City of Yakima. These include:
the Upper Yakima River CFHMP (approved by Ecology in 2010), the Naches
River CFHMP (approved by Ecology in 2007), and the Ahtanum Wide Hollow
CFHMP (adopted by the County in 2012).
Freudenthal, J.
August 8, 2013
Page 2
COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Pa a 39 —item "H"
Comment: How can the city remove shoreline jurisdiction on the Yakima River? A
portion of Buchanan Lake lies within the existing shoreline jurisdiction, and any non -
mining activities should be subject to the Shoreline Master Program. It would probably
be better to say that mining activities at Buchanan Lake are not regulated by the SMP
(i.e. exclusion of an existing and ongoing use), but we do not see how it is legally
possible to exclude any given area from the shoreline jurisdiction.
Response: We initially had the same questions about the relationship of
shoreline jurisdiction with a non-regulated shoreline waterbody (Buchanan
Lake) that is partially within 200 feet of a regulated shoreline waterbody (Yakima
River). We asked Betty Renkor (Senior Shorelines Planner) at Ecology how to
establish jurisdiction in this area, and she responded as follows:
"The gravel pond that is more than 20 acres and is operating as a gravel
operation under the two permits is not considered a shoreline of the state at this
time because it is an active gravel mining operation. Although a part of it is in
shoreline jurisdiction because it is within 200 feet of the river, it does not need to
be regulated under the SMP while an active gravel mine operation is ongoing."
Page 49 — item "B"
Comment: To prevent "flag" lots from being developed with a 35 foot minimum lot
frontage, the SMP should include a specific restriction on the creation of flag lots and/ or
use 60 feet so minimum lot frontage is compatible with the Urban Conservancy,
Floodway/CMZ. There is no rationale in the document that supports the need or
desirability of a 35 ft frontage requirement for High Intensity or Essential Public
Facilities Shoreline Environments.
Response. The basis for the minimum lot width requirements is the City's
Yakima Urban Area Zoning. See Table 5-2. Subdivision Requirements in
Chapter 15.05 YMC. The SR zoning district has the widest lot width at 60 feet
and the Urban Conservancy and Floodway/CMZ shoreline environments tend to
overlie the SR zone. The R-1 zone has a minimum lot width of 50 feet and was
considered similar in intent to the Shoreline Residential shoreline environment.
All other zones, including other single-family, multifamily, commercial, and
industrial zones, have standard 35 -foot lot width requirements. Therefore, the
more intense shoreline designations of High Intensity or Essential Public
Facilities were proposed to have that same standard. The shoreline jurisdiction
may only extend to a portion of a property (within 200 feet of the ordinary high
water mark in most cases) and thus the City desires to have a similar, consistent
Freudenthal, J.
August 8, 2013
Page 3
subdivision standard. Please also see the Cumulative Impacts Analysis which
indicates that limited new subdivision or development is anticipated for most of
the City's shoreline jurisdiction.
Page 50 — item "D
Comment: Delete "Wetland boundary and ordinary high water mark determinations are
valid for five years from the date the determination is made" and substitute with
"Wetland boundary and ordinary high water mark determinations are valid for five
years from the date of final plat approval." While applications are in process, multiple
determinations of OHWM may be made by multiple agencies, and tracking who made
what determination on which date seems extremely problematic for the City, the
applicant, and other agencies. Both the Yakima and Naches Rivers are extremely high
energy environments, if the shoreline changes appreciably during application for a
Shoreline Permit or even after a shoreline permit, it is probably in the interest of the
applicant to review the application and see if it can be implemented as proposed, rather
than moving ahead with a proposal without regard to changes in conditions on the
Shoreline.
Response: The City suggests the following alternative: "Wetland boundary and
ordinary high water mark determinations are valid for five years from the date
they are assessed and flagged in the field. After five years has elapsed, the City
shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary."
This is more in line with the original intent of the language, and is more
consistent with other agency practices. For example, Ecology's model code for
wetland regulations says "Wetland delineations are valid for five years; after
such date the City shall determine whether a revision or additional
assessment is necessary_" Final plat approval may come years after the OHWM
or wetland edge is located and mapped, so a statement that it is valid for an
additional five years from that date may not be suitably protective.
Page 53 - items "E" 1 & 2 and "I"
Comment The items in "E" and "I" are inconsistent. On the one hand removal of non-
native
onnative vegetation requires mitigation and on the other hand, removal of invasive species
is encouraged? A better distinction is between invasive species vs. everything else.
Removal of invasive species should be encouraged with attention as needed to the BMP
in "P', and removal of any other vegetation must be mitigated. Invasive species in your
area include Russian Olive and Crack Willow, yellow flag iris, purple loosestrife, which
should not require mitigation when removed.
Response: Our intent was to ensure that initially beneficial removal of invasive
or non-native vegetation would not have consequences that are more adverse
DOC,n
INDEX
J
Freudenthal, J.
August 8, 2013
Page 4
than the pre -removal condition. Removal of non-native vegetation would only
require mitigation if it could result in adverse impacts — such as loss of
overhanging tree or shrub cover or bare soils that would be subject to rapid
recolonization by invasive species or to erosion/sedimentation. We don't
anticipate that removals of iris or loosestrife would create conditions that would
require mitigation. Perhaps to provide clarity and more appropriate use of
terminology, we could remove the term "mitigation" from that context, and state
that the final condition must maintain existing functions.
Page 56 — item "A".
Requested Change: Remove "significantly or cumulatively" from first sentence, and add
"to all parties" to the end of that sentence.
Response: That phrase was extracted verbatim from the Flood Hazard Reduction
standards section of the SMP Guidelines - WAC ] 73-26-221(3)(c)(i). We believe
the statement is stronger as originally stated.
Page 60 -- item '7"
Comment: Item "I" needs to be removed. The County has provided flood protection to
the City of Yakima for 65 years at no cost and should not be encumbered. For example,
the Yakima Authorized Flood Control Project does not provide public trail access where
private landowners (such as Nob Hill Auto Wrecking) do not wish public access for
security reasons. Any trails or public access on these systems also require permission
from the Corps of Engineers and the County prior to construction, the City should not
construct the SMP to preclude these approval steps which are necessary to maintain the
purpose the structures were constructed — public safety and the protection of the City
from flood damage_ Surface Water Management at Yakima County has great concerns
with these types of issues, one of which has recently occurred at the Burger King on
Terrace Heights Drive, which contains a portion of the Federal Project levee on the rear
of the lot. Recent construction at the Burger King has infringed on the levee prism
through construction of a trail/pathway connecting to the Greenway Trail. This
pathway was constructed without permission of either the County or Corps of
Engineers and may be removed from the levee easement without notice
Response: The requirement to provide for public access in association with flood
hazard reduction facilities is based on WAC 173-26-221 (3)(iv) which says in part:
"Require that new structural public flood hazard reduction measures, such as
dikes and levees, 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 ecological impacts, unavoidable conflict with the
INDEX
#-L-�"
Freudenthal, J.
August 8, 2013
Page 5
proposed use, or a cost that is disproportionate and unreasonable to the total
long --term cost of the development." Section "I" on page 60 of the draft SMP
indicates: "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." Given the allowances to be excused from the
requirement due to safety, security, environmental impact or cost, it is unlikely
that many levee projects would be required to have public access. Also, along
the Greenway there is ample existing public access which would reduce any
need.
Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional
information
Sincerely,
Jeff Peters
509-575-6163
Peters, Jeff
From: Joel Freudenthal <joel.freudenthal@co.yakima.wa.us>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 3:34 PM
To: Peters, Jeff
Cc: Dianna Woods; Terry Keenhan
Subject: Comments on SMP
Attachments: Yakima County SMP comments.docx
Jeff
Comments attached. After review, we are very concerned with item "I" on page 60. We have commented on the
existing text but think there are larger issues regarding the relationship of the levees, the nature of the easement that
the levees are on, and how shoreline permits should be issued for levee or for other types of development on parcels
which also contain levees and levee easements. We would like to discuss this issue further with the City.
l. - fy=1T=FFv
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Yakima County Public Services
Management Division
128 N. 2nd St, Yakima, WA 98901
509-574-2322
JUL 2 9 2013
My OF YAKIMA
PLANNiNa Div.
Comments on
City of Yakima Shorelines Update
Yakima County Flood Control Zone District &
Yakima County as Property Owner
Addendum to the Yakima County Impacts Analysis
For the City of Yakima' 7 Shoreline Master Program
Page 15 — neither of the statements identified below are true.
• "Gap to Gap Levee Setback" — please remove or correct, "This project, led by the
City of Yakima".
Last paragraph — please remove or correct, "The City, in coordination with
Yakima County, the City of Union Gap, and the Yakama Nation, developed a
flood hazard management plan to identify and prioritize flood hazard reduction
opportunities (YFCZD 2012)."
Draft City, of Yakima Shoreline Master Program, July 1, 2013
Page 39 — item "H". How can the city remove shoreline jurisdiction on the Yakima
River? A portion of Buchanan Lake lies within the existing shoreline jurisdiction,
and any non -mining activities should be subject to the Shoreline Master Program.
It would probably be better to say that mining activities at Buchanan Lake are
not regulated by the SMP (i.e. exclusion of an existing and ongoing use), but we
do not see how it is legally possible to exclude any given area from the shoreline
jurisdiction.
Page 49 — item "B". To prevent "flag" lots from being developed with a 35 foot
minimum lot frontage, the SMP should include a specific restriction on the
creation of flag lots and/ or use 60 feet so minimum lot frontage is compatible
with the Urban Conservancy, Floodway/CMZ. There is no rationale in the
document that supports the need or desirability of a 35 ft frontage requirement
for High Intensity or Essential Public Facilities Shoreline Environments.
Page 50 — item "D". Delete "Wetland boundary and ordinary high water mark
determinations are valid for five years from the date the determination is made"
and subsititute with "Wetland boundary and ordinary high water mark
determinations are valid for five years from the date of final plat approval."
While applications are in process, mulitiple determinations of OHWM may be
made by multiple agencies, and tracking who made what determination on which
date seems extremely problematic for the City, the applicant, and other
agencies. Both the Yakima and Naches Rivers are extremely high energy
environments, if the shoreline changes appreciably during application for a
Shoreline Permit or even after a shoreline permit, it is probably in the interest of
the applicant to review the application and see if it can be implemented as
proposed, rather than moving ahead with a proposal without regard to changes
in conditions on the Shoreline.
Page 53 — items "E" 1 & 2 and "I". The items in "E" and "I" are inconsistent. On the one
hand removal of non-native vegetation requires mitigation and on the other
hand, removal of invasive species is encouraged? A better distinction is between
invasive species vs. everything else. Removal of invasive species should be
encouraged with attention as needed to the BMP in "I", and removal of any other
vegetation must be mitigated. Invasive species in your area include Russian Olive
and Crack Willow, yellow flag iris, purple loosestrife, which should not require
mitigation when removed.
Page 56 — item "A". Remove "significantly or cumulatively" from first sentence, and add
"to all parties" to the end of that sentence.
Page 60 — item "I" needs to be removed. The County has provided flood protection to
the City of Yakima for 65 years at no cost and should not be encumbered. For
example, the Yakima Authorized Flood Control Project does not provide public
trail access where private landowners (such as Nob Hill Auto Wrecking) do not
wish public access for security reasons. Any trails or public access on these
systems also require permission from the Corps of Engineers and the County
prior to construction, the City should not construct the SMP to preclude these
approval steps which are necessary to maintain the purpose the structures were
constructed — public safety and the protection of the City from flood damage.
Surface Water Management at Yakima County has great concerns with these
types of issues, one of which has recently occurred at the Burger King on
Terrace Heights Drive, which contains a portion of the Federal Project levee on
the rear of the lot. Recent construction at the Burger King has infringed on the
levee prism through construction of a trail/pathway connecting to the Greenway
Trail. This pathway was constructed without permission of either the County or
Corps of Engineers and may be removed from the levee easement without
notice.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Phone (509) 515...61 3 � is -z,, (509),575-6105
August 8, 2013
Phil Rigdon, Deputy Director
Yakama Nation Department of Natural Resources
Post Office Box 151, Fort Road
Toppenish, WA 98948
RE: Comments on City of Yakima SMP Update
Dear Phil:
I thank both you and John Marvin for Yakima Nation's letter and comments regarding
the City of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program. In general, the City has incorporated
many of your suggested changes, and we have provided our response to your comments
and suggested changes below. Although we do not feel that we can include Cowichee
Creek in shoreline jurisdiction at this time given the Washington State Department of
Ecology's guidance, we look forward to future discussions on the issue with you, your
staff, and the Washington State Department of Ecology.
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE I SEPA
#013-13: GENERAL COMMENTS
COWICHE CREEK
Extensive comments were provided regarding the City's decision, with Washington
Department of Ecology support, to remove Cowiche Creek from shoreline jurisdiction.
The following provides a detailed summary of the overard-king requirements of the
Shoreline Management Act for establishing shoreline jurisdiction, Ecology's guidance
materials related to shoreline jurisdiction, and the City's decision process. There are a
number of comments questioning the USGS study itself, and we recommend that your
hydrologist address those directly to USGS.
Shoreline Man@ lent Act
The SMA provides one criterion for determination of shoreline streams - flow,
specifically mean annual flow of more than 20 cubic feet per second. The SMA does not
provide any other criteria and does not consider impacts of designation, biological value
of the stream, past determinations of jurisdiction status, other local government's
determination of jurisdiction status, or other merits. Local government, or state or
federal agencies, does not have any discretion in the application of that single criterion.
DOC. m�
INDEX
Rigdon, P.
August 8, 2013
Page 2
Local government does, however, have discretion over the extent of shoreland
jurisdiction associated with that waterbody.
In implementing the SMA criterion, Ecology states in the Handbook
iittP.111'^l o°W.tCV.41 ui.L,Gl 1uS.L4nn—s1S0-4 S110iclii'ILS,Sixi rllr t �3i4 _
The SMA applies starting at the point on streams with over 20 cubic feet per second (cfs)
mean annus! flow. Mean annual flow is the average of the annual mean flows over a
period of many years. ("Mean annual flow" is not the same as "annual mean flow",
which is the average daily flow over a one-year period`) The mean annual flow averages at
feast 10 consecutive years of stream flatus...
It is important to examine updated infarmation from Ecology and other sources related to
stream flow. Under contract with Ecology, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has
updated its original studies identifying the point where data and modeling locate the 20
cfs threshold. In many cases, there are significant changes to the points where streams
meet the SMA flow threshold..
Stream flow data from counties or other sources may be used to propose an updated SMA
jurisdiction point dtjferfng from the studies available at Ecology. Please submit data and
technical analysis to Ecology for review.
Statewide over the past decade, Ecology has utilized the USGS results to determine the
upstrearn extent of shoreline jurisdiction Ecology has not added the margin of error or
subtracted the margin of error to determine jurisdiction for any other waterbodies, so it
would be inconsistent to do so in the case of Cowiche Creek. While some parties may
prefer that the error be added to the USGS value, other parties may be equally committed
to subtracting the error. As noted by Ecology (and USGS) the best alternate method to
the USGS modeling study would be to provide or collect real data over an extended
period of time --10 years according to Ecology.
City Decision Process
When the City decided to complete its SMP independently of the County, the first task
was to revisit shoreline Orisdiction City-wide as the former Ecology officer had
suggested that some .revisions needed to be made. The focus was not originally on
Cowiche Creek, but in the process of examining the suspect waterbodies, a brief
assessment of all waterbodies was conducted. At that time, it came to light that
Ecology's (USGS) data did not indicate that Cowiche Creek met the flow criterion, and
the County's SMP update documents did not provide any supporting information to
justify its inclusion in the SMP.
Rigdon, P.
August 8, 2013
Page 3
The City then began its own investigation, starting with USGS and continuing to other
agencies (USBR, DNR, Ecology, Yakima Tieton Irrigation District, Yakima County Flood
Control Zone District) that we were informed might have gage data We received no
indications from USGS or Ecology that either Yakama Nation or WDFW had conducted
any flow monitorings so those parties were not contacted. As noted above, the single
criterion for jurisdiction is flow, so while we reported some of the opinions delivered
during the pursuit of data, those are only interesting anecdotally. It was our error in
indicating that the opinions were critical to the decision. It should also be noted that
many of the contacts were made by phone, so there is no e-mail in the record.
The City spent many months searching for data, talking to agencies, and seeking
direction from Ecology (Betty Renkor and Lennard Jordan). The most definitive
statement came from Lennard Jordan via e-mail on June 17, 2013: '"The USGS letter
doesn't change anything in my opinion, there is still insufficient data to justify including
Cowiche Creek in shoreline jurisdiction. Ecology's position on the matter remains
unchanged. In order to determine the mean annual flow within any additional
certainty, more data will be required; collecting that data will take many years."
Conclusion
We have based our decision on the RCW and Ecology guidance materials and direction.
We are looking forward to the results of the Cowiche Creek data collection effort. When
the results have been assessed, the City will promptly undertake an SMP update if that
is necessary. During the time that elapses between a determination of shoreline
jurisdiction status and the SMP update, any part of Cowiche Creek in the City limits
would be regulated as an Urban Conservancy environment. Until then, Cowiche Creek
remains primarily under the protection of the County's SMP and the City's critical areas
regulations.
BUCHANAN LAKE/BEECH STREET PIT
Comment: While it is understood the statutory limitations on designating SMA
jurisdiction to an active gravel mining operation, it should be noted that there is a more
than high likelihood that the levee between the Yakima River and the pit will fail as
noted by Stanford et. al. (2002) and the Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood
Hazard Management Plan (2007). The Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) maps should be
adjusted accordingly.
Response: The SMP Guidelines establish that the CMZ for SMP regulatory
purposes is a sub -set of the technically determined. CMZ. According to the
Guidelines, "areas separated from the active river channel by legally existing
artificial channel constraints that limit channel movement should not be
considered within the channel migration zone." While the levee may fail at some
Rigdon, P.
August B, 2013
Page 4
point, it is still a legal and existing channel constraint managed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers that is presently limiting channel movement. That levee
would likely be reconstructed in its present location. Patricia Olson, Ecology's
hydrogeologist, reviewed and approved the City's updated CMZ maps.
STREAM AND WETLAND BUFFERS
Page 12, Section 3.4
Comment: The CIA states "Some critical area buffers are reduced in the proposed SMP
compared to the County's Regional SMP; however, the proposed shoreline buffers are consistent
with existing conditions, and wetland buffers are consistent with Ecology's guidance." This
statement and the reduced buffers in the SMP (Table 09.030-1 and 09.040-1) are
inconsistent with WAC 173-26-201, and the science analysis adopted by the City
(Yakima County BAS 2006). The buffers proposed are insufficient to protect the
ecosystem wide functions detailed in Section 17.09.030.E (Functional Properties)...
The CIA fails to sufficiently analyze, or scientifically substantiate the decrease in buffer
widths consistent with WAC 173-26-201. Why do wetland buffers require the mitigation
in Table 09.040-2, but the stream buffers do not require the same mitigation? This
should also be scientifically substantiated consistent with WAC 173-26-201. At a
minimum, the buffers should be consistent with the Yakima County SMP.
Response: Each jurisdiction has an obligation to develop appropriate shoreline
buffers and other shoreline regulations based on what is needed to preserve
existing levels of function. The Yakima County SMP did not fully evaluate the
City's conditions, which are quite different from the County, and thus it is
appropriate to generate environment designation- and waterbody-specific
buffers which are different from the County. With respect to the shoreline
buffers, the City generated new standards for the new designations developed in
place of the County's broad Urban designation. This effort was initially
suggested by the former Ecology officer, Clynda Case, who noted the disparity
between the designations/buffers and the existing conditions, particularly in the
City's residential and commercial areas.
The wetland buffer strategy is taken from Ecology's Wetlands & CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities, Eastern Washington Version (2012). As noted by Ecology
in guidance provided to a neighboring jurisdiction, "there is no gap in the level
of protection afforded wetlands regulated under code that emulates the "Small
Cities Guidance" versus the full "Wetlands in Washington State" management
recommendations. The guidance was crafted specifically to achieve that goal; the
differences being primarily in how complicated the code is written and not
referring to the adjacent land use intertsity. When adopted as a whole (minus the
DOC.
IDEX
1
Rigdon, P.
August 8, 2013
Page 5
reasonable use language) the standards (such as buffer widths, mitigation ratios,
use of the EWA rating system, and reporting requirements) are the same, and as
such Ecology considers them to be equivalent and would accept either as part of
the SMP." Essentially, the City's source of wetland regulations, while different
from the County's, meets State requirements. There is no requirement that a
City's buffers be consistent with the County's buffers.
The purpose of the CIA is to evaluate whether or not an SMP's regulations result
in no net loss of ecological functions, not to evaluate differences between a City
and County's SMPs.
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE 1 SEPA
#013-13: SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page 15, Policy 10.3.I22
Comment: Add the Yakama Nation to list of sources for identification of sensitive plant,
fish and wildlife species.
Response. The text will be revised as requested.
Page 30 "PrioriN Habitats" and "Priori Species -
Include neaps of WDFW Priority Habitats and Species into the record, and adopted as
part of the SMP.
Response, Maps of WDFW Priority Habitats and Species are continually
evolving. There is no reason to adopt a dated set of reference maps.
Page 33 "Shorelands"
Comment: Per RCW 90.58(2)(d)(ii), include "land necessary for buffers for critical areas,
as defined in chapter 36.70A RCW, that occur within shorelines of the state" into the
definition.
Response. RCW 90.58.030(2)(d)(ii) states that "Any city or county mMa [emphasis
added] also include in its master program land necessary for buffers for critical
areas..." The election to include critical area buffers in shoreline jurisdiction that
would otherwise be outside of the minimum shoreline jurisdiction is voluntary.
Many, if not most, jurisdictions in the state, including the City, have not chosen
to expand their jurisdiction in this way.
Page 38 Section 17.0I.100A
Comment: Insert "Cowiche Creek" in to the list of Shorelines of the State.
Rigdon, P.
August S, 2013
Page 6
Response. See discussion above.
Page 38, Section 17.01.100G
Comment: Per RCW 90.58(2)(d)(1i), include "land necessary for buffers for critical areas,
as defined in chapter 36.70A RCW, that occur within shorelines of the state" into the
designation of Shoreline jurisdiction.
Response: See response to comment on page 33 above.
Page 43, Table 03.070-1
Comment: All Boating and Private Moorage Facilities should, at a minimum, require a
conditional use permit;
Response: The SMP Guidelines state that conditional use permits may be
suitable "For development projects and uses that may have unanticipatable or
uncommon impacts that cannot be reasonably identified at the time of master
program development... to ensure that all impacts are addressed and that there is
no net loss of ecological function of the shoreline after mitigation." The only
facilities allowed in the river environments are public/community/commercial
boat launches, a maximum of two are anticipated on public land, and the
applicable general and specific SMP provisions are sufficient to ensure that such
facilities are appropriately installed and mitigated. The SMP Guidelines do not
require a CUP.
Pale 44, Table 03.070-1
Comment: Commercial and Service Development — Outdoor manufacturing, processing
and storage should, at a minimum, require a conditional use permit;
Response: The only designation that allows this use is the High Intensity
environment. On the rivers, the only developable locations with this designation
are upland of levees and are unlikely to have "uncommon or unanticipatable
impacts." Additional requirements must also be met for non -water -oriented uses
to be located in shoreline jurisdiction. The SMP Guidelines do not require a
CUP.
Page 44 Table 03.07o-1
Comment': Commercial and Service Development — Health and Social Service Fatality,
and a Mixed Use Budding should, at a minimum, require a conditional use permit;
Rigdon, P.
August 8, 2013
Page 7
Response: The only designations that allows these uses are the High Intensity
and Essential Public Facilities environments. On the rivers, the only developable
locations with this designation are upland of levees and are unlikely to have
"uncommon or unanticspatable impacts." Additional requirements must also be
met for non -water -oriented uses to be located in shoreline jurisdiction. The SMP
Guidelines do not require a CUP.
Pale 44, Table 03.070-1
Comment: Commercial and Service Development — Over -Water Uses should be listed as
a prohibited use in all environments consistent with Over -Water Residential Uses;
Response: The only environment where over -water commercial uses are allowed
is the Aquatic — Lakes environment, and only when the project includes a water -
dependent element and obtaim a CUP. The lakes are all artificial, with no listed
aquatic species. The SMP regulations require mitigation sequencing. The SMP
Guidelines do not require a CUP.
Page 44, Table 03.070-1
Comment: Signs — Off -premise signs should, at a minimum, require a conditional use
permit;
Response: Off -premise signs are only allowed in the two most intense upland
environment designations: High Intensity and Essential Public Facilities. Any
adverse impacts would need to be mitigated. The SMP Guidelines do not require
a CUP.
Page 45 Table 03.070-1
Comment: Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal -- Disposal of Dredged Material,
General should, at a minimum, require a conditional use permit,
Response: Disposal of Dredge Material, General is only allowed m the two most
intense upland environment designations: High Intensity and Essential public
Facilities. These designations are located outside of the channel migration zone.
Any adverse impacts would need to be mitigated. The SMP Guidelines do not
require a CUP.
Page 45. Table 03.070-1
Comment: Fill — Upland of the OHWM, General, should, at a minimum, require a
conditional use permit;
Rigdon, P.
August 8, 2013
Page 8
Response: Upland fills are limited to upland designations outside of channel
migration zones. Any adverse impacts would need to be mitigated The SMP
Guidelines do not require a CUP.
Page 51, Section 17.05.020,0.
Requested Change: 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 YMC 17.05.010.D not
required. In the following circumstances, the applicant must provide the mitigation
sequencing analysis described in YMC 17.05.020.D:
1. if a proposed shoreline cleydggmmt,use or modification is addressed in any part by
discretionary standards...
Response: The text will be revised as requested.
Page 59, Section 17.05.060.D.
Comment: Please provide the scientific and legal justification for this standard. This
proposed standard is inconsistent with 17.07.130.G.4. and WAC 173-27-040. Without a
legal and scientific justification, this provision should be removed.
Response: This provision was crafted during development of the City of
Bothell's approved SMP. Bothell has a levee on North Creek, the repair and
maintenance of which underwent some legal activity. The result is this
provision. 17.07.130.G.4 is about shoreline stabilization, which is different from a
levee's flood hazard reduction purpose (although there is certainly some overlap
in function).
Egge 66 Section 17.05.060. Fill.
Requested Change: "H. Projects that propose fill shall m .. � acquire fill
onsite (also known as compensatory storage) where appropriate".
Response: Thank you for your comment. We are choosing to retain our original
language. We believe this language will allow us to achieve the objective of
acquiring fill onsite while recognizing that is not possible in all circumstances.
Page 71, Section 17.07.130- Shoreline Stabilization_
Comment: "5. Replacement walls or bulkheads shall not encroach waterward of the
ordinary high water mark or existing structure unless the residence was occupied prior
Rigdon, P.
August 8, 2013
Page 9
19 and there are overriding safety or environmental concerns. In such
cases, the replacement structure shall abut the existing shore stabilization structure."
[emphasis added]
What is the significance of January 1,1992? The originat adoption of the SMP in the
1971Ys is a more appropriate date.
Response: This regulation is excerpted verbatim from WAC 173-26-
231(3)(a)(iii)(C). We will ask Ecology about the origin of that date.
Page 77. Section 17.07.170. Redevtment. Repair and Maintenance
Requested Change: "B. Legally established uses and developments may be maintained,
repaired, and operated within shoreline jurisdiction and within shoreline and critical
area buffers established in this SMP. Normal maintenance and repair, as specified in
YMC 17.13.050,�:�: ����. �� �:�mh t fir m. : 1
aim .�_
ar� �.:: ��.,'n�;�:n :��a :
�,
Response: The text will be revised with a slight change to say "...but not the
standards of the SMP".
CHAPTER 17.09 CRITICAL AREAS IN SHORELINE JURISDICTION
Comment: A straight clip and paste of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) into the SMP
has a number of issues that need correction There are a number of administrative
provisions in this Chapter that are inconsistent with the SMA, and its administrative
rules, in addition to the SMP as a whole. For example, Section 17.09.010 (Critical Area
Development Authorization) references "this chapter" and critical areas permits, which
do not exist in the SMA or the SMP. All administrative provisions should be moved to
Chapter 17.13 and reviewed for consistency. In addition, there are competing provisions
in the CAO Chapter and the remainder of the SMP. For example, the CAO chapter
(17.09) contains standards for Mitigation Requirements (17 09.010.I), Compensatory
Mitigation Plans (17.09.010.P.13), and Innovative Mitigation (17.09.010.P.14), but the
SMP - General Regulations (17.05) contains competing standards for Mitigation
Requirements (17.05.010.0.), Mitigation Sequencing (17.05.010.D.), Mitigations Plans
(17.05.010.E.), and Alternative Mitigation (17.05.010.P.). All competing standards should
be consolidated and reviewed for consistency.
Responses to specific comments presented below.
Requested Cluaage: "A. Purpose of Chapter. The purpose of YMC Chapter 17.09 is to
establish a single, uniform system of procedures and standards for development within
'(^
!HISIDEX
Rigdon, P.
August 8, 2013
Page 10
designated critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction of the incorporated City of
The City does not have jurisdiction in the UGA, which is still the jurisdiction of Yakima
County.
Response: The text will be revised as requested.
17.09.010.B
"3. Prevent further degradation of critical areas des ..
This provision is inconsistent with the "no net loss" standard.
Response: The text will be revised as requested.
Q, o_oft
"Applicability. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to any new development,
construction, or use within the: incorporated portion of the City of Yakima V4 rt..i' .
The City does not have jurisdiction in the UGA, which is still the jurisdiction of Yakima
County.
Response: The text will be revised as requested.
17. Ditical A ui
Comment: These are the CARA standards from the Yakima County CAO/SMP that were
found Growth Management Act (GMA) non-compliant by the Eastern Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board in Case No. 08-14X08c. The City should obtain
the updated CARA regulations from Yakima County for inclusion into the SMP, and
consider updating their CAO for consistency.
Response: The CARA text will be updated for consistency with changes made to
Yakima County's CARA regulations per the EWGMHB case.
CHAPTER 17.11 EXISTING USES, STRUCTURES AND LOTS
Comment: A consistency review of this section and 17.07.17o {Redevelopment, Repair
and Maintenance) is recommended.
INDEIK
.,,,, . /-
Rigdon, P.
August 8, 2013
Page 11
Response: The comment is noted. In preparing the draft SMP, a review was
made. If you have specific suggestions, please let the City know.
17.11.020 Nonconforming Structures --
Requested Change: "D. If a nonconforming development/structure is damaged to an
extent not needing be m � percent of the replacement cost of the original
devel-it may ed to those configurations existing immediately prior
to the time the development was damaged, provided that application is made for the
permits necessary to restore the development within six months of the date the damage
occurred, all permits are obtained and the restoration is completed within two years of
permit issuanoe."
Edit the standard to fiftypercent, consistent with the definition of "Substantial
improvement" (page 36) and the standards in Section 17.09.020 (Flood Hazard Areas).
Response: The 75% figure is based on WAC 173-27-080. To avoid the potential
for misinterpretation, the section will be revised to say 50% in flood hazard areas
and 75% elsewhere in shoreline jurisdiction.
17.11.020 Noncom ring Lots -
Requested Change: `B. Structures and customary accessory buildings on non-
conforming lots shall be setback Brom the OHWM to the greatest extent feasible.
Development proposed inside required buffers shall go through mitigation sequencing
RB4, shall require a mitigation plan,.. AGN uc n : a °� n i ui ..'Im l ° Qi , ,,
Response: Though the section does require setting back to the greatest extent
feasible and a mitigation plan, a variance process could be a vehicle for review.
The draft SMP includes administrative measures for buffer enhancement to
achieve reduced buffers which may result in a lower likelihood for a variance.
HISTORIC, CULTURAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
ELEMENT, PAGE 16 AND PAGE 50.
10.3.130.
1;Pcro +ag l circ the protection and restoration of areas and sites in the City of
Yakima having historic, archaeological., cultural, educational or scientific value.
Response: The suggested change will be made and the following phrase will be
added at the and of the sentence: "consistent with local, state, and federal laws."
Rigdon, P.
August 8, 2013
Page 12
10.3.131.
Development along shorelines should include consultation with professional
archaeologists, historians, �haesik) 7 and
.. . .... ... -
i lis i aric Preservitgn and ti4bes-the Y akarna t� ii. -i to identify areas containing
potentially valuable data, and to establish procedures for salvaging the data or
maintaining the area in an undisturbed condition.
Response- The suggested change will be made.
10.3.132.
Comment Shoreline permits should contain conditions of approval which require
developers to immediately stop work and notify local governments, the Office of
Archeological and Historic Preservation, Ya3carna Nggi�on if any
archaeological or historic resources are uncovered during excavation.
Response. The suggested change will be made.
10.3-133.
Comment. Development which would destroy archaeological or historical sites or data
may be delayed for a reasonable time to allow the appropriate agency or organization to
purchase the site or to recover the data.
Response. Comment noted.
10.3.134
Requested Addition: "Th Q�uy cf'Yakjrrka!� I
..... ..... hou d entei into arl.,g.i rift ivu t1l t1le,
hLlghim= TL Uu 111 —t(,)ssidatasothat
.................. — ..... . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . ........................... e
.....�n ..uYq.......................... ................
Response: llimk you for your comment. The City already has such an
agreement
17.05.010 Archaeological and Historic Resources
Requested Change, A. The City shall require that peEt-kks issued-in,ve;&*kx4tmef�
v I pp vn a
I - �� 'tl
;,''mm
. . .............. ................. .
"hj,v,h risk and ia,uv�ai,v jaizl't ds'k," C, jaj ��esourc I (E..,
............. - -.1-11-11,111.1", xx's IIE the )JAP
. . . .... ..... ..... - ----- . ..... . . . ...... ..................... ...........................
require a site inspection or evaluation ............... . ........ . ...... nii. .........x,)del ................... on by a professional archaeologist
Auger tests may be required before construction and representatives of the Washington
State Department of Archaeology and Yakama, Indian Nationa,5;t shzdi be invited to
D0111ro",-
11
1 111,114DIIIE1,I)II /
1.
# L
Rigdon, P.
August B, 2013
Page 13
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.
Response: Thank you for the comment. We suggest the following variations to
the suggested revisions:
• The City shall require that permits issued in areas documented to contain
archaeological resources or iocated withii arm area clas U" d ","I°°ui Lrisk
andlar."very, e ry, d Sv -' foi' circlla`' oic>�-,iC l..re"". cti "'!� e �
tedicritic mode)..
• Auger tests may be required before construction and representatives of
the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation and Yakama Nation inav be invited to observe any tests and
construction work, raid be : ovi d ed L) to r TM is its
17-05. 010 Archaeological and Historic Reso r
Suggested Change: 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 lorii n Nation if archaeological resources are uncovered
during excavation. Following such notification, the City may follow the provisions of
subsection C
Response: The text will be revised as requested.
17.05.010 Archaeological and Historic Resources
C. Where a professional archaeologist or historian, recognized by the State of
Washington, has identified an area or site as having significant value, where an area
or site is listed in national, state or local historical registers, orwIv,.-re. the DHAP
p1_L"eidic 11ve mode) ��i ��1�'d��f � �1 Ls' A���i r� a1 it � �1�� .�.,,. �ki�� � I -P!I '� � � � a �'I� V����' f r
r�,: e , the City �-a "1 �, 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."
Response: The suggested change will be made.
Rigdon, P.
August 8, 2013
Page 14
27.05.010 Archae10 ical an Hist ric Resources
Comment. Any reference to "affected Indian tribes" or similar reference should be edited
to "Yakama Nation". The City of Yakima is completely within the Yakama Nation's
ceded lands under the Treaty of June 9, 1855.
Response. The text will be revised as requested.
Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional
information
Peters, Jeff
From: John Marvin <jmarvin@Yakama.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 5:03 PM
To: Peters, Jeff
Cc: Jordan, Lennard (ECY)
Subject: RE: City of Yakima Draft SMP & CIA Addendum for your review.
Jeff and Lennard
Could you please share the communications between the City of Yakima, Ecology and USGS regarding Cowiche
Creek. Jeff, I believe you told me in our last phone conversation that Ms. Higgins had two different responses
when asked to clarify the models findings. I'm having our hydrologist review the report, and any additional
information from USGS would be helpful.
Thanks,
John L. Marvin
Habitat Biologist
Yakama Nation
Yakima/ Klicki tat Fisheries Project
760 Pence Rd
Yakima, WA, 98909
1-509-966-7406 office
1-509-949-2176 cell
1-509-966-4972 fax
j.p:°t1:. ,1,0,,?; ta,_-coi�I
From: Peters, Jeff
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 4:14 PM
To: Lenord Jordan; John Marvin; Bartrand, Eric L (DFW); Betsy Bloomfield; 'david@buchananlake.com';
(ioel.freudenthal@co.yakima.wa.us); Bartrand, Eric L (DFW); Betsy Bloomfield; 'Cain, Tami (CPM Yakima, OMG
Northwest) <tcain@o[dcastlematerials.com> tcain@oldcast€ernaterials.com)'; Cathy Reed (Business Fax); 'Dave
Franklund'; 'david @buchananlake.com'; 'Dowd Luce (dvdluce mail.com);'flemink@wsdot.wa.gov%John Marvin;
'McDonald, Jana (CPM, OMG Northwest)'; 'Parsons, Christine (PARKS)'; 'Sauriol, William ; 'schneiderdevelop@aol.com;
'tsmith1011@mac.com'
Subject: City of Yakima Draft SMP & CIA Addendum for your review.
Dear Shoreline Interested Parties and Agencies,
The City of Yakima has completed its initial process of updating and development of the City's SMP, and is now moving
on to Environmental Review of the Draft Documents. On July 9, 2013, the City of Yakima will publish a legal add in the
Yakima Herald for a NOTICE OF APPLICATION, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF NON-
SIGNIFICANCE for the City of Yakima's Draft Shoreline Master Program. The comment period for this environmental
review will end on July 29, 2013. Please feel free to review the draft documents and provide your comments in writing
or via email, and thanks to all who have participated and provided input throughout this process.
Sincerely,
MOMMI ",
P.S. Due to the size of the documents attached the Notice of Application and SEM Checklist are available on the
website as listed below.
.! t�p�.ww�w.-rjkim�awa. �L)ysery�ices/jpj!gq
n, (X�N
P a
INDE
Confederated Tribes and Bands
of the Yakama Nation
City of Yakima
Department of Community and Economic Development
ATTENTION: SEPA Responsible Official
129 North 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Monday, July 22, 2013
RE: City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program Update
Established by the
Treaty of June 9,1855
I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding the City of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program
Update.
The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation is a federally recognized Indian tribe under the
Treaty of June 9, 1855 (12 Stat. 951). Under Article III of the Treaty, the Yakama Nation reserved rights to fish
at all usual and accustomed places, together with the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries, both
within and outside of its reservation. The Yakama Nation has a vested interest in any land use policy or
regulation that has the potential to affect any of its treaty reserved rights, in addition to Yakama Nation water
rights. The City of Yakima is completely within the Yakama Nation's ceded lands under the Treaty of June 9,
1855.
Please find attached correspondence to me from my fisheries staff. I concur with the findings of the report for
resource and cultural protection. As you may know, substantial funding is being invested in the Yakima River
Basin, to allow it to once again support a viable salmonid and resident fish population. The proposed land use
policies and regulations may add to the cumulative negative effects that result in a degraded watershed, provide
a significant, adverse affect on the environment, and negatively affecttreaty-reserved rights.
Please contact my staff regarding your response to the comments noted in the attached memo. John Marvin can
be reached at 509-966-7406.
Sincerely,
Phil Rigdon
Deputy Director of Natural Resources
Yakama Nation
CC File
Post Office Box 151, Fort Road, Toppenish, WA 98948 (509) 865-5121
klmLoj� r11W
TO: Phil Rigdon, Deputy Director, DNR
THROUGH: Scott Nicolai, Yakinia Subbasin Habitat Coordinator. YKI-P
FROM: John Marvin, Habitat Biologist, YKFI1
DATE: Monday, July 22.2013
RE: City (if Yakima Shoreline Master Program Update
-1,110 City ole Yakima, through its Phnnning Commission, is currently soliciting colilment% 011,1
Draft Shoreline NllasIcr Pro-C_mam (SNIP), and a Cumulative Impacts Analysis ((1111, The City of
Yakima began the S M P update process in the spring of 2012. )'tiktiiiiaNttioiist,,it'fliasbeen
pailicipatill" in tilt: update process. with %%ritten comments submitted ill jailual-V on 2(Hl
The Ci" of Yakima is currently conducting onviron menta I rei iew of the Draft S M P under the
State LnN ironmenial Policy Act (SEPAL . m ith a comment deadline of July 29"', "_(113.
Com lc he Creek
The City or Yakima is Pr011osilIg Lo remove Co,,% iche ('reek 1roin Shoreline Management Act
(SMA)jurisdiction, Coke iche ('reek has been under jurisdiction of the SNIA since its adoption ill
1972. and its lV1110%',11 fiVill Such jurisdiction play have a sipnificailt, adversc atTect on [lie
crit ii-ollment ill addition to 1mratively affiectingtreaty-resor%ed rights.
flic City's juslilication fior remoN iril., Cowiche ('reek from SMA jurisdiction is "huse(I on the
('0111hillol irc�,,,ht ofyircam gm( -,c dater ii -hi •h clan's not inchuh- 11) U),itc,el
SlUtCN: (1LW1Q!,iC .Surf'e'r WSGS) moelclhW. and the' oj)hdons of rarienis loced,wency ci-periv.
(C[A 2013). The USES published a report ill 2003 that updated its earlier 1971 N%ork
identif)ing, the tolistreani limit ot'20 cubic feet per second (cl , s) mean annual flow (MAF). The
2003 US()S report predicted the boundary point for streams in southeastern Washington by
appl% Illultiple-linear-rc
gxeNsjon equation that relates nican annual discharge to drainage
area and mean annual precipitation I Higgins 2003). CoNviche Creek is not identified ill the USGS
report as a N%alcrbody %N ith a IllillinlMll 1110all allIlLIR] flow ol20 efs. 'file USGS %vas contacted to
Clarify the results tiler Colviche ('reek, and the USGS reported that the nican annual tlow for
C'ox% idle Creek is estimated to lie 18.76 els, with all range of accuracy of -2l°. o to +260,.(4.2 efs
to +5.1 efs). The USGS, in a letter dated June 14, 2013, stated that - The estimated ralue ql'the
mean annual (Avehm-xv.1by- Utricle Creek is close to dise-henge rahie ot'20 (1,i aml /alts Avilhill
the listed rearm,®c ofaccurae , v./in- the equation lbr eleferminhkq 20 rft (4.2 to + 5.1 vA)... The
Collection qffimv dato over a long periocl f?f time i i mdcl he the hest method to estimate lite meall
The USGS readily admits that the range of error should
be included, and that the only scientific means of ascertaining flow data for Cowiche is
physically collecting it.
The 2003 USGS study states "The 1971 study cleterminedul).viream houmkvy points1by- the
requhamy efischarye qj'20ft3ls phis the stangkirtl erior of de ter ix,gy-ession equations,
rather thou just the regulatory rfischarge i1sell'as in the Why did the updated
study change the calculated results fi-oni the original study'? The 2003 USGS study also states
that the error "equution pr•ovitles ont'v onl' ` a r(atr;lr r°s ini ater of the (aetu al en -or hcvause it is
cliff Melt to e`.atirn ate life average hu.s°ifa width l,r'ec•iserly etrael heeauve it u.4S'umes that the stream
L'olit'Se r°5°!)e'f7ie'racla(7e1(lr td) thv burin ri'aclth, which Plias° riot be tr"aaeFootnote I oil page 16 of
the USES report (2003) further highlights the massive amount of possible error in the
calculatitfals° The regressions equation was about 4 -fold otTeornpared to the. Satus Creek gage
data. Due to the major discrepancy, the USES had to rise 4.7 ells for the shoreline designation
cutoff oat Satus C'rcek. It is obvious that the: range ill accuracy (error) for all of the streams could
be much greater than reported.
The 2003 USGS study utilized precipilation (lanai liar the period 1930 to IL)57. There is no
discussion oil s%hy° Such 111tiquastCd data §s.rs used instead of data that are more: current.
Scott Ladd, as Fi_%drologist ss ith the. Yaal;asnaaa Nalion Walter Resources Progrann arae, contacted for
Itis proi&sional opinion of the USGS findings (sec attached analysis):
"I. The 21`103 USGS r c wit lar° lligght.e and the wic/c'h` used USGS°.StrL'a w.Yirl7.s 1)rogr(ftrt
aalal)e'tir tit (a¢ Us' (It- (it I('cast fn-wriou', clracigi'L"e°'rrlew. The USGS ,Strean)SI(Ifs extdlnuies
Ale'(ara .Iflfdrl(!1 Flow (L% 160 (1V loll° C( vit'ht- C °r'c ek tit lids' l meth (riivr mile 0)p anc1 2lo e°6
fit 111'0' Mile '.IV (aall()r'e' C°(MY011 aft II L'itt'I). 1°1•0111 the eorlf11IL'ttc(' oftlr(- North aial5wab
Forks cit P°!t'('I• mile 7. 1, the °11'an ,Qrfnu al How i§° t°§liruilte'c1111°.Ser°('(!lrl.Set(tt.§'
thee,Sunih Fork and 70 (.f§° for MeNorth Fork C inric'he C ive'k. T` re.sruntlerrcl orror° fal llty
t°5fliia¢lft' W(i°5° rlert,E;lven in the nrutiel (, altput 11'(112 MI the 11 t`h-hld°5'e°(I ltltO'firc`(". Thisi.4 fin-
(lifftwentthun A' "`ISA t'/';tllalt lr°a.S alfel,(Pr•(°1f1I9`lr!'Ovirletll04°II gginv'(rf the USUSif) the
C°ate° r,f }`utrrlur
USGS Str°ectip r.SIals ('.SIi1n all's StIVUI)dflarlr' NIL IfiNtiCS f(,r° tlrt (8ti(°cI41t('s Its°dtrg lc°,i;f'v°vsiw)
('quatlony a vve'h)pk'(l fin- 1dI'(1r°ol(i9,w r't gionv had.°+(°(!(,n s`itrralar'!tr of e1in)(1ty anal plhvAivul
e°havauteri.s fit x. Far this ane rla'.51.s, PIPs.' USGS S'tr•( aniStals r1;6{revv'ion f(,t' f orris°Ire ( 'reek
If.% ,,I 5d.1' .s°tI-a win yiwk'°s (Brunpitkv ita°(!r° Nile, .Iineric°rail River near Nile, Nac-heL5° RiVe't° (it
Oak Flat, Peron lin'e'r (Pt HL°uehr°or°k,° ()f Tac°terry, North Fork .Ihlclalum, South Fork
Ilitcinurn). {`hest, (Pre the' tic Pill[" aa.®","fWe'4 Ait iivre livie°(l in the- 1,(fu'r'l• }cltaafta r(;!?r(rri ill
Ili gild§' (20()3)® (P rC7 OPO that, h oinivNdardr of Col{'te°he Creek upparenth` (bunel that i1 eliaf
not weet the 2() c/.c three%hotel far int-hision as u ,Sade Shoreline,
2 1ieWression inoclel5° of thesort usetllit° tl.SGS°all StreaniStats Palle!fllgghis' (2()113) circ'
hir;hly inucvur°Cite', antir°e"laearaee on (1 hi rhly lireeise !!umber srle°li us 18.8 c'f§° (P'C'1Jrdr"]e'(IIl°
the rdumhur issuecl hl' Hkgin.$) u.s.sianes° It level of `racc°urac r [licit does not a i.st. III the
2003 19ic;gins re[icirl lire Lower Yakima Basin hir,4 ca .stcantiar(1 error of - 21 to +26%6, air -
4.2 to +5.1 eft. 77lerejbre, the cwtual inn an annual clisehcarasrc c°oulcl exevecl20 i i, hart it
shoulclrat least lee reported as ca liken' f°cart e° of ineern unnirell cli.sch ar ge, not ca. Male
highly precise number. The inoclelcel clisc'hurge woulil tinea he 15-24 qfi err C'ou°ic°he
Creek using Higgins (2003), or 150-170 c'fs inning USGS SPaccarrlaStaaLs° (whir Lower Yakima
region .stancicrrel error r°el)or"teel iia His gins 2003).
3, The 19911942 Grates (211-211) is P?(dt It sa•uter rear and is cli.4ioinle(1 from reeerltpecars,
which e'd inproini4es its usef[ahiess. HT91 (dile! 1' Y92 were coineielentallt' low II*ater° fears
(ftlrlkidk,q 11r Cil°eery Lake SNOT'1,L, the c°hlscw station to tilt' Cowiche Creek IleachrefteP°st.
d° The 005 ivoted- a°ecPP° is rrussbkv' data (allel was a s{i,'riffic°curt tkolf ht'°e cPr°1°
5. L7ivet:sion demo. if avoilahle. need if) he afieuntlf e d and added to the total, Dc°tro•(rter•Jttat a
ctt°c'cd!!y canldefl he the hatSisfi11' Shoi-eline elC'C°larss'lfdQ'artdalPr. One of the alssurdtl)tions alt file
USCoS model is that theP`e A )to sigldaflc°ant t°e;rllLltrr)!1 ol` afdl°er:sdoll art x11' lr17.StP°C°crrra,fiurra
the hounehai'v poirlt,file the,ser°eum. This crssitemplialft carmor he ddphekd in this cas°c°
h. OHL' of the stedte'el pert/lose°s ofthe 003 L'.5°CnS %nuiv rs to upelate the• 01'1gidlal 1971 ,stile/1'
of .51711!°C°llne.5 by utlfl ipk,- 0 tic laldtioncil Peary [)f a!i'CrllulrlC° .sfa°C'alr1P s;e!!.!!1I°;; Alto, Hot6"c°vel..
Prloyl r°ecorefs rim, I in the ulle atc'el Fdh;;tins (2003) repos°t dare pre•®197®1, sal the hFfrttt chafer is
he wt III` ulydateal at all° .IIr1P'covet°, rush° 6 vtaeiruts wera' loweI Jill- thc' hover° Yakima F`C. ion.
131" contrast, the Ill. /dulls vc gion ulilivicel3 3 stations. This is likeh° a cunt!°ihutirag felctau°
to why° the SEE is set lors;e fill` the L oive!°Yakima vegion.
7, If JIT2006 ,006 !s the most re°ccia Cln[J['(1l1lfPl(°te° queddtl`-a.5' mi-c°cl r cwod°ej then thele ikifa
.%hoithh he 1101 he` e c-hideel without ver°t°,kauel r•c`ason P'c'alsrin that bees not been jwewieleet
Inelc`ed if was (111 elhol'c` en'CNP qc' 11'atc'f" C'(11% But !!sial,; airs fxe'mcd alldvollyplete ehedta,Se°t
wattlei seedll a more° 111,11rhe°Ili tq)pr loch them P"e / Y tq Slile'li` Oda mock,l d°estrlts ernel peri°tier!
delta set,S.
S. lX%chfrrgv is npicalk hirdIls° cnf°rc'Iueerf to ah'aineagv aura fife• er climatic, (file/ "coloi is
re,gialn. Relfe•f efrreJ Ipers'!rr %IPedfle edJVo Jraflarc°rice° tldis relulir)rtslrifl. T'he' ie$°ar !treat rltlaer•
%!nolle'!° haslals Crre' "Shoreldnes°"and thus the 1e1; ei- Cuiriche hastn shotehlalSo he a
"Shot°eline" has inc°r°ii.
9. Sillcc C ola'iche is ah-eac/t• ret the Slip of the cdtl` and the count!°, ther°c s(°(°nes sc err11
et`hlelle"e fin. d°e't1dd11`lal9 if.
10. In the ohsence elf tions! ehala (emel evielciwe to s'idggc'st the extual mean annual
chscheri'LiTc is 1'e't°1° close it) the c!°Ill!!°aP'}' II`.IC of till ch' elf° err fair in e'Sr"C'.V's ref Pty. whi° not
('idle r"I cx('ttletl [latex.Yes, it it -ill take s°c°1 e'ral rear! s. It can he efodre
Table 1. Ilecrrd Amoral 1-°lolr fi•orn USGS Str°e'cnuStats° (712 512013 a°aul, S.Laafrll
Location
Ryer Mile
Mean Annual Flow (cfs)
Cowiche Cr. near mouth
0.4
160
Cowiche Cr. at Weikel
513
214
Cowiche Cr. Below Forks
7°0
204
SF Cowiche Cr. above NF confluence
7.1
130
NF Cowiche Cr. above SF confluence
7.1
70
5F Cowiche Cr. below McDaniel Cr.
15,1
Insufficient data
NF Cowiche Cr above French Canyon Dam
15.5
Insufficient data
Trible r tr onipen-i.4on 1)v shnilw- fl ainca e° bersin chtll-t.rOffi1'1iCS. LgKv, Si11 COC, a n(I D1:1, C 1-eeks
hcr.eiit.y L%wallef-'111(l with les.e pi-ec'ipitation than ( oiriehe - 11`01°e 0.eiinlertetl10 rnec'1 [170 20-t ('ft
thi-eshokl in ftgin.s (2003).
An analysis ofnearby tdatarNhetls alerting 4h01c°lh de%ignation 1%i1h similar eharaleteristies to
Co%%iche Creek easts considerable doubt on the accuracy incl le` el o error in the [rote deled mean
annual lloxv. :
• Coxviehe Creek I10.38 Sgtiili°C Mile,, draining, 1l'om any elevation orapproximately 66bo
feet,
• N4ana ata %h C'reck 96.914 square nroiles, di'alintnk from an elctation of approximately 6200
feet-,
• Tancum Creek 79 79 square utiles, droning Froin an elevation crofaspproxinlately 5500
feet-,
• S`r°auk Creek 106.15 square utiles, draining from an elevation ofapproxiniately 5675
feet,
• North Fork Ahtaniuin Creek 68.9 square miles, draining horn an elevation of
approxiinately 6700 feet-,
• Solid[ Fork Ahtanum Creek 24.8 square rniles, draining front an elevation of
approxiniately 6800 feet®
• Nan eurn Creek- 69.5 square miles, draining from an elevation of approxi niately 6300
feet.
The City is also relying on "the opinions a t'vai-ious local agenti, 0.tpei-Is " for removing Colviche
Creek front SMA jurisdiction, In e-rnail correspondence obtained from the City, those "experts"
DOX
INDEX
2 -Yr
Pea flo , cfs
Mean
Mean
Max
Min
(StreamStats
Annual
Area (sq
Basin
Basin
Basin
ungaged
Precip,
Location
rrti)
Elev
Elev
Elev
regression)
inches
Cowiche Creek at mouth, river
mile OA
120
3110
6660
1150
730
27
Cowiche Creek below Forks,
river mile 7.0
110
3230
6660
1560
680
28
Logy Creek
45
3960
5820
2250
340
26
Dry Creek
94
3230
4860
1 1650
600
19
Simcoe Creek
42
3550 j
5980
1560
310
24
An analysis ofnearby tdatarNhetls alerting 4h01c°lh de%ignation 1%i1h similar eharaleteristies to
Co%%iche Creek easts considerable doubt on the accuracy incl le` el o error in the [rote deled mean
annual lloxv. :
• Coxviehe Creek I10.38 Sgtiili°C Mile,, draining, 1l'om any elevation orapproximately 66bo
feet,
• N4ana ata %h C'reck 96.914 square nroiles, di'alintnk from an elctation of approximately 6200
feet-,
• Tancum Creek 79 79 square utiles, droning Froin an elevation crofaspproxinlately 5500
feet-,
• S`r°auk Creek 106.15 square utiles, draining from an elevation ofapproxiniately 5675
feet,
• North Fork Ahtaniuin Creek 68.9 square miles, draining horn an elevation of
approxiinately 6700 feet-,
• Solid[ Fork Ahtanum Creek 24.8 square rniles, draining front an elevation of
approxiniately 6800 feet®
• Nan eurn Creek- 69.5 square miles, draining from an elevation of approxi niately 6300
feet.
The City is also relying on "the opinions a t'vai-ious local agenti, 0.tpei-Is " for removing Colviche
Creek front SMA jurisdiction, In e-rnail correspondence obtained from the City, those "experts"
DOX
INDEX
were: all of the opinion that Cowiche Creek has a MAF of at least 20 cfs. No one from the
Yakama Nation was consulted for his or tier professional opinion. A number of Yakama Nation
biologists and geologists with all intimate knowledge of Cowiche Creek were consulted oat their
professional opinion of the possible MAF for Cowiche Creek, and all were of the opinion that it
it was in excess of 20 cf,;.
A project currently under way by the North Yakima Conservation District will transfer the
Cowiche Watcr Users group from t%%o surface: dh ersions to the Yakima-Ticton Irrigation system
logia` ing ail additional 7M4 cls in C'ou ache Creek, The prolcct will also install a stream gage to
monitor in -stream flott s. An additional 8 efs in C'ox iche ('reek is almost half %vay to the 20 cis
threshold, and the instillation ofa stream gage will allow for a Scientific Ine[lstlremeni of actual
iloN%s in the Inure.
The Yakama Nation has imested a significant amount of'tintc and liuuls into Cowiche Creek to
allm% n to once again support a %iable salmonid and resident fish population. The Yakama
Nation has successfully re -introduced a population of naturally reproducing colic) into C'o`viche
Creek. Co`ti iehe Creek is designated as critical habitat for stcelhcad and bull troth under the
Fndan`.;ered Species Act. The de -designation orCowicbe Creek as a Shoreline of the State is ail
erosion Ol em Iro11nlental protections that has the potential to undermine past efforts, negatively
aft�ct treaty-reserrcd rights. and potentially violate the Endangered Species Act.
The Yakinia Steelllcad Recot cry flan (2(100)) includes a thorough analysis of ho`% stcclhcad
habitat and populations should be protected and recovered under the ESA.
The Yakima Steelhcad Reeos ery Pian (2009) concluded that achier ill- reco` cry goals for the
Naclles Populafaon vl111 require iinpleinentin., strategies to Continuing efforts to protect existing
functional habitat and sigiliiicantly protecting and impro%ing passage, flows, and instream and
riparian conditions in tributaries, including Co`%iche Crock.
The Yakima Steellicad Rom cry Plait (2009) found that rapid population growth and
cice clopinent is occurring in Yakima County (including file City orYaki a). In the C'o`vicllc
Creek %%aierslwd. residential or recreational 110111C dOVC101u11011t is oftcil located adjacent to
%treambanks. Near the City of Yakima, agricultural lands, malty `t ith shallow groundwater, are
being coin` cried to residential, commercial, and industrial USCS. Conversion of agricultural lairds
to other uses will be accompanied by fragmentation of ownerships and land uses, each with
different management goals. The probability of conflict between new land owners/land uses and
floodplain/stream channel functions (which sustain fish habitat and conveyance of water and
sediment) is high.
Achieving recovery goals for the Naches Population ofsteelhead will require continuing efforts
to protect existing functional habitat (Habitat Strategy 1), and making significant efforts to
protect and improve passage, flows, and instrearn and riparian conditions in tributaries
including Cowiche Creek (Habitat Strategies 2, 5, h, 7 & 8)
The Yakima Steelhcad Recovery Plan (2009) listed numerous actions necessary to recover listed
stcclllcad in Cowiche Creek, including:
Nachos Acti oil #19 Restore tower Cou iclie Creek floodplain
Naches action #20 Protect Cowiche Creek watershed froth increasing development
pressure
Naches Action #22 improve riparian, floodplain, and temperature conditions in Cowiche
Creek
Cost iche Creek Iias been Hilder the jurisdiction ofthe SMA for more than 40 years, to remove it
front SMA jurisdiction based on a calculated guess ts, illi a high lc %ei ofmor and spotty data is
irresponsible and inconsistent ssith scientific requirements of WAC 173-26-201. Strictly relying
oil the 2006 R'IAF ol'47 ets, the only complete dataset, clearly indicates the potential likelihood
that Con ielie Creek meets or exceeds ilio 20 of , threshold. The City of Yakima Currently only
hats appro%hn.ately It) acres, ol'Ctm iehc Creek SMA Jurisdiction, so le -ming it in SMA
jurisdicIioil tool tiI a salid scientific ansster is obtaitied'siII not be burdensome to the City. Tile
C'tty of Yakirim and the Wathatigion Depariment of Ecology d Mould Initiate all aada pth e
laaaanag ment program, consistent st ith WAC 173-26-201, to scientifically determine the
,jurisdictional stratus ofCm%fiche Creek.
litichaanan Lake/Beech Street Pit
While ii is Understood the statutory limitations on dQsivbiiaatiii%t SMA juriadielion to all .acti` e
, aa` el mining operation° it should be noied that there is at more than high likelihood that the
levee bemeen the Yakima Ricer and the pit re ill fail as. noted by Stanford et. al. (2002) and the
Upper Yakima Riser Comprehensisc blood Hazard Mainagcancnt Plan (24607). The Channel
Migration Zoiie (CMZ) itiaps should be aidjustcd accordingly.
Stream and 1�ctland 1$111•1rec17S
Oil page 12. Section 3.4, the CIA states °`.SQ,rur a ritic al arr°c•cr hrrfjcr°.s twe° re du rrclirr rlr(°1)rrrlro•sc°cl
SIM coml)(ira'(l ur the• C'ourrtt°'s RelgirmaI MP, however, theln`oposecl chorc°lhre hulfi°r°.s erre
c•orasie1011 With rristirrt; c'ondifimm. and Ir"lland hnlfrrs erre c•ou.sds en/ n•iih Ec'ologn—'.s
;;rcidance°. This statement and the reduced buffers in the SKI 13 (Table tit).030-1 and 09.040-1)
are incomsimem with WAC 173®26-201, and the science analysis adopted by the City Yakima
County 13AS 2006), 7 -he buffers proposed are insuffielClit to protect the ecosystern-wide
functions detailed in Section 17-09.030.E (Functional Properties). The Yakima County BAS
report (2006) states:
"The hmv ofr•ilmrlan a•c,€,vfafion due to urbanizaHo r (Klein 1974, quoted in Knutson
ureal Nate, f • 19971:
® degrades stream comfitions through hic°reas-e c1 yr osion of •hemks• no le ykger•
(1177701,ed with r ours and debris fr°a)fu nertier al regetaation,
f°erraure'.S (I srrrrf•t°e= Oflogs and ort=unie• cla'brLy that stabilizestreams crrt(llrr c vide
fa)od and marients,
• increases Stream te'rnivrawres through shade removal, and
® reduces the capucita° a)% the riparian area to.filler incondikg seclimems and
1ro111dants..,
"When c°strrhlislrirrt sc°ierrtifirull,° hose d arse rior fur deter mining hgjfe®f- wicklrs,.1bur
criferiu Should he adelr°e.s•se c1(1i`eyk er 1991).•
• the existing or polentical vahee of the re-voi -c-e to he proter-feek
•
the site, ivatlevshed,, and hgjfi r characteristics:
teris'tic°s:
" the infertsiti, (!f Cadlfdre'eait lCldati USC (IFICI
• theSI1d'C°afic IMter-ijuallti°Q]ndl' rhabitat junctions JesireJ
Gener all, . narrower hiif f erti nial' he sufficient where the rilwy-hin Qal°ea 1s° hi goodcondition, the resource raluee' Cale lora', site conditions Cate icle'eah the Qrc# aeent hired
rose has Qa Iola' I7(itelrtladl ffad° iinpacl, Ctnd'or the al .0-C'aihlff f(°a°.f!!)iC'IPQ111.4 al -e few. Oil
rhe utltc°r` hand, kidder hifffcvs` are neeessarty when the htaf}6r yrrealif'r is Inwr irrid high®
rQahic ii ager re.1'(1i1rcev evis�t cfcljeweltl to Intense Baird it.vexor where da hl;,h
kd rel 01 Pa111lt1Irle IPallleP` fadliY`lll)r1.1 A desired (Pedone Candi Todd 1997). -
The C`lA Fails to sufficiently analyze. or scientifically substantiate the decrease in buffer as idths
consistent `s ith WAC 173-20-201. Why do wetland buffers require the mitigation in 'fable
09.0-I0-2, but the stream bufrCrs do not require the same mitigation? This should also be
scientilicaiiv substantiated consistent %N ith WAC 173-20-201. At a minimum. the buft`e^rs should
be consisient ss ith the Yakima County SMII.
Slrecilic Comments arl file July I. 2013 Drarrt Cit`` errVatkhrial Shoreline Master Program
Pa4ve 15, Polic® 10.3°122 Add the Yakania Nation to list ofsources fior identification of
scusiti`e print° fish and %vildlife specie<.
Page 30 "Priorit® Habitats" .11111 "Pr•ior°itt Species" Include neaps of1WDF\V Priority
I-Iabit.rts and Species into the record° and adopted as part ofthe Sh11'.
Pane 33 "Shorelands" Per R('1W 9(9°58(2)(d)(ii), include " hill llit'ves.sdarl- fiaa° huff(°ry fiir
c r°ideal alvau , as defined nedl art c hcrlrter 36. 70.1 RC°11; that occur rl ilhhl shorelines 00he wate - into
Ilse deti`lition.
Pall;c 30, Section 17.01.1 ODA Insert "Coesic e Creek" in to the list of°Shorelines of the State.
Page 38, Section 17.01.1000 Per RC°1W 90.59;(2)(d)(ii), include "hind plcces der g° fug° hrlffiws.fur
critical arecty, das defined in c hiriJler 36, 70.4 RCIV, that occur within shorefarles q/ the slate " into
the: designation ofShorcline jurisdiction.
'fable 03.07G-1 ....
• Page 43 - All Boating and Private Moorage Facilities should, at a minimum, require a
conditional use permit;
• Page 44 Commercial and Service Development - Outdoor manufacturing, processing
and storage should, at a minimum, require a conditional use permit:
• Page 44 - Commercial and Service Development - Health and Social Service Facility,
and a Mixed Use Building should, at a eninimuni, require a conditional use permit-,
• Page 44 Commercial and Service Development Over -Water Uses should be listed a a
prohibited use in all environments consistent with Over -Water Residential Lases.®
• Page 45 Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal Disposal of Dredged Material,
General should, at a rnininnun, require a conditional Use permit:
•
Page. 45 Fill Upland of the OHWM.General, Should, at a minimum, require a
conditional use permit:
•
Page 44 Signs OfT-preiiiisesigns should. iitaminimum, require acoiiditioiialuse
permit;
Page 51, Section 17.05.020.0.
C. Mitigation Requirement. If a proposed shoreline development, use or modification is
entirely addressed by specific, objecliw standards (such as setback distances, pier
dimensions, or materials requircollents) contained in this SMP, only then is a mitigation
circumstances. the applicant must pro% ide the mitigation sequencing analysis described in
YMC 17.05.020.D:
I. if I proposed shoreline development, usc or modification is addressed in any part by
discretionary standard,,..
Page 59, Section 17.05.060.1).
"Increases in height of an existing levee, With OrPY associated increase in width, that may be
needed to prevent a reduction in the uuthorized level of protection of existing legal structures
and uses shall be considered an element of repair and maintenance."
Please provide the scientific and legal justification Ilor this standard. This proposed standard is
inconsistent `% ith 17.07.130.GA and WAC 173-27-040. Without a legal and scientific
justification, this provision should be reinowd.
Page 66, Section 17.05.060. FlIL
-1L Proiects pRYPOR, /licit fill shall evet— require jiff onsite (also known cis
.:1-ITT-
whvre f Ilypropricire ".
Noe 71, Section 17.07.130. Shoreline Stabilization.
'.5. RVIAR-011011 walls or hulkheadssherll not (111CIVaCh waterwardofihc w-chnapi, ln;gh
11"fley• nicirk- or existiligstrucLure wile%,Y the rceyidence waLy urL rrlliecf niter tri Ju rrrara' 1,
1992, and there are over ser/E-0-1- On"h-onniental convern-Y. In such cases, the
ruplavellivid slylecture .shall abut the exiviyks,> shoreslerbilizarion structure. " lemphasis
addedl
What is the significance of January 1, 1992? The original adoption of the SMP in the 1970'4 is a
more appropriate date.
Page 77, Section 17.07.170. Redevelopment, Repair and Maintenance.
"Ll. Lgaily oWahlished uses and developments imil, be irraintained, repaired, and
operated within shoreline.jurisdiclion and within shoreline and Critical area hq#6-s
established in this SA 1P. Normal maintenance arra repair, as specified in YAfC i T 13.05f1,
A -
not the SUP.
I hl D 0111,
1), �
.............. .............
A straight clip and paste of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) into the SMP has a number of
issues that need correction. There are a number of administrative provisions in this Chapter that
are inconsistent with with the SMA, and its administrative rules, in addition to the SMP as a
whole. For example, Section 17.09.010 (Critical Area Development Authorization) references
"this ellapLeir" and Critical -areas permits. m hick do not exist in the SMA or the SMP. All
administrative pros isions should be moved to Chapter 17.13 and reviewed for consistency. In
addition, there are competing provisions in the CAO Chapter and the remainder of the SMP. For
example, the CAO chapter (17,09) contains standards for Mitigation Requirement,, ( 17.(}9.014.1),
Compensatory Mitigation Plans (17.09.01 O.P.1 3), and Innovative Mitigation ( 17.09,01 O.P.] 4),
but the SMP - General Regulations (17.05) contains competing standards for Mitigation
ROLlUiNnICIUS (17.05.0 M.C.), Mitigation Sequencing (I 7.05M 1 0 1).), Mitigations Plans
All coiiipeiiiigstandards should be
consolidated and revieNN ed fior consistency.
17,09,0 10 General Provisions
1111ifiJI'M SYNA111 01'j)0)(V1 fill -L�y anfistandarch; fin. &.1-clopment within crilical
areas wt . thin the vhorchne jurisdiction of incorpolwIC(I City olTakinlivin?.4 4,y *t??f
The City does not hate jurisdiction in the UGA. which is still the jurisdiction ofYakima County.
17.09.010.13
This provision is inconsistent with the -no net loss" standard.
17.09.010.1)
`Ilyplicahilif ' I-. The provisions ofthusChapter shall qpphr fo anY new flevehynnent,
c onstriection, or tNe within the of the 01Y Of Yakima � L4,hcon
G?Wls.th Vipwo. - -
The City does not have jurisdiction in the UGA, which is still the jurisdiction of Yakima County.
17.09.060 Critical Aquirer Recharge Areas
These are the CARA standards from the Yakima County CAO/SMP that were found Growth
Management Act (GMA) non-compliant by the Eastern Washington Growth Management
Hearings Board in Case No. 08-1-0009c. The City should obtain the updated CARA regulations
from Yakima County for inclusion into the SMP, and consider updating their CAO for
collsistellcy.
CHAPTER 17.11 EXISTING USES, STRUCTURES AND LOTS
roirmatted: IBdremall, Don't adjust space butween LaRl u and
Asian texl�, DORVROA61, q%ace, betwcein Asl&n tri.xT and
num1beirs
A consistency review of this section and 17.07.170 (Redevetopinent. Repair and Maintence) is
recommended.
17.11.020 Nonconforming Struct"res —
"D. 11'a is to all extent not exceeiling
�Iv )ercent ofthe replacement cost of the oy-rs,Yhpul it Pprej ' v be
reconstrucletl to those configurations existhq,- iminediarelv prior to the thee' the
11-as &11174agect proviclecl that (q)lYlication is mUdefin- the per whs nevessai,v
to rosrore 1hL' g1C4'Vl0lMIV/I1 within %i.v monflis qfthe claw the OCCUITM, gill I)VI'MitS
are obtaineel am I the rv.% it) rw it) it is comj)lvtet I I I *11in f I IW Y4 It V -III it iss I fal we. "
Hit the standird to fifty percent. corh%iSterit With 1110 (10"InitiOn ill "'SUbstantial improlement"
(page 36) and the standards in See ion 17.09.020 ( Flood Hazard Areas).
I-
17.11.020 Nonconforniffia Lots —
-B. Struclurn uncl ('115' ollial-1. accevvoll, huilrlhk,u on IoIL% L%-hall be SCI
back fivin the OHIVAI to ME' "YVUIrSt (-xivia ktuilde. DevvIol)ment lwolnucel insich,
requircithrelfirs shall ,,(j throrqh HHmP—%hall require a wiliquliuly
phill, alul vartuace, per-section 17.13.080. -
Historic. Cultural, Scienfific, rind Educational Resources Elenient. Page 16 and Page 50.
I'lie Yakania Nation submiued written comments to the City on January 31 ° 2013 outlining how
etiliff,11 1"CSOUrCOS S1101,11d be addressed in the SMP, these include:
Field imesti-
ations ror all -round disturbin- activities:
• A data sharing agreement %shh the Washington Department of` Archeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP);
• A requirement that any proposal %% ith a known archeological Site be imestigated by a
professional archeologist, and:
• Archeological sun-eys I'm- any proposal x% ith a "high risk and or very high risk" l'or
archcololzient resources base(] on the DHAP predictixe model
The proposed policies and regulations are inconsistent with the submitted comments.
*110.3.130. Reatiire the protection and restoration ofurvas uncl sites in the Citr of
Yakima having historic, archaeological, cultural, echwational at- scientific vultee.
10.3.131. Development alopr&, shorelines shoulclinchule consultation with prqkssional
archavolqgivis. hisfoi-fans, hiolot;ists, the WriAington Devartment o1-Archeology and Historic
Preservation Bind the Yak-ama Nation to hlepitft
.j- areas contaipping potentialli vahiable
data, uncl to estahlish pr oveilvirvs fin- salvkqing the clata or maintaining the area in an
conclition,
10.3,132. Shoreline perinits should cantuin comfilions oftil)proval which require tievelopers to
iminecliateli, stool) work and iroilj- local gove)-nments, the Off ve ofArcheological an(l
Historic Preservation, and e.�r°-...s.a �-. the Yukumq Nation. ifaqjl archaeological or historic
resources ewe uncoveretl chering excavaliom
DOC.
INDEX
# . ...... . .
. . ........ MM
10.3.133. Devehilmient which would elestror eirch aeological or historical sites or elettel rrrcar he
dehii°eel fila- ar rec's'urra ale fine to allow the alywopriale al;enc•t° or organization to pure hose the
site or to recover the data.
10.3.134 The City 01 Yukirtrcr.should enter- into any -)-cement with the f`Yushington Delrarinrent o1
.trc hcoloLn, and Historic Prescrt cation to access deist so that everyin•oposol ran be sc'j
rand archeulc)"`ie-al sites are not disno-bc•d '
I7.lI i.01 d ,4 rc Irrrc nlnl,+icu! and Historic Resources
f. The 0tv shall require that :tel
s all uromid dislurbin,+ uc'tii'itics (uadlor proiaosals with a •°irigh risk crud or ve,F , ili h
risk" till' urc'heologic°al re.sow-res hased on the 1)H�IPJ edic•tis'e inmW re'quit'e a site irrspe'ction
W, O'ClIlralran ht° f 1Yi'afe'.5'.5'drJlral [Pf'C'lyd rt'lJla¢9+P.O t..I fkgw ° tC sts Inar he r"equire`el belbri' 4'P1P7.5°jd"ttC'fPadd
Ohl rclweventurn°c•s elf the H'ashinrgton ,Starts' De]7cdr°ttnent ol'Arrhaeolo;.t° erlul Yak'cinul Incliall
°t'(Itiala rahWr".Vh4lIl hc° int°its°d la Ob.,w)`re arts° la°sls wta! a°ora.a'tt°rrc'fraarr Work. hd.9°fulIC'ddI
dcrlca iudit'fiteIrl°rrh[rhlc®1Jr'c°.sc'uc°c` ut e ttltrar'arl re'.soair`C c's° which stash` be the
C °ir.v shall invel the shoreline l7c rinif alydic Pnt anti rrlflr inilmse c'anelitions on alar shoreline
per mfr to tisviire theft such r`cwtir ces circ' 17rolected, 11reserre[I or colleclecl.
B. !h`i'c°lolaers crud pl-gJJcgr f16s°lrers .sheril mulldialelt° .slop work Anel itoti i` the Olv. the
f t us'hidr;lon °State° Delrcarlment of. frvhet °ulf qqr and Historic Preservation, and the f`crkerma /mliem
Station !f erf°a'hct['alUgle°a Fl resources are uncovereci (hirii7q c^.t' riv atiom Feyflawhkq such
iratdf cation. the I itr niedi`gBlow rheprovisions all.mbseclioll C.
(•. f r !rc°re at l ar°ofc'ssiaanal archac ohl gist ur historic in, rec•ognr®e[l by the State fif 1f 'oshhl ton, has
hienlilivel tier carred (Ir sift, as havhkg.sk nflicout rahee, of where fin arced or.site is lislefl it)
national, stale or local historical re,a,+i.sfers, or Macre the QHJP prealiclive model identifies the
area cls harirr + u "hitch risk and or tar° high risk - (yr archuolo.gicol resour e s', the Citr mat
`'hall require an evethiartion of'the^ reseatrrce°, urrcl cal7lrr°cJlariatc conclitions, which nasi• inc°lrtcle
1lr°c°cc°r°t°adianr and[l'or refrie cal of elafal. 17roposal nrodt/lcations' to re°alnc'e° irlejrac'ls, or other
lydiliyation within°i®ced thr°ou;„h the °Stole` Environmental Polhcv tc7, or other local, Vale, or
leklerallair°s. °°
Any rclerence to "cit •ctedlnaliarn trihcs °' or similar reference should be edited to "I akcalPlca
°ircat101a The City of Yakima is completely within the Yakaaana Nation's ceded lands under the
Treaty of Justis: 9, 1955.
.References
Higgins, J.L. 2003, Determination of'upstrearn boundary points on southeastern
Washington streaans and rivers under the requirements of the Shoreline
Management Act of 197 1: U.S. Geological Surrey Water -Resources
Investigations Report 03-4042. 26 p.
Stamford, J. A., E.B. Snyder, M.S.Loraug, D,C. Whited., P°L.Matson and J.L. Chaffin. 2002. The
Reaches Project: ecologzical and geomorphic studies supporting nonnative flows in the Yakima
River Basin, Washington. Open File Report 170-02, Report prepared for Yakima Office, Bureau
of Reclamation. US.Department of the Interior, Yakima, Washington by Flathead Lake
Biological Station, The University Of Montana. Polson, Montana, 152 pp.
Yakima County*s Review of Best Available Science For Inclusion in Critical Areas Ordinance
Update. October 2006
Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan. Extracted from the 2005 Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery
Plan with Updates. September 30th, 2009
c: file
DOC.
INDE�
#
Cowiche Creek — Summary Hydrology from USGS StreamStats
USGS StreamStats estimates streamflow statistics for ungaged sites using regression equations
developed for hydrologic regions based on similarity of climate and physical characteristics. The
actual values of the streamflow statistics will be within the given standard errors of estimate
approximately two-thirds of the time (Ries 111 2008).
The USGS regression analysis for Cowiche Creek used 6 regulated stream gages (Bumping near
Nile, American River near Nile, Naches River at Oak Flat, Tieton River at Headworks of Tieton,
North Fork Ahtanum, South Fork Ahtanum), the same as reported for the Lower Yakima region
in the 2003 USGS report by Higgins.
Ries III, K.G., Guthrie, J.D., Rea, A.H., Steeves, P.A., and Stewart, D.W. 2008. StreamStats: A
Water Resources Web Application. USGS Fact Sheet FS 2008-3067.
Higgins, J.L. 2003. Determination of Upstream Boundary Points on Southeastern Washington
Streams and Rivers Under the Requirements of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. USGS
Water -Resources Investigations Report 03-4042,
Table 1. Mean Annual Flow from USGS StreamStats (7/25/2013)
River Mile Mean Annual Flow (cfs)
Location
Cowiche Cr. near mouth 0.0 160
Cowiche Cr. at Weikel 5.8 210
Cowiche Cr. Below Forks 7.0 200
SF Cowiche Cr. above NF confluence 7.1 130
NF Cowiche Cr. above SF confluence 7.1 70
SF Cowiche Cr. below McDaniel Cr. 15.1 Insufficient data
NF Cowiche Cr above French Canyon Dam 15.5 Insufficient data
Table 2. Comparison by drainage area. Logy, Simcoe, and Dry Creeks were included in the 20 cfs
minimium for Shoreline designation in Higgins (2003).
2 -Yr
Peakflow,
cfs
Mean
Mean
Max
Min
(StreannSta
Annual
Area
Basin
Basin
Basin
is ungaged
Precip,
Location
(sq mi)
Elev
Elev
Elev
regression)
inches
Cowiche Creek at Mouth
120
3110
6660
1150
730
27
Cowiche Creek below Forks
110
3230
6660
1560
680
28
Logy Creek
45
3960
5820
2280
340
26
Dry Creek
94
3230
4860
1650
600
19
Simcoe Creek
42
3550
5980
1560
1 310
1 24
1. Cowiche Creek at the mouth (above confluence with Naches River)
Basin Characteristics Report
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 12:12:51 Mountain Daylight Time
NAD27 Latitude: 96.6276 (96 37 39)
NAD27 Longitude: -120.5686 (-120 34 07)
NAD83 Latitude: 46.6279 (46 37 39)
NAD83 Longitude: -120.5698 (-120 34 11)
Parameter
Value
Area that drains to a point on a stream inua
sq re miles
119.96
Mean Basin Elevation in...
Feet
F 3110
Minimum Basin Elevation in feet
......
1150
Maximum Basin Elevation in feet
666Q
Relief (maximum - minimum elevation), in feet
5510
Mean basin slope cent
16.9
........
Percent of area with slope greater than 30 percent
15.2
Percent of area with slope greater than 30 percent and..... . ....
facing North
5.72
Area -weighted forest canopy, In percent computed from m NLCD 2001 canopy
dataset 16,4
Mean annual precipitation, in inches
26.9
Flip 73-1mr- 0=0 I
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 12:13:58 Mountain Daylight Time
Site Location: Washington
NAD27 Latitude: 46.6276 (46 37 39)
INDEXDOC. 3
Peak. -Flow Basin Characteristics
1100% Region 5 (120 mi2)
[Parameter Value � Regression Equation Valid Range
Min F Max
a�inage A�reuare rni�les) 12o F-6.381 638
lPeak-Flow Streamflow Statistics
Equivalent 190 -Percent Prediction Interval
[statistic [Flow (ft3/s) Standard Error (percent) years of Minimum um
record a in
PK2 727F_ 961 1
15201
7PK10 63F 2F I
PFK25 20101 561 3 F
FPK50 24001 53 51
28301
FPK100 521 61
39401
PK500 I I F
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 12:17:50 Mountain Daylight Time
NAD27 Latitude: 46.6276 (46 37 39)
NAD27 Longitude: - 120.5686 (-120 34 07)
NAD83 Latitude: 46,0274 (46 37 39)
NAD83 Longitude: -120.5695 (-120 34 11)
ReacliCode:17030002000406
Measure: 5.66
User -Selected Site Watershed Area, in square miles: 119,96
Use Regulated Station: Yes
FGUpstream age(s)
a
STATID FNA M E ......................................................................................... AREA [RATIO ISREGULATED
1(mi2)
12494000 NACHES RIVER BELOW TIETON RIVER NEAR 941.000 Undeflned
NACHES, WA
12189500[ NACHES RIVERAT OAK FLAT NEAR NILE, WAF 638,000 [ 5.3184 Undefined
12492500 F TIETON RIVER AT CANAL HEADWORKS NEAR 7.0001 1.9923 M
NACHES, WA
12491500 TIETON RIVER AT TIETON DAM NEAR LACHES, 167.000 1.5589 Undefined
WA
12488500 AMERICAN RIVER NEAR NILE, WA 78.900 0.6577 Undefined
12488000 BUMPING RIVER NEAR NILE, WA 70.700 F0.5894 Undefined
Downstream
Gage(s)
STATID
12499000
12500450
12503000
�- 12505000
12508990
12509500
12510500
NAME AREA RATIO ISREGULATED
NACHES RIVER NEAR NORTH YAKIMA, WA 1100.00 9.1697 Undefined
YAKIMA RIVER ABOVE AHTANUM CREEK AT 3479.00 29.0013 Undefined
UNION GAP, WA
YAKIMA RIVER AT UNION GAP NEAR YAKI WAF_i6S�00 FiO.4435j Undefined
YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PARKER, WA 3660.00 F30.5102 Undefined
YAKIMA RIVER AT MABTON, WA 5359.00 44.6732 Undefined
YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PROSSER, WA 5440.00 45.3484 Undefined
YAKIMA RIVER AT KIONA, WA5615.00 46.8073 Undefined
The following flows were estimated based on the closest upstream streamgage foi- the selected
ungaged site.
Upstream
drainage -area
ratio esthmates
based on station
112494000
Flood -Volume
Statistics
Flow types
Flow description
Flow
actor
Streamgage
#lows
Streamgage Estimated
ears of ungaged
record flows
V30D2Y
30_Day_2_Year_Maximum 0.1275
4114.80 525
V15D2Y
15_ Day_2_Year_Maximum 0.1275
4793.70 611
V7D2Y
7 -Day -2 -Year -Maximum 0.1275
5472.80 698
V3D2Y
3_Day_2_Year_Maximum 0.1275
6144.10 783
V102Y
1 -Day -2 -Year -Maximum 0.1275 6583.30 839
V30D10Y
30_Day_10 Year_Maximum
1 0.1275 6615.60 843
V30D25Y
30 -Day -25 -Year -Maximum
D.1275 7447.90 949
V15D10Y
15 -Day -10 -Year -Maximum
70.12751 7852.10 1000
V30D50Y
30_Day_50_Year Maximum
0.1275 7932.50 1010
V7D5Y
7_Day_5_Year Maximum
0.1275 7956.30 1010
V15D25Y
15_Day_25_Year Maximum
FO.1275
8924.20
1140
DOC.
INDEX 14
V3D5Y
3_Day_5_Year_Maximum Q.1275 9231.70 1180
V7D1QY
7_Day_10_Year_MaximumF 0.1275 9370.00 1190
VlSD50YR
15_Day_50_Year_Maximum 0.1275 9567.10 1220
V15D100Y
15_Day_100_Year_Maximum D.iZ75 10102.8 1290
V1D5Y 1 -Day- ear -Maximum 0.1275 10188.3 1300
V7D25Y 7_Day_25_Year_Maximum D.1275 10907.2 1390
V3D1QY
3_Day_10_Year_Maximum 0.1275 11142.2 1420
V7D50Y
7_Day_50_Year Maximum 70.12751 11892.7 1520
ViD10Y 1_Day_10 Year Maximum FO.12751 12559.6 1600
V7DIOOY �Day_100_Year_Maximum 0.1275 12760.6 1630
V3C25Y F- 3_Day_25_Year Maximum 0.1275 13376.6 1710
V3D50Y 3_Day_50_Year Maximum 0.1275 14911.8 F 1900
V1D25Y i_Day_25_Year Maximum 0.1275 15482.0 1970
-
V3D100Y -Day 0.1275 16342.7 2080
VID50Y 1_Day_50_Year_Maximum 0.1275 17590.5 2240
Low -Flow
Statistlrs
Flow 5treamgage FSIreamgage Estimaed
Flow types Flow description Iactor (flows f ungaged
ows
M1D20Y 1_Da _20_Y
y ear_Low _Flow 0.1275 3.9000 0.5
M3D20Y 3_Day_20_Year_Low_Flow rO.1275 4.2000 0.54
M7D20Y 7_Day_20_Year_Low_Flow FO.12751 4.8000 0.61
M14D20Y i4_Day_20_Year_Low_Flow
0.1275 6.1000 0.78
M1D10Y 1_Day_10_Year_Low_Flow
0.1275 7.7000 0.98
M3D1QY
3_Day_10_Year_Low_Flow
FO.12751
1.07
8.4000--------------------
M30D20Y
30_Day20_Year_Low_Flow F 0.1275
8.8000 1.12
-----------------------------
M7D10Y
7_Day_10_Year _ Low _Flow 0.1275
9.6000 1.22
M14D10Y
14_Day_10_Year Low _Flow 0.1275
12.200 1.56
M30D10Y 30_Day_10_Year Low_Flow 0.1275
17.400 2.22
M7D5Y
7_Day_5 Year Low_Flow 0.1275
21.200 2.7
M90D20Y
90_Day20_Year Low_Flow 0.1275 24.000 3.06
M90D10Y
90_Day_10_Year_Low_Flow 0.1275 46.100 5.88
M1D2Y
1_Day_2_Year Low Flow
0.1275 62.400 7.95
M31)2Y
3_Day_2_Year_Low_Flow
FO.1275 69.300 8.83
M7D2Y
7_Day_2_Year_Low_Flaw 0.1275
79.000
10.1
- M14D2Y
14_Day-2-Year-Low Flow 70.1275 94.000 12
M30D2Y 30_Day_2 Year -Low -Flow 0.1275 122.600 15.6
M92Y 90Day
0D 32.6
__2_Year Low 0.1275 255.800
iow-Duration
Statistics
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow types Flow description ears of ungaged
actor lows
record flows
D99 ' 99_Percent_Duration FO.1275 7 67 r 0.89
1)95 95_ Percent_ Duration 0.1275 31 67 F 3.95
D90 90_Percent_Duration 0.1275 87........
....................................2 67 11.1
D80 80_Percent_Duration 0.1275 ........................... 233 67 F 29.7
D75 75 -Percent -Du .................
ration FO.1275 308 67 39.3
D70 F 70_Percent_Duration 70.127sF 384 67 49
1)6060_Percent Duration F 0.1275 547 67 69.7
650V 50 -Percent _ Duration0.1275
................................................
7491 67 95.5
D40 40_Percent_Durakion 0.1275
1020 67 130
D30 30 -Percent -Du ration 0.1275 1380 67 F 176
D25 25_Percent_Duration 0.1275 1660 67 212
D20 20_Percent_Duration 0.1275 2010 67 256
..210 67 409
D10 F 10_ Percent-Duration0.1275 3
D5 5 -Percent -Duration 1 0.1275 4490 67 F 572
D1 1_Percent_Duration rO.1275 7036.3 67 897
Annual Flow
Statistics
Flow types
Flow descriptionears
Flow Streamgage Estimated
�tamgageof ungaged
actors
record ows
SDQA
Stand_bev_of Mean_Annual_Flow 0.1275 517.800 66
QA
Mean -Annual -Flow 0.1275 1260.30 161
Monthly Flow
Statistics
Streamgage Estimated
Flow
Flow types
Vtreamgage
Flow descriptionears of ungaged
actor
record ows
SDQ10 October STD 0.1275 237.800 30.3
SDQ9 September STD 0.1275 299.380 38.2
Q10
October-Mean-Flow 0.1275 304.900 38.9
SDQ8
August -STD FO.12751
344.370
43.9
DW.
OND
-3
Q9
September_Mean_Flow 0.1275 F 505.100 64.4
Q11
November _Mean _Flow 0.1275 559.800 71.4
SDQ2
February_STD 0.1275 643.740 82.1
5DQ11 I November STD FO.1275 718.820 91.6
Q2
February_Mean_Flow
FO.12751 735.200 93.7
Q8
August Mean_Flow0.1275
F 780.800 99.5
Q1
January_Mean_Flow 0.1275 7 827.800 106
Q3 March -Mean -Flow rO.1275 F 838.600 107
...............
SDQ1 JanuarySTD F 0.1275 F 883.750 113
SDQ3March_STD
0.1275 889.940 113
SDQ7 7 - - July_STD
FO.1275F .............914.980 117
F SDQ4 r April _STD 0.1275 F 941.760 120
Q12 December_Mean_Flow F 0.1275 1 953.700 122
..._
SDQ12 December -STD 0.1275 1197.50 153
5DQ5 May_STD 0.1275 1336.33 170
Q7 July_Mean_Flow 0.1275 F 1486.80 190
SDQ6 June -STD FO.12751 1642.69 j 209
Q4 April_Mean_Flow 0.1275 1837.20 234
Q6 June_Mean_Flow 0.1275 3143.00 401
Q5 F May ....... ...... (,
Mean_Flow 0.1275 3304.30 421
neral Flow
F
atistics
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow types Flow description attar flows ears of ungaged
record ows
MINDV
Minimum_daily_Flow
70.1275 F1 67 0.13
AVE -DV
Average_daily_streamFlow FO.12751 1284.776 67 164
SDQD Std_Dev of daily_Flows 0.1275
F 1531.833 67 195
MAXDV
Maximum_daily_flow
FO.1275
26400 67
3370
2. Cowiche Creek at Weikel (above Cowiche Canyon)
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 12:29:48 Mountain Daylight Time
NAD27 Latitude: 46.6333 (46 37 60)
NAD27 Longitude: -120.6641 (-120 39 51)
NAD83 Latitude: 46.6331 (46 37 59)
NAD83 longitude: -120.6653 (-120 39 55)
Parameter
val u e
Area that drains to a point on a stream, in square miles
114.92
Mean Basin Elevation in ..
feet
3170
Minimum Basin Elevation in feet....................................................................
1490
Maximum Basin Elevation in feet
6660
vation,in Feet
Relief (maximum - minimum elevation),
5170
Mean basin slope in percent
17
Percent of area with slope greater than 30 percent
15.5
Percent of area with slope greater than 30 percent and facing North
5.84
Area -weighted forest canopy, in percent, computed from NLCD 2001 canopy
dataset
F 16.6
Mean annual precipitation, in inches 27,5
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 12:30:35 Mountain Daylight Time
Site Location: Washington
NAD27 Latitude: 46.6333 (46 37 60)
9
INDEX
�]f
NAD27 Longitude: -120.6641 (-120 39 51)
NAD83 Latitude: 46.6331 (46 37 59)
NAD83 Longitude: -120.6653 (-120 39 55)
Drainage Area: 114.92 rni2
lPeak-Flow Basin Characteristics
.1 ................................................................................ . .....................................................................................................................
1100% Region 5 (115 mi2)
Parameter Value I Regression Equation Valid Ran
7 Min I Max I
Drainage Area (square miles) F 1151 0.381 638
Pealic.-Flow 5brew-I Statistics
Equivalent [9 -0 -Percent Prediction interval
tatistic JOW
FF (ft3/ _S)Ftandard Error (percent) years of
record Minimum aiu
FPK2 F 7021 961 1F-
-- --- --------
FPKIO 147fl 631 21 1
FPK25 1940 1 561 3'1 F-
-0 F- 2320
PK5 531
F
FPKIOO 27301 521 61
rPKsoo F 3820 1
1
1
gpgyp
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 12:31:10 Mountain Daylight Time
NAD27 Latitude: 46.6333 (46 37 60)
NAD27 Longitude: -120.6641 (-120 39 51)
NAD83 Latitude: 46.6331 (46 37 59)
NAD83 Longitude: -120.6653 (-120 39 55)
Reach Code: 17030002000408
Measure: 79.91
User -Selected Site Watershed Area, in square miles: 114,92
Use Regulated Station: Yes
Upstream
Gage(s)
AREA
I Mi2)
STATID FNAME [A RATIO ISREGULATED
F- 12411100 TIETON RIVER AT CANAL HEADWORKS NEAR 239.000 2.0797 Undefined
NACHES, WA
12491500 ili�TONRl�VER AT -FIETON DAM NEAR NACHES, F117.011 ri�i� Undefined
WA
DOC. 10
INDEX
Downstream
Gage(s)
STATID NAME
AREA
RATIO
ISREGULATED
12499000
NACHES RIVER NEAR NORTH YAKIMA, A
1100.00
9. 719
Unden
12500450
Flow types
YAKIMA RIVER ABOVE AHTUNION
3479.00
30.2732
Un..... ....
efi ned
Weighted-2—Year—Peak—Flood 0.4808 2370 1140
PK2
GAPWATA
HHHHHH3652.00
Weighted-10—Year—Peak—Flood FO.4808 7 4220 2030
PK10
12503000
PK25W
YAKIMA RIVER AT UNION GAP NEAR YAKIMA,
PK50W I
31.7786
Undefined
25_Year—Peak_Flood 0.5732 541Q 3100
PK100W
WA
PK50
50—year—Peak—Flood FO.5732 1 6260 3590
PK10Q
12505000
[Flood -Volume
YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PARKER, WA r 3660.00 31.8482
Undefined
i 12508990
YAKIMA RIVER AT MABTON, WA 5359.00
46.6324
U nefin
12509500
YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PROSSER WA 5440.00
47.3373
---------------------
Undefined
12510500F
YAKIMA RIVER AT KIONA, WA 5615.00
48.8601
ndefined
The followinv flows were estimated based on the closest LII)Streall1 Streamgage for [lie selected
Unwaged site,
Upstream
iul a111av'G-a1 La
ratio estimates
based on station
12492500
eak-Flow
Statistics
Flow types
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow description years of engaged
flows
actor
� irecord lows
PK2W
Weighted-2—Year—Peak—Flood 0.4808 2370 1140
PK2
2_Year Peak Flood0.5732 2390 1370
PK10W
Weighted-10—Year—Peak—Flood FO.4808 7 4220 2030
PK10
10—year—Peak—Flood 0.5732 4330 2480
PK25W
I Weighted-25—Year—Peak—Flood 0.4808 5210 2510
PK50W I
Weighted_50_Year_Peak_Ffood Q.4808 5970 2870
PK25
25_Year—Peak_Flood 0.5732 541Q 3100
PK100W
Weighted_100_Year _Peak _Flood D.4808 6800 3270
PK50
50—year—Peak—Flood FO.5732 1 6260 3590
PK10Q
100—Year—Peak—Flood FO.5732 7130 4090
[Flood -Volume
tatistics
Flow Streamgage Streamage Estimated
Flow types [Flow description years of ungaged
actor lows record flows
V302Y 30_Day_2_Year_Maximum 0.4808 1137.90 547
V15D2Y 15_Day_2_Year_Maximum F0,4808 1316.00 633
V7132Y 7_bay_2_YearMaximum DABOS 1473.00 708
V3D2Y 3_Day_2_Yaar_Max1mum 0.4808 1573.50 757
V1D2Y 1_Day_2_Year_Maximum 0.4808 1640.10 I 789
V30D10Y 30_Day_10_Year_Maximum 0.4808 1720.90 827
V7D5Y 7_Day_5,.........
_Year_Maximum 0.4806 2019.80 971
V30D25Y 30_ Day_ 25_ Year_Maximum 0.4808 2020.50 972
V15b10Y 15_Day _10_Year _Maximum 0.480$ 2078.30 999
V3D5Y 3_Day_5_Year_Maximum 840 08 2237.80 1080
V30D50Y 30_Day_50_Year_Maximum 1 0.4808 2247.20 1080
V1D5Y 1_Day_5_Year_Maximum 0.4808 2352.70 1130
F V7D10Y 7_Day_10_Year _Maximum 0.4808 2411.701 1160
V15b25Y 15_ Day_25_Year_Maximum FO.4808 2495.40 1200
V3D10Y 3_Day 10_Year_Maximum 0.48D8 2761.30 1330
V15D50YR 15_Day_50_Year_Maximum F 0.4808 2821.20 1360
V1D10Y 1_Day_10_Year_Maximum 0.4808 2926.40 1410
V7D25Y 7_Day_25_YearMaximum 0.4808 2941.50 1410
V15D100Y 15_Day_100_Year-Maximum 0.4808 3160 10 1520
WD50Y 7-Day-50-YearMaximum 0.4808 3362.00 1620
V3C25Y 3_Day_25_
Year _Maximu
m f 0.4808 3526.90 170D
V1D25Y 1_Day_25 Year_Maximum 0.4808 3780.50 1820
V7D100Y 7_Day_100Year Maximum 0.4808 3804.90 1630
V3D50Y 3_Day_50 Year Maximum F0.48081 4178.90 2010
V1D50Y 1_Day_50_Year Maximum D.4808 4519.70 2170
V3D100Y 3 -Day -100 -Year -Maximum 1 0.4808 4906.40 2360
Low -Flow
Statistics
Flow 5tamage Stagage Estlated
Flow types FFlows Hptlon actor flows ears of ungaged
record ows
M31)20Y I 3_Day_20_Year_Low_Flow I 0.48081 1.80001 I 0.87
M3D20Y 3_D 20_Year Low_Flow 0.4806 1.8000 0.87
MID10Y 1_Day_10_Year Low Flow 0.4606 2.7000 1.3
DOC.
INDEX
MID10Y 1_Day_10_Year_Low_Flow 0.4808 2.7000 1.3
M14D20Y 14_Day 20_Year Low _Flow 0.4808
2.8000 1.35
M7D20Y
7_Day_20_Year Low_Flow FO.4808
2.9000 1.39
M301)20Y
0.4808
30_Day _2D_Year Low_Flow11
3.6000 1.73
M7DIOY 7_Day_10_Year Low_Flow
F0.4808 4.3000 2.07
M14D10Y
14_Day_10_Year Low_Flow
70.48081 4.6000 2.21
M30D10Y
F 30_Day_10_Year Low_Flow
0.4808 6.4000 3.08
M7b5Y 7_Day_5_Year Law Flow FO.4808 6.9000 3.32
MiD2Y 1_Day_2 Year_Low_Flow 0.4808 11.200 5.39
F M31)2Y 3_Day_2_Year_Low _Flow FO.4806 13.400 F 6.44
M9020Y 90_Day_20_Year _Low _Flow I 0.48013F 15.400 7.4
r - � 7. y.........
_2_Year_Low_Flow 0.4808
M7D2Y_ba 700 8.51
M90D10Y 90_Day _10_YearLow _Flow 0.4808 22.100 10.6
M14D2Y 14_Day_2_Year_Low_F[ow FO.4808 23.000 11.1
M30b2Y F- 30_ Day_Z_Year_Low_Flow 0.4808 34.900 16.8
M90D2Y 90_Day_2_Year_Low_Flow 0.4808 78.700 37.8
Flow- Duration
Statistics
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow types Flow description
actor flows ears of ungaged
record flows
099 F- 99_ Percent_Durat[o n4808 �.......... .. 6. 69 F 2.89
D95
95_Percent_Duration FOASOB 18 F 69 F 8.66
D90 90_Percent-Du ration 0.4808 F 33
69 15.9
1)80 80_Percent-Du ration 0.4808 78 69 37.5
D75 ............ � 75_Percent_Duration F 0.4808 109 69 52.4
1)70
70_Percent_buratlon 0.4808
140 69 67.3
D60
60 -Percent -Duration 0.4808
216 69 104
050
50_Percent_Duration
0.4808
300 69 144
D40
40_Percent_Duration
70.4808 420 69 F 202
D30
30_Percent_Duration
0.4808 580 69 F 279
D25 25_Percent_Duration
70.4808
685 69 329
D20 20 -Percent -Duration FO.4808
785 69 377
010
10 Percent Duration 0.4808
1030 69 495
D5
5 -Percent -Du ration0.4808
1240 69 596
D1
1_Percent_Duration
FO.4808
1961.4
69
F 943
Annual Flow
Statistics
Flow 5treamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow types Flow description actor ows ears of engaged
record flows
SbQA Stand_bev_of Mean_Annual_Flow 0.4808 154.150 r 74.1
QA
Mean -Annual -Flow FO.48081 430.200 207
Monthly Flow
Statistics
Flow Stamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow types Flow description ears of ungaged
actor flows
record flows
SDQ10
October_STDF O.1808 104.940 50.5
Q1, I
November -Mean -Flow FO.48081 156.100 F 75.1
SDQ11 �
� lrlovember_STb .4808 165.660 74.7
Q3
March_ Mean _Flow 0.4808 205.200 98.7
Q2 F_
February_Mean_Flow F0.4808 1 227.100 109
. -
Q1a
_NOctober_Mean Flo.
w 0.4808 F 237.300 114
SDQ9
September -STD F0,48081 245.460 11B
SDQ7
July_STb FO.48081 248.210 119
SDQ8
August-STDF-O.48081 251.470 121
SDQ2
- - February_STb 0.48 252.240
80 121
SDQ3 F-
March-STI)0.4808 261.510 126
-------------------
Q 1
Janua Me ...--.. --------------
ry_ an_Flow 0.48088 272.-900 131
Q12 1
December -Mean -Flow 0.4808 285.,�,.,.,.0�,..,-
285.8001 137
SbQ1--
-_.. - January_STD 0.4808 �.......335.190' i61
SDQ5
May_STD FO.48081 360.440 173
Q4
April -Mean _Flow rO.4808 380.900 183
SDQ4
April_STD 0.4808 383.770 185
SDQ12
December -STD 0.4808 390.460 188
SDQ6
June -STD F 0.4808 397.690 191
Q5
May_Mean_Flow 0.4808 505.100 243
'91 .w_
September Mean_Flow 0.4808 626.100 301
Q6
June -Mean -Flow 0.4808 683.700 329
Q7
July_Mean_Flow 0.4808 1 768.700 370
Q8
August_Mean_Flow 0.4808 777.1001 374
General Flow
Statistics
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow types Flow description years of ungaged
actor flows record lows
MINDV Minimum _dailyflow F0.4808 0 69 Q
SDQD U Std_Dev_oF_daily_flows FO.48013 440.601 69 212
AVE_DV
Average daily_streamflow 70.4808 443.979 64 F 213
MAXDV
Maximum_daily_flow D.4808
7310
69
3510
Estimated flows for the user -selected site detennined by weighting of regression equation -based
estimates and nearby streamgaging station estimates.
�Weiglited flows
based on regression
and gage station
estimates
Fp-ealc-Flow
i
Statistics
Regression
Drainage- Weighted
Flow types [Flow description estimates area ratio stWeighimatested equivalent
estimates ears of record
PK22_Year_Peak_Flood 702 1370 676
PK10 10 -Year -Peak -Flood 1470 F 2480 1430
PK25 25_Year_Peak Flood F� 1940F—F 3100 1900
PK50 50_Year_Peak_Flood F_ 2320 3590 r 2270
PK100 100 -Year -Peak -Flood T2730 4696 2680
3. South Fork Cowiche Creek (above confluence with NF Cowiche Cr)
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 12:42:42 Mountain Daylight Time
NAD27 Latitude: 16.6469 (46 38 49)
NAD27 Longitude: -120.6814 (-120 40 53)
NAD83 Latitude: 46.6167 (46 38 48)
NA083 Longitude- -120.6826 (-120 40 57)
Parameter
Value�
Area that drains to a point on a stream, in square miles
71.14
[M:,eansin �Elevationin
3610
minimum Basin Elevation in feet
1560
Maximum Basin Elevation in feet
76660
Relief (maximum - minimum elevation), in feet
5100
Mean basin slope in percent
F21.4
Percent of area with slope greater than 30 percent
23.3
Percent of area with slope greater than 30 percent and facing North
F8.78
Area -weighted forest canopy, in percent, computed from NLCD 2001 canopy dataset
F21.2
Mean annual precipitation, in inches
F32.9
a . 5.•a
a
DOC. 16
INDEX
# L
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 12:43:27 Mountain Daylight Time
Site Location: Washington
NAD27 Latitude: 46.6469 (46 38 49)
NAD27 Longitude: -120.6814 (-120 40 53)
NAD63 Latitude: 46.6467 (46 38 48)
NAD83 Longitude: -120.6826 (-120 40 57)
Drainage Area: 71.14 m12
,Peak -Flow Basin Characteristics
�100% Region 5 (71.1 mi2)
LL
Drainage Area (square miles) F 71.1 F 0.381 638
Statistic
Equivalent 90 -Percent Prediction Interval
FIOW (ft3/S) Standard Error (percent) years of Minimum Maximum—
record I I
FPK2
4751 96 r 11
F_
[ PKIO
*25
1010 63
1 21 F I
13401 561 31 F
� PK50
1600 53
F 51
IPKIOO
1890 521 61
FPKSOO
26SO
I I
I
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 12:44.06 Mountain Daylight Time
NAD27 Latitude: 46.6469 (40 38 49)
NAD27 Longitude: -120.6814 (-120 40 5 3)
NAD83 Latitude: 46.6467 (46 38 48)
NAD83 Longitude; -120.6526 (-120 40 57)
ReachCode: 17030002003034
Measure: 0.70
User -Selected Site Watershed Area, in square miles: 71.14
Use Regulated Station: Yes
Upstream
Gage(s)
STATID FNAME 00 AR2) EA [RATIO IUTED(Mi
124925 WORKS NEAR 239.000 F335� Undefined
F TIETON RIVER AT CANAL HEADNACHES, WA
12491500 TiE-rON RIVER AT TIETON DAM NEAR NACHES, Undefined
F WA .000
Downstream
Gage(s)
STATIDI NAME AR2E,A RATIO ISREGULATED
124990001 NACHES RIVER NEAR NORTH YAKIMA, WA I 1100.00-F15.1625 Undefined
12503000 Il YAKIMA RIVER AT UNION GAP NEAR YAKIMA, 3652,001 51.33541 Undefined
WA
12505000 YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PARKER, WA 3660.00 51.4478 Undefined
12508990 YAKIMA RIVER AT MABTON, WA F 5359.00 75.3303 Undefined
12509500 YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PROSSER, WA 5440.OQ 76.4689 Undefined
12510500 YAKIMA RIVER AT KIONA, WA 5615.00 78.9289 Undefined
The following flows were estimated based on the closest upstream streamgage for the selected
tingaged site.
Upstream
drainage -area
ratio estimates
abased on station
12500450
YAKIMA RIVER ABOVE AHTANUM CREEK AT
3479.00
48.9036
Undefined
Statistics
UNION GAP, WA
_
Flow types
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow description years of ungaged
factor ows
12503000 Il YAKIMA RIVER AT UNION GAP NEAR YAKIMA, 3652,001 51.33541 Undefined
WA
12505000 YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PARKER, WA 3660.00 51.4478 Undefined
12508990 YAKIMA RIVER AT MABTON, WA F 5359.00 75.3303 Undefined
12509500 YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PROSSER, WA 5440.OQ 76.4689 Undefined
12510500 YAKIMA RIVER AT KIONA, WA 5615.00 78.9289 Undefined
The following flows were estimated based on the closest upstream streamgage for the selected
tingaged site.
Upstream
drainage -area
ratio estimates
abased on station
,12492500
Peak -Flow
Statistics
_
Flow types
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow description years of ungaged
factor ows
11 record flows
r PK2W
Weighted _2_Year_Peak Flood 0.2977 2370 705
PK2
2 -Year -Peak -Flood FO.39811 2390 952
PK10W
Weighted_10_Year _Peak _Flood 0.2977 F 4220 1260
PK25W
Weighted_25_Year_Peak_Flood
0.2977 5210 1550
PK10
10_Year_Peak_Flood
0.3981 4330 1720
PK50W
Weighted_ 50_Year-Peak-Flood
70.29771 5970 1780
PK100W
I Weighted_100_Year_Peak Flood
0.2977 6800 2020
PK25
25 -Year -Peak -Flood
0.3981 5410 2150
PK50
50—Year-Peak-Flood
FO.39811 6260 2490
PK100
100 Year_Peak_Flood FO.39811 7130 2840
FIood-Volume
Statistics
oo - 18
41
Flow types
Flow description
ractor
treamgageStreamgage
lows
Estimated
ears of ungaged
record ows
V30D2Y 30_Day_2_Year Maximum FO.29771 1137.90 339
V15D2Y
15_Day_2_Year Maximum 0.2977 1316.00 392
V7D2Y
7_Day_2_Year_Maximum Q.2977 1473.00 438
V3D2Y
3_Day_2_Year_Maximum 4.2977 1573.50 468
V1D2Y
1_Day_2_Year_Maximum 0.2977 1640.10 1 488
V30D10Y
30_Day_10_Year_Maximum 0.2977 1720.90 512
V7D5Y 7_Day_5_Year_Maximum 0.2977 2019.80 601
V30D25Y 30_Day_25_Year _Maximum F 0.2977 2020.50 601
V15DIQY 15_Day_10_Year_Maximum FO.2977 2078.30 619
_.
V3D5Y I 3-Day-5-YearMaximum 0.2977 2237.80 666
V30D50Y 30_Day_50_Year_Maximum F 0.2977 2247.20 669
ViDSY I 1_Day_5_Year_Maximum
2977 2352.70 700
V7D10Y 7_Day_10_Year Maximum
0 2977 2411.70 718
F V15D25Y 15_Day_25_Year Maximum 0.2977 2495.40 1 743
.... ....... V3D14Y 3 -Day -10 -Year -Maximum 0.2977 2761.30 822
F V15D50YR 15_Day_50_Year Maximum 0.2977 2821.20 840
V1D14Y 1_Da 10Year
y__Maximum 4.2977 2926.40 1 871
V71)25Y 7_Day_25_Year Maximum 0.2977 2941.50 876
V15D100Y
15_Day_100_Year_Maximum 0.2977 3160.10 941
7_Day_50_Year_Maximum 0.2977 3362.00 1000
V7D50Y
V3C25Y 3_Day_25_Year _Maximum 4.2977 3526.90 1050
V1D25Y 1_Day_25_Year_Maximum
FO.29771 3780.50 1130
V7D1D0Y 7_Day_100_Year_Maximum 0.2977 3804.90 1130
V3D50Y 3_Da- y_50_Year_Maximum 0.2977 4178.94 1240
VID50Y
1_Day_50 Year_Maximum FO.2977 4519.70 1350
V3D100Y
3_Day_100Year_Maximum 0.2977 F 4906.401 1460
Low -Flow
Statistics
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow types
Flow description actor ows ears of ungaged
record flows
M3D20Y
3_Day_20_Year LoW_Flow 0.2977
1.8000 0.54
M3D20Y
3_Day_20_Year Low_Flow 0.2977
1.8000 0.54
M11)10Y
1 -Day -10 -Year -Low -Flow
0.2977
2.7000
0.8
DOC.
INDEX
M1D10Y F 1_Day_10_Year_Low_Flow F 0.2977
2.7000 0.8
M14D20Y
14_Day_20_Year _Low _Flow
0.2977
2.8000 0.83
M7D20Y
7_Day_20_Year_Low_Flow
0.2977 2.9000 0.86
M30D20Y
30_Day_20_Year Low_Flow
0.2977 3.6000 1.07
M7D10Y 7_Day_10_Year Low -Flow
FO.2977 ..................4.3000
1.28
M14D10Y 14_Day _10_Year Low_Flow 0.2977 4.6000
1.37
M301)10Y 30_Day_10_Year Low Flow 0.2977 6.4000 1.91
M7D5Y 7_Day_5_Year Low -Flo 0.2977 6.9000 2.05
M11)2Y 1_Day_2 Year Low_Flow 0.2977 11.200 3.33
M3D2Y _
3_Da 2Year L
_
y ow_Flow 0.2977 13.400 3.99
M90D20Y ...... 90_Day_20_Year Low Flow 0.2977 15.400 4.58
..__. _
M7D2Y �. 7_Day_2_Year_Low_Flaw FL9771 17.700 5.27
M90D10Y 9D_Day_10_Year Low Flow F 02977 22.100 6.58
M 14D2Y 14 -Day -2 -Year -Low -Flow 70.29771 23.000 6.85
_ _
M30D2Y 30_Day2YearLowFlow -- - 0.2977 34.900 10.4
4 _ _
M90D2Y 90_Day_2_Year_Low_Flow F 0.2977 78.700 23.4
Fl Duration
Statistics
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow types Flow description ears of ungaged
ows
ifactor
record ows
099 ill 99_Percent_Duration 0.2977 6 69 1.79
1)95 95 -Percent _ Duration 1 0.2977 1 18 69 F 5.36
090 40_Percent_Duration FO.2977 33 69 9.82
D80 80 -Percent -Duration 2977 78
69 F 23.2
D75 75_Percent Duration FO.2977
109
69 32.4
1)70 70_Percent Duration 0.2977
140 69 41.7
D60 60_ Percent Duration0.2977
F 216 69
64.3
D50
50 -Percent -Du ration0.2977
300 69
89.3
D40
40 -Percent -Du ration0.2977 F 420 69 125
D30
30_Percent Duration 0.2977 580 1 69 173
D25
25_Percent_Duration 0.2977
1 685 69 204
D20
20_Percent_Duration
FO,2977
785 69 234
D10
10_Percent_Duration
70.2977
1030 69 307
D5
5_Percent_Duration
0.2977
1240 69 F 369
D1
1 -Percent -Duration
70.2977
1961.4
69
F 584
DOC. 20
INDEX
Annual Flow
Statistics
Flow types Flow descri ption
-
Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
�alcotorflows ears of ungaged
record flows
SDQA � Stand_Dev_of Mean_Annual_Flow
70.2977 154.150 45.9
QA F- Mean_Annual_Flow 70.29771 430.200 128
onthly Flow
F
Statistics
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow types Flow description actor ows ears of ungaged
record ows
SDQ10 October -STD � 0.2977 104.940 31.2
November-Mean-Flo.............�
L.....���....................w 0.2977 156.100 46.5
Q11
SDQIII November -STD FO.2977 165.660 49.3
Q3 March_Mean_Flow 0.2977 205.200 61.1
Q2 February_Mean_Flow 0.2977 227.100 67.6
Q10 October _ Mean _Flow 0.2977 237.300 70.6
SDQ9 September_STD 0.2977 245.460 73.1
SDQ7 F July -.STD 248.210 73.9
....
S®QB..._ m ST
Augusk_D 0.2977 251.4701 74.9
.-.. SDQ2..... .� ....
February_STD FO.2977 1 252.240 75.1
SDQ311 March _STD 0.2977 261.510 F 77.8
Q1 January_Mean-Flow F0.2W7 1 272.900 F 81.2
Q12 December -Mean -Flow 1 0.2977 2135.800 1 85.1
SDQi January_STD 0.2977 335.190 99.8
SDQ5 F May STD 0.2977 360.440
Q4
April_ Mean_ Flow 0.2977 380.900 113
SDQ4
April_STD 0.2977 383.770 114
5DQ12
December STD
0.2977 390.460 116
SDQ6 June STD
70.2977 397.690 118
Q5
May -Mean -Flow
70.29771 505.100 150
Q9 September`Mean_Flow
70.2977
F 626.100 186
Q6
June_Mean_Flow
FO.2977
683.700 204
Q7
July_Mean_Flow FO.2977
768.700 229
Q8 August_Mean_Flow FO.2977 777.100 231
General Flow
Statistics
DOC.
21
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow types Flow description years of ungaged
actor flows record flows
MINDV Minimumdaily_flow 70.29771 0 69
SDQD Std_Dev_of_daily_flows 70.29771 440.601 69 F 131
AVE–DV Average_daily_streamflow FO.2977 443.979 69 132
MAXDV Maximum–daily_Flow FO.2977 7310 69 2180
Estimated flows for the user -selected site determined by weighting of regression equation -based
estimates and nearby streamgaging station estimates.
Weighted flows
based on regression
and gage station
estimates
Peak --Flow
Statistics
...._. _..— Drainage- Weighted
Flow types Flow description Regression area ratio Weighted equivalent
estimates estimates estimates ears of record
PK2 F 2—Year—Peak—Flood 475.....................................................................: 5::'!.". 282
PK10 10_Year _Peak Flood 1010 1720 721
PK25 25–Year—Peak—Flood 1340 2150ff 1010
PK50� 5D_Year _Peak _Flood 1600 249
0 1240
PK100 F100_Year _Peak _Flood F 1890 F.........................284D 1510
4. North Fork Cowiche Creek (above SF confluence)
Value
Parameter
IArea that drains to a point on a stream, in square miles 738.98
Mean Basin Elevation in feet
2540
........................................................................
Minimum Basin Elevation in feet
-
1560
Maximum Basin Elevation in feet
F5070
Relief (maximum - minimum elevation), in feet
3510
Mean basin slope in percent
....................................... F9.84
Percent of area with slope greater than 30 percent
F3.13
Percent of area with slope greater than 30 percent and facing North 1.19
Area -weighted forest canopy, in percent, computed from NLCD 2001 canopy dataset F8.69
Mean annual precipitation, in inches
------------------------
19
mpff�_ 0 =
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 12:49:52 Mountain Daylight Tirng
Site Location., Washington
NAD27 Latitude: 46,6475 (16 38 51)
0F.1N-.j;VKT' n-w7gmr1 1.1P 1115VAI I
11IRealk-Flow Basin Characteristics
100®/ —Region 5 (39 mii)------------------------------- --- - - ------------------------------------------------
.............
Parameter FRegression Equation Valid Range
Min Max
Drainage Area (square miles)
F 39 F o.38 638
(IP eak-Flow Streamflow Statistics
Equivalent F90 -Percent Prediction Interval
tisfic Flow (ftl/s) Standard Error (percent) years of Minimum Maximum
record I
12491500
F TIETON RIVER AT TI ON DAM NEAR NACHES,
WA
FPK2
291 961--1 F- I
FPW -1 -o
629 F-631 21
1
FPK25 F
8361 561 31
1
I PK50 F-
10101 531 51
1
[P—K10-0— F
1190 521 61 -1
I PK500 F-
16801
NOR MINOR, BERET
Jln-=- I-SPTrountain layl-i-:gfiTTinie
NAD27 Latitude: 46.6475 (46 38 5 1)
NAD27 Longitude: - 120.6913 (-120 40 53)
NA1 83 Latitude: 46.6473 (46 38 50)
NA183 Longitude: - 120,6825 (- 120 40 57)
ReachCode: 17030002003034
Measure: 0.50
User -Selected Site Watershed Area, in square miles: 38.98
Use Regulated Station: Yes
Upstream
Gage(s)
STATID FNAME
1
12492500 F TI ON RIVER AT CANAL HEADWORKS NEAR
NACHES, WA
REA RATIO ISREGULATED
(nig
(m12
239.000 6.1313 Undefined
12491500
F TIETON RIVER AT TI ON DAM NEAR NACHES,
WA
-187.000
4� UndefinedF
F
DOC. 24
INDEX
#.-L-3_�
Fnstream
ge(s)
STATID NAME AREA PATIO SREGULATED
(mi) I
12499000 i
NACHES RIVER NEAR NORTH YAKIMA, WA
i 100.00
28.2196
�
Undefined
12500450
YAKIMA RIVER ABOVE AHTANUM CREEK AT
3479.OQ
89.2509 ]-
PK50W
Undefined
PK10
UNION GAP, WA
PK100W
Weighted_100 Year_Peak_Flood 0.1631 6800
1110
PK25
12503000 F
YAKIMA RIVER AT UNION GAP NEAR YAKIMA,'
36
93.689-1-"[
PK100
Undefined
Flood -Volume
52.00
Statistics
12505000
YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PARKER, WA
�
3660.00
�
93.8943
Undefined
�....
12508990
YAKIMA RIVER AT MABTON WA
5359.00
�______-____ _
137 4808
Unde fined
12509500
YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PROSSER, WA
5440.00
139.5587
Undefined
1251050D
YAKIMA RIVER AT KIONA, WA
5615.00
144A48Z
Undefined
The following flows were estimated based on the closest Upstream streamgage for the selected
engaged site.
iupstream
drainage -arca
ratio estimates
based on station
112492500
Peak -F low
jstatisties
[Flow types
.................. I ..........
reamgage Streamgage Estimated
actor So...
Flow description
ws ears of engaged
PK2W
.. � record ows
Weighted_2_Year_Peak_Flood � 0.1631 2370 387
PK2
2 -Year -Peak -Flood 70-2520 239D 602
PK10W
............
Weighted_10_Year_Peak_Flood 0.1631 4220 688
PK25W
Weighted _25_Year _Peak _Flood0.1631 5210 850
PK50W
Weighted -50 -Year -Peak 0.1631 5970 974
PK10
10 Year_Peak_Flood FO.2520 4330 1090
PK100W
Weighted_100 Year_Peak_Flood 0.1631 6800
1110
PK25
25_Year Peak Flood 0.2520 5410
1360
PK50
50 -Year -Peak -Flood FO.2520 1 6260 1580
PK100
100 -Year -Peak -Flood FO.2520 1 71301 F 1800
Flood -Volume
Statistics
75
INDEX
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow types Flow description actor ows ears of ungaged
record ows
V3DD2Y 30_Day_2_Year Maximum 0.1631 1137.90 186
V15D2Y-15_Day_2_Year Maximum FO.16311 1316.00 215
V7D2Y F 7_Day_2 Year Maximum Fo.16311 1473.00 240
V3D2Y 3_Day_2 Year Maximum 70.16311 1573.50 257
V1D2Y 1_Day
_2 Year Maximum 0.1631 1640.10 1 267
V30DSOY 30_Day_10_Year Maximum 70.16311 1720.90 281
V7D5Y [ 7_Day_5_Year Maximum FO.16311 2019.80 329
V30D25Y 30_Day_25_Year-Maximum 0.1631 2020.50 330
V15D10Y 15_Day_10_Year Maximum 0.1631 2078.30 339
V3D5Y 3_Day_5_Year Maximum 0.1631 2237.80 365
V30D50Y 30_Day_50_Year Maximum F O.i631 2247.20 367
'- -
ViDSY
_ --
1_Day_5_Year Maximum
0.1631 2352.70 384
j V7D10Y
7-Day-10-Year-Maximum...�...�
0.1631 2411.70 393
V15D25Y
15_Day_25_Year Maximum
0.1631 2495.40 107
V3D10Y
C
3_Da _10_Year Maximum 0.1631 2761.30 450
V15D50YR
�II
15_Day_50_Year Maximum 0.1631 2821.20 460
V1D10Y
1_Day_10_Year_Maximum 0.1631 2926.40 477
WD25Y
7_Day_25_Year_Maximum 0.1631 2911.50 4B0
V15D100Y
15_Day_100 Year_Maximum 0.1631 3160.10 515
F WD50Y
V
7_Day_50_Year_Maximum
f 0.1631 F 3362 00 548
V3C25Y
3_Day_25_Year_Maximum
0.1631 3526.90 575
V1D25Y F
1_Day_25_Yea r_Maximum
0.1631 3780.50 617
V7D100Y
7_Day_100_Year _Maximum
0.1631 3804.90 621
V3D50Y
3_Day_50_Year_Maximum
0.1631 4178.90 682
V1D50Y
1_Day_50_Year _Maximum
0.1631 4519.70 737
V3D100Y
3_Day_100_Year_Maximum
FO.16311 4906.40 800
Law -Flow
taHstics
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow types Flow description actor ows ears of ungaged
record ows
M3D20Y j 3_Day_20_Year_Low_F1ow I 0.16311 1.80001 I 0.29
M3D20Y 3_Day_20_Year_Low_Flaw 0.1631 1.8000 0.29
M1D10Y 1_Day_10_Year_Low_F1ow FO.1631 2.7000 0.44
DOC. 26
INDEX �/�
#�`�
M1D10Y
6Day_10_Year_Low_Flow 0.1631 2.7000 0.44
M14b20Y 14_Day30_Year Low_Flow F 0.1631 2.8000 0.46
M7D20Y
7_Day_20_Year Low_Flow 0.1631 2.9000 0.47
r M30D20Y 30_Day_20_Year Low Flow 0.1631 3.6000 0.59
M7D10Y 7_Day_10_Year_Low_Flow 0.1631 4.3000 0.7
M14D10Y 14_Day_10_Year Low_Flow 0.1631 4.6000 0.75
M30D10Y 30_Day_10_Year_Low_Flow FO.1631 6.4000 1.04
M7D5Y I 7_Day_5_Year_Low_Flow FO.1631 6.9000 1 1.13
M1D2Y
1_Day_2_Year_Low_Flow 70.1631 11.200 1.83
M3D2Y F 3_Day_2_Year_Low- Flow 0.1631 13.400 2.19
M90D20Y 90_Day_20_Year-Low-Flow 0.1631 15.400 2.51
M7D2Y 7_Day_2Year_Low_Flow 0.1631 1 17.700 2.89
i M90D10Y 90_Day_10_Year _ Low _Flow 0.1631 22.100 3.6
M14D2Y 14_Day_2_Year_Low_Flow 0.1631 2-3.0001 3.75
M30D2Y 30_Day_2_Year_Low_Flow .1631 34.900 5.69
M9®D2Y 90_Day_2_Year_Low_Flow F0.1631 78.700 121.8
Flow -Duration
Statistics
Streamgage Estimated
Flow es Flo Flow Streamgage
types description years of ungaged
actor (flows
record ows
1)99[--""--99 _Percent Duration 0.1631 � 6 69 0.98
D95 95_Percent-Du ration 0.1631 [ 18 69 2.94
090 190_PercentDuration 0.1631 ...............................33 69 5.38
D80 �� 80 -Percent Duration Q 1631 78 69 12.7
D75 75_Percent_Duration 0.1631 109
69 17.8
D70 70_Percent_Duration 0.1631 F 140
69 2Z.8
D60
60 -Percent -Duration 0.1631 216 69 35.2
050
50 -Percent -Duration 0.1631 300 69 48.9
040
40 -Percent -Duration 0.1631 420 69 F 68.5
D3030_Percent_Duration
F0.1631 1 580 69 94.6
�T D25
25_Percent_Duration F 0.1631 1 685 69 112
D20
ZD_Percent_Duration FO.1631 785 64 128
D1Q
10_Percent_Duration FO.1631 1030 69 168
D5
5_Percent_Duration 0.1631 1240 69 202
D1
1 -Percent -Duration
FO.1631
1961.4
69
F 320
Annual Flow
Statistics
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow types Flow description actor lows Years of unga
record aws
SDQA
Stand_Dev_of Mean_Annual_Flow
0.1631
154.150 25.1
QA Mean -Annual -Flow FO.1631 430.200 70.2
Monthly Flow
Statistics
Flow Streamgage St a gage Estimated
ears of unae
Flow types [Flow description actor
ows
record ows
i- SDQ10 [ October STD � 0.1631 104.940 17.1
Q11 November Mean_Flow0.161531 ... ,
---� 6.100 25.5
SDQ11 November STD 70.1631 165.660 27
Q3 March _ Mean -Flo w .1631 205.20.
0 33.5
Q2 F-February_Mean_Flow 0.1631 227.100 37
Q10 I . October -Mean -Flow 0.1631 237.300 38.7
SDQ9 1 September -ST D F 0.1631 245.460 40
5DQ7 July_STD 0.1631 248.210 40.5
SDQ8 August -STD 0.1631 251.470 41
SDQ2 February_STD FO.1631 1 252.240 41.1
�Y SDQ3 - March_STD 0.1631 261.510 42.7
Q1 �® January_Mean_Flow 0.1631 F 272.900 44.5
I Q12 December_ Mean_ Flow 0.1631 285.800 46.6
SDQ1 January_STD 0.1631 335.190 54.7
SDQ5 May -STD
0. 1631 360.440 58 8
Q4
April_Mean_Flow
0.1631 380.900 62.1
SDQ4 F - April -STD
0.1631 383.770 62.6
SDQ12
December -STD 1 0.1631 390.460 63.7
SDQ6
June_STD 0.1631 397.690 64.9
Q5
May -Mean -Flow 0. 1631 505.100 82.4
Q9
F September -Mean -Flow 0.1631 626.100 102
Q6 June -Mean -Flow 0.1631 683.700 1 112
Q7 July -Mean -Flow r 0.1631 768.700 F 125
Q8 F August_Mean_Flow 0.1631 777.100 127
General Flow
Statistics
� �T
Flow types Flow description Flow
actor
Streamgage Streamgage
years of
lows record
Estimated
ungaged
lows
MINDV
Minim um_daily flow FO.1631
j D 69
l u
SDQD
Std_Dev of_daily_flows
0.1631 440.601
69
71.9
AVE_DV
Average_daily_streamflow
0.1631 443.979
69
F 72.4
MAXDV
Maximum_daily Flow
0.1631 7310
69 1190
Estimated flows for the user -selected site determined by weighting of regression equation -based
estimates and nearby streamgaging station estimates.
Weighted flows
based on regression
and gage station
;estimates
Peak -Flow --
Statistics
r g Drainage- Weighted
Flow types Flow description Re ression area ratio Weighted equivalent
estimates Iestimates
,estimates � ears of record
PK2 F 2_Year Peak_Flood 291 602 81.2
PK10 10_Year —Peak Flood 629 1090 317
PK25 1 25 Year_Peak_Flood 836136 11 0 481
PK50 50_Year_Peak_Flood F010 1580 627
PK100 100_ Year_Peak _Flood 1190 ..n.,.,.,....180D 781
5. South Fork Cowiche Creek below McDaniel Creek
29
INS
11 �94 I
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 14:57:27 Mountain Daylight Time
NAD27 Latitude: 46.6633 (46 39 48)
NAD27 Longitude: -120.8308 (-120 49 51)
NAD83 Latitude: 46.6631 (16 39 47)
NAD83 Longitude: -120.8320 (-120 49 55)
Parameter
Value
Area that drains to a point on a stream, in square miles
53.33
Mean Basin Elevation in feet
F4040
Minimum Basin Elevation in feet
72200
Maximum Basin Elevation in feet
76660
Relief (maximum - minimum elevation), in feet
74460
can basin slope in percent
724.1
Percent of area with slope greater than 30 percent
29.7
Percent of area with slope greater than 30 percent and facing North I 11.1
Area -weighted for canopy, in percent, computed from NLCD 2001 canopy dataset F27.5
Mean annual precipitation, in inches r36.3
DOC. 30
INDEX
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 14:58:11 Mountain Daylight Time
Site Location: Washington
NAD27 Latitude: 46.6633 (46 39 48)
NAD27 Longitude: -120.8308 (-120 49 51)
NAD83 Latitude: 46.6631 (46 39 47)
NAD83 Longitude: -120.8320 (-120 49 55)
Drainage Area: 53.33 mit
1000/o Region 5 (53.3 mit)
Parameter Value I Regression Equation Valid Range
Min Max
Drainage Area (square miles} 53.3 0.38 638
k - Flow t f low Statistics
tatistic Plow (ft3/s) Standard Error (percent)
Equivalent 90 -Percent Prediction Interval
years of
record Finimu Maximum
FP6 376 96
1
PK10 805 �_~ 63 2
*25 1070 56 3
PK50 1280 53 5
PK100 1520 52 &
PK500
F 2130
# • i• '/ • • r •�11111111110#•'# •
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 14:59:20 Mountain Daylight Time
NAD27 Latitude: 46.6633 (46 39 48)
NAD27 Longitude: -120.8308 (-120 49 51)
NAD83 Latitude: 46.6631 (46 39 47)
NAD83 Longitude: -120.8320 (-120 49 55)
ReachCode: 17030002000427
Measure: 88.20
User -Selected Site Watershed Area, in square miles: 53.33
Use Regulated Station: Yes
Warning:
No upstream or downstream gaging station has a drainage area that is within 50 percent of the
drainage area for the selected ungaged site, thus no further computations can be completed.
Upstream Gage
No records found.
DOC. 31
INDEX
Downstream
Gage(s)
STATID NAME AREA
E RATIO ISREGULATED
12499000 NACHES RIVER NEAR NORTH YAKIMA, WA 1100.00 1 20.6263 Undefined
12500450 F YAKIMA RIVER ABOVE AHTANUM CREEK AT 3479.00 65.2353 Undefined
UNION GAP, WA
12503000 YAKIMA RNER AT UNIpN GAP NEAR YAKIMA, 3652.00 68.4793 Undefined
125050001 YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PARKER, WA I 3660.001 68.6293 � Undefined
12508990 YAKIMA RIVER AT MABTON, WA 5359.00 100A875 Undefined
12509500 F YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PROSSER, WA 5490.00 102.0064 Undefined
12510500 YAKIMA RIVER AT KIONA, WA 5615.00 105.2878 Undefined
Basin Characteristics Report
DOC. 32
INDEX
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 15:25:47 Mountain Daylight Time
NAD27 Latitude: 46.7112 (46 42 40)
NAD27 Longitude: -120.7992 (-120 47 57)
NAD83 Latitude: 46.7111 (46 42 40)
NAD83 Longitude: -120.8003 (-120 48 01)
Parameter FValue
Area that drains to a point on a stream, in square miles F15-55
�Elevationiri
Mean sin Feet 333D
. . .........................................................................................................................................................
Minimum Basin Elevation in feet F 2160
Maximum Basin Elevation in feet
F5070
Relief (maximum - minimum elevation), in -feet 2-91-0
Mean basin slope in percent F 15.4
[Percent of areawithslope greater than 30 percent T-7-73
[_Percent of area with slope greater than 30 percent and facing North 2.92
Area -weighted forest canopy, in percent, computed from LCD 2001 canopy clataset 8.33
[Mean annual precipitation, in inches
I 21.2
5 P a-TY107- 9=4 A
Date: Thu Jul 2.5 4t 13 1!): 1 o r., ig r I i
Site Location: Washington
NAD27 Latitude: 46.7112 (46 42 40)
NAD27 Longitude: -120.7992 (-120 47 57)
NAD83 Latitude: 16.7111 (46 12 10)
NA133 Longitude: -120.8003 (-120 48 01)
Drainage Area: 15.55 mi2 I
�Peak-Fllow Basin Characteristics
100% Region 5 (15.6 mit)
ter Value Regression Equation Valid Range
Parame
Min Max
[Drainage Area (square miles) F 15.6 0.38 F 638
DOC. 33
INDEX
#-±L -
Equivalent 190 -Percent Prediction Interval
Statistic
Flow (ft3/5)
Standard Error (percent)
years of Maximum
record Minimum
—1
7PK2 — F 1381 961 1 1
FPKIO 3051 631 21
rPK25 F 4091 561 31
FPK50 4941 531 51
FPKIOO
7 5871
52F
6
1_
I
DOC. 33
INDEX
#-±L -
PK500 833
Flow Estimates Based on Flows at Nearby Streamgaging Stations
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 15:26:47 Mountain Daylight Time
NAD27 Latitude: 46.7112 (46 42 40)
NAD27 Longitude: -120.7992 (-120 47 57)
NAD83 Latitude: 46.71 1 l (46 42 40)
NAD83 Longitude: -120.8003 (-120 48 01)
ReaehCodc:17030002000415
Measure: 27-20
User -Selected Site Watershed Area, in square miles: 15.55
Use Regulated Station: Yes
Warning:
No upstream or downstream gaging station has a drainage area that is within 50 percent of the
drainage area for the selected tin -aged site, thus no tiu-ther computations can be completed.
Upstream Gage
No records found.
Downstream
IGage(s)
STATID NAME
12499000 NACRES RIVER NEAR NORTH YAKIMA, WA
AREA
RE
ISREGULATED
70.7395 1 Undefined
1100.001
12500450 YAKIMA RIVER ABOVE AHTANUM CREEK AT 3479.00 223.7299 Undefined
UNION GAP, WA ��
12503000
YAKIMA RIVER AT UNION GAP NEAR YAKIMA, 3652.00
234.8553 Undefined
12505000 F YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PARKER, WA
3660.00 235.3698 Undefined
12508990
YAKIMA RIVER AT MABTON, WA 5359.00 344.6302 Undefined
12509500
YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PROSSER, WA 5440.00 349.8392 Undefined
12510500YAKIMA RIVER AT KIONA, WA
5615.00
F361.09321 Undefined
J
7, Cowiche Creek below the Forks (RM 7)
34
INDEX_
—
I - 9=0 I
Value
Area that drains to a point on a stream, in square miles
110.14
MeansinWElevat�ionin
F 3230
Minimum Basin Elevation in feet
1560
FMa �tmum�Basin E�IevationTinfeet�������
6660
Relief (maximum - minimum elevation}, in Wfeet
5100
MeanF—ean basin slope in percent
17.3
Percent of area With slope greater than 30 percent
Tthan
16.1
percent'rcent of area With slope greater 30 percent and facing North 6.1
[Area -weight ed far canopy, fnpercent, 7compu'tedfrom NLCD �2001 canopy dataset 16.8
F28Mean Wannual precipitation, in inches
DOC. 35
INDEX
Has=
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 18:16:30 Mountain Daylight Time
Site Location: Washington
NAD27 Latitude: 46.6466 (16 38 48)
NAD27 Longitude: -120.6801 (-120 40 48)
NAD83 Latitude: 46.6464 (46 38 47)
NAD83 Longitude: -120.6813 (-120 40 53)
Drainage Area: 110.14 mit
lPeak-Flow Basin Characteristics
100% Region 5 (110 mit)
Parameter ...................... ....ValueFRegression Equation Valid Range
Min Max
....... ................................................
Drainage Area (square miles) [ 110 0.38 � 638
Peak F"llow Stirearnflow Statistics
F- Equivalent 190 -Percent Prediction Interval
tatistic FIOW (ft3/s) [Standard Error (percent) years of r Minimum Maximum record I I
[PK2 678 96F F
FPK,o
PKZS
F 14201 63 2-1
F 1880 56 31
1
[PK50 F 2250 53 51
F 26501 —521 61 —1
FPK500
3700
1 1 MCI 111 1 1! 1 11
F-171 "I
Date: Thu Jul 25 2013 19:15:19 Mountain Daylight Time
NAD27 Latitude: 46.6466 (46 39 48)
NAD27 Longitude: - 120.6801 (-120 40 48)
NAD93 Latitude: 46.6464 (46 39 47)
NAD83 Longitude: - 120,6813 (-120 40 53)
ReachCode: 17030002000408
Measure: 99.13
Use Regulated Station: Yes
M
I
AREA
STA77D NAME (Mj2) [RATIO FISREGULATED
DOC. 36
INDEX
1-1 3
--F-
12492500 I TIETON RIVER AT CANAL HEADWORKS NEAR 239.000 2.1700 Undefined
hNACHES, WA
12491500 11ETON RIVER AT TIETON DAM NEAR NACHES, 187.000 1.6978 Undefined
` WA
7tream
)
FSTATID
reamgage Estimated
mmX41Y Flow Streamgage Lea
Flow description rsofungaged
actor ows ordflows
NAME tm Z�
RATIOEA
.
�ISREGULATED
12499000
NACHES RIVER NEAR NORTH YAKIMA, WA
1100A0
9.9873
PK25W
Undefined
12500450
YAKIMA RIVER ABOVE AHTANION CREEK
3479.00
F
31.5871
PK50W
Undefined
5970 2750
PK25
�ATT
A
5410 3000
PK100W
I Weigh ted-100_Year Peak_Flood 0.4608 6800 3130
PK50
50_Year Peak Flood0.5550 6260 F 3470
12503000 YAKIMA RIVER AT UNION GAP NEAR YAKIM—A,]
WA
3652.00
f 33.1578
7 7130
Undefined
12505000
YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PARKER, WA 3660.00 33.2304
Undefined
12508990
YAKIMA RIVER AT MABTON, WA 5359.00 48.6563
Undefined
-- I..�
12509500 YAKIMA RIVER NEAR PROSSER WA 5440.00
-... .
49.3917
Undefined
_
12510500
... �
YAKIMA RIVER AT KIONA, WA 5615.00
� ....
50.9$06
�.._
Undefined
The following flows were estimated based on the closest upstream streamgage for the selected
ungaged site.
Upstream
drainage -area
ratio estimates
based on station
12492500
[Pcal:-Flowatistics
Flow types
reamgage Estimated
mmX41Y Flow Streamgage Lea
Flow description rsofungaged
actor ows ordflows
PK2W
Weighted-2—Year—Peak—Flood
0.4608 2370 1090
PK2
2—Year—Peak—Flood 0.5550 2390 1330
PK10W
Weighted_10_Year_Peak_Flood 0.4608 4220 1940
PK25W
I Weighted-25—Year—Peak—Flood 0.4608
5210 2400
PKI0
10—Year—Peak—Flood FO.5550
4330 2400
PK50W
Weighted_50 Year Peak_Flood 0.4608
5970 2750
PK25
25_Year_Peak_Flood 0.5550
5410 3000
PK100W
I Weigh ted-100_Year Peak_Flood 0.4608 6800 3130
PK50
50_Year Peak Flood0.5550 6260 F 3470
PK100
100—Year—Peak—Flood
70,5550
7 7130
3966
NDEX
37
Flood -Volume
Statistics
Flow types FFIowdescription
Flow
actor
Streamgage
ows
Streamgage
ears of
record
Estimated
ungaged
ows
�- V30D2Y 30_Day_2_Year_Maximum
0.460$ 1137.90 524
V15D2Y
15_Day_2_Year_Maximum
0.4608 1316.00 606
V7D2Y
7_Day_2_Year_Maximum 0.4608 1473.00 679
V31)2Y 3_Day_2_Year_Maximum 0.460$ 1573.50 725
V1D2Y F 1_Da _2_ Year Maximum 0.4608 1640
Y ....... .10 756
r V30D10Y
V7D5Y
V30D25Y
V15D10Y15bay_10_Year_Maximum
V31)5Y
V30D50Y
30_ Day_ 10_ Year_ Maximum 0.1608 1720.90 793
7_Day_5_Year_Maximum 0.4608 2019.130 931
30_Day_25_Year _Maximum
3_Day_5_Year_Maximum
30_Day_50_Year _Maximum
0.4608 2020.50 931
0.4606 2078.30 J 958
0.4606 2237.80 1030
0.4608 2247.20 1040
V1D5Y 1-Day-5_YearMaximum 0.4608 2352.70-17 1080
V7D1OY 7_Da _10_Year_Maximum 0.4608 24......
Y F 11.70 1110
--- - -- -- ..........
V15D25Y 15_Day_25_Year _Maximum r 0.4608 2495.40 1150
V3DiOY
3_Day_10_Year _Maximum 0.4608 2761.30 F 1270
V15D50YR
15_Day_50_Year_Maximum .4608 2821.20 130Q
V1b10Y
1_Day_10_Year_Maximum 0.46Q8 2926.40 1350
V7D25Y 7_Day_25 Year_Maximum 0.4608 2941.50 1360
F---'
V15D10OY V 15_Day_100_Year_Maximum .4608 3160.10 1460
V7D5OY 7_Day_50_Year_Maximum 0.4608 3362.00 1550
V3C25Y 3_Day_25_Year_Maximum 0.4606 3526.90 1630
_
F VID25Y j 1_Day_25Year_Maximum 0.4606
3780.50 1740
V7D100Y 7_Day_100_Year _MaximumFo.46081 3804.90 1750
V3D50Y 3_Day 50_Year_Maximum FO.46081 4178.90 1930
VID50Y
1_Day_50_Year_Maximum 0.4608 4519.70 2080
V3D100Y F 3 -Day -100 -Year -Maximum FO.46081 4906.40 F 2260
Low -Flow
Statistics
Flow types Flow description
Flow
actor
Streamgage
ows
Streamgage
ears of
Estimated
ungaged
record
ows
M3D20Y
3_Day_20_Year_Low_F1ow
0.4608 1.8000 0.83
M3D20Y 3_Day_20 Year_Low_Flow
0.4608
1.8000
0.83
DOC. 38
MDEX
-
MIDIOY
1_Day_10_Year Low_Flow 0.4608 1 2.7000 1.24
MID10Y I
I_Day_10_Year_Low_Flow 1 0.4608 2.7000 1.24
M14D20Y
14_Day_20 Year_Low_Flow 0.4608 2.8000 f 1.29
M7D20Y
7_Day_20_Year_Low_F1aw 0.4608 2.9000 1.34
M301)20Y 30_Day 20_Year_Low_Flow 0.4608 3.6000
1.66
M7b10Y V 7_Day_10_Year_Low_Flow 0.4608 4.3000
1.98
M141)10Y
14-Day_10_Year_Low_Flow 0.4608 4.6000 2.12
M30D10Y 30_bay_10_Year _Low _Flow 0.4608 6.4000 2.95
M7D5Y 7_Day_5_Year_Low_Flow 0.4608 6.9000 3.18
MiD2Y 1_Day_2_Year_Low _Flow F 0.4608 11.200 5.16
M3D2Y F- 3_Day_2_Year_Low_Flow 1 0.4608 13.400 6.18
I M9OD20Y 90_Day20_Year_Low_Flow FO.4608 F 15.400 7.1
M7D2Y 7_Day_2_Year_Low_Flow �0 4608 17.700 8.16
M9OD10Y F 90_Day_10_Year _ Low _Flow 0.4608 22.100 10.2
M14D2Y 14 Day Low_Flow 0.4608 23.000 10.6
M30D2Y 30 -Day -2 -Year -Low -Flow] 0.4608 34.900 16.1
M90D2Y 90_Day_2_Year_Low_Flow 0.4608 78.700 36.3
w -Duration
Statistics
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow types Flow description ears of ungaged
actor flows
PBCOPd IOWS
D99 99_Percent_Duration i 0.4608 6 69 2.77
1)95 ,.... ..
95_Percent__Duration �6D8 18 69 8.3
090 L... - .................................................
90_Percent_Durdtion 0.4608 33 69 15.2
080 � B0_Percent_Duration 0.4608 76 69 35.9
1)75..... 75 -Percent -Duration FO.4608 109 69 50.2
D70
70_Percent Duration 0.4608 140 69 64.5
D60
60 -Percent -Duration FO.4608 216 69 995
D50
50_Percent Duration 0.4608 300 69 138
D40
40 -Percent -Du ration 0.4608 420 69 194
D30 30 -Percent -Du ration FO.4608 580 69 267
D25
25 -Percent -Du ration
0.4608 685 69 316
020
20 -Percent -Duration
0.4608 785 69 362
010
10 -Percent -Duration FO.4608 1030 69 475
D51
5 -Percent -Duration
FO.4608
1240
69 571
JI •
Di 1 -Percent -Duration 70.1608 1 1961.4 69 904
Annual Flow
Statistics
Flow treamgage Streamage FEstimated
Flow types Flow description actor lows ears of
record
SDQA
71
Stand_Dev_of Mean Annual_Flow FO.46081 154.150----------------------------
QA Mean -Annual _Flow 0.4608 1 430.200 F 198
Monthly Flow
Statistics
gage Estimated
Flow types Flow description actor lows f ungaged
Flow Streamgage Fred
ows
SDQ10 October_STD
4608 104.940 48.4
Qil November -Mean -Flow 0.4606 F 156.100 71.9
SDQ11 IVovember_STb 0.4606 165.660 76.3
Q3 -March-Mean-Flow 0.4608 205.200 94.6
QZ February_Mean_Flow FO.4608 227.100 105
10 � October Mean Flo
Q w 70.4608 237.3001 F 109
F SDQ9 September STD 0.4608 245.460 113
SDQ7 F July_STD 0,4608 248.210 114
SDQB _ _...- -- August 0.4608 251... _....
�- 470 116
_.- SDQ2 February_STD 0.4608 F 252.240 116
F---SDQ3 March -STD I 0.4608 F 261.510 121
Q1 January_Mean_Flow 0.4608 272.900 126
Q12 December -Mean -Flow 0.4608 285.800 132
SDQl
January_STb
F 0.4608 335.190 154
SDQS
May -STD
0.4608 360.440 166
Q41 April_Mean_Flow
0.4608 380.900 176
SDQ4
April _STD 0.4608 383.770 177
SDQ12
December -STD 0.4608 390.460 180
SDQ6
June_STD 0.4608 397.690 183
Q5
May_Mean_Flow
r0.46081 505.100 �^ 233
Q9
September -Mean -Flow
70.4608
626.100
289
Q6
June -Mean -Flow
FO.4608
683.700
3i5
Q7
July_Mean_Flow
FO.4608
F 768.700 354
Q8
I August -Mean -Flow
rO.4608
777.100
358
Flom
Flo
Statistics
Flow types
MINDV
SDQD
AVE DV
MAXDV
Flow Streamgage Streamgage Estimated
Flow description ears of ungaged
actor lows
_ record ows
Minimum—daily—flow 0.46081
0 69 F 0
Std_Dev_of daily_Flows 0.4608 440.601 69 203
Average_daily_$treamflow F 0.4608 443.979 69 F 205
Maximum—daily-flow 0.4608 7310 69 3370
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
12.9 Nn rh. �S�e � -id ate. tj, Fax � Floor,
575--6105aa, Ifisshi°rr,f�`on ' 90
PhM, 6 '09
August 13, 2013
Dear Mr. Heaverlo:
The City of Yakima received your letter regarding the City of Yakima's Shoreline Master
Program Update on July 22, 2013.
In response to your request to be removed from the City of Yakima's Shoreline Master
Program, the City is unable to comply as the Washington State Department of Ecology's
guidance for Shorelines Master Program Updates provides direction that properties
within floodplain areas are to be included in jurisdiction based upon existing FEMA flood
mapping.
Although the City is unable to remove your property from the Shoreline Master Program
jurisdiction, we would like you to know that at this time the City is only pre -designating
your property to avoid the possibility of future conflicts between city and county shoreline
regulations. We would also like to inform you that the development of the city's Shoreline
Master Program and this pre -designation process have no effect on Yakima County's
jurisdiction over your property at this time, or in the future until such time as you
and your neighbors annex to the City of Yakima.
In the event that you should have questions about the City's draft Shoreline Master
Program, or about how the new regulations would affect your property following
annexation, please feel free to contact me Jeff Peters, at 509-575-6163.
For a complete list of the supporting documents that will be used in developing the City
of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program as well as the updated public meeting sphedule
on the web please visit: http://vvvvvv. akimavva,aov/Servicesl lanninc4/city-of- akima-
shoreli� aes-rnaster- roaram-update/
Sincerely,
OqAg Pam -
Jeff Peters
Associate Planner
City of Yakima, WA
ydoil m
ui
INDEX
HEAVERLO PROPERTIES LLC
1212 S. KEYS ROAD YAKIMA, WA. 98901
(509) 453-4340
July 18, 2013
SEPA Responsible Official
Steve Osquthorpe, AICP
129 N. 2nd Street
Yakima, WA. 98901
RE: Shoreline Master Program
SEPA #013-13 & TXT #003-13
Mr. Osquthorpe,
Heaverlo Properties and Heaverlo Ranch want out of these arbitrarily
drawn boarder lines and request not having a part of the City of Yakima Shoreline
Master Program. We have a new set back dike for protection; we do not need a
City of Yakima program.
The magic lines should be removed on the several parcels located on South
Keys Road owned by Heaverlo Properties and Heaverlo Ranches. The parcel
numbers shown on the 2013 map which was received with the Notice of
Application will be furnished upon request.
Sincerely,
Jesse Heaverlo
'40,110
iI E i