HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-27-14 YPC PacketETNA` DEPART!" IT i
:FlDivision �m tIIPw F) H;
m
, I��"hingl�. 11 m �01
City of Yakima Planning Commission
STUDY SESSION
City Hall Council Chambers
Wednesday August 27, 2014
3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
YPC Members:
Chairman Dave Fonfara, Vice -Chair Scott Clark, Al Rose,
Paul Stelzer, Bill Cook, Patricia Byers, Ron Anderson
City Planning Staff:
Joan Davenport (Interim Community Development Director/Planning Manager); Jeff Peters
(Supervising Planner); Valerie Smith (Senior Planner); Robbie Aaron and Mike McDaniel (Assistant
Planner); and Rosalinda Ibarra (Administrative Assistant)
Agenda
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Staff Announcements
o Introduction - Ron Anderson - Planning Commission Member
0 Introductions - Robbie Aaron & Mike McDaniel - Assistant Planners
IV. Audience Participation
V. Follow -Up to the Upcoming Joint YPC/City Council Study Session on Updates to the
Urban Area Comprehensive Plan 2025
VI. Final Review of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update from Department of
Ecology
VII. Other Business
o Questions or Changes to 2013 Minutes
VIII. Adjourn
Next Meeting: September 10, 2014
V Wma
"w,
SIGN -IN SHEET
City of Yakima Planning Commission
City Hall Council Chambers
Wednesday August 27, 2014
Beginning at 3:30 p.m.
Meeting
Page 1 08/27/14 YPC Meeting
YPC Presentation re: Prep for Upcoming Joint
PC & Council Study Session
Planning Commission Preparation
for Upcoming Joint PC Et Council
Study Session
Summer 2014 -
The Planning Commission Act Et the Growth Management Act
Role of the Planning Commission
General Information
j, Role of the City Council
i Citizen Participation and the Public Process
J, Identifying Study Session Agenda Items
u Comprehensive Plan Update Program - 2040 Horizon
8/27/2014
1
YPC Presentation re: Prep for Upcoming Joint 8/27/2014
PC & Council Study Session
iftVliil !uIf,lfIIV, S1 e �°mi Se eifllfilr 9 2l) �i 4
flflflThe WPlanningAM Commission Act 8 � �+
The Growth Management Act
r.
wn..
The Planning Commission Act and the Growth Management Act permits a city to
engage in planning by creating a city planning commission. Once a planning
commission has been appointed, it must recommend adoption of land use
regulations and implement a Comprehensive Plan.
�The GMA adds this requirement: all counties and cities that are required to fully r
plan must adopt a comprehensive plan with more specified components.
y
�� u � u��i ri Flu e) �m
olIlillf..'Al, li iy � 22 coii Se i t1lll �� 111
Role of the Planning Commission
nning
i% The Planning Commission provides citizen review and recommendations on
planning -related matters to the City Council.
i, Planning commissions often have two distinct functions:
The first involves preparation and revision of the Comprehensive Plan and local land
use regulations.
The second function involves review of development proposals, such as site plans and
subdivisions. In Washington State, when planning commissions perform this role,
typically the commission recommends a decision that the council can approve or
disapprove of, or approve with modifications.
2
YPC Presentation re: Prep for Upcoming Joint
PC & Council Study Session
uou) 1re��uu Jbinit, 6t
��.�
�� �t:: f? III �°1ulll�����ui 2(�i 14
General Information
The Planning Commission conducts "legislative" and "quasi-judicial" activities
A "legislative action" is one which will affect the entire community, not just an
individual property own or single piece of land.
i, A "quasi -judicial action" is one in which the Planning Commission essentially acts
as a judge, evaluating a specific case or proposal submitted by individual parties
or property owners.
I�l11 t III � � siolii � °r �!l� ui Ili ) w��w a im m n ti in't
i d..... . � 10 w il� u i2 ���i ,11,1�
Role of the City Council
a The City Council appoints Planning Commission members to carry out the duties
of the advisory body. The Planning Commission sets long-term direction or
vision of the community's future, and the City Council has ultimate decision-
making authority for at[ land use planning issues.
l� The most effective Planning Commissions increase the number of times their
recommendations are accepted by the City Council by actively working to
maintain good and frequent communications with the City Council. (i.e. the
Upcoming joint PC and Council Study Session on September 9, 2014).
8/27/2014
3;f
3
YPC Presentation re: Prep for Upcoming Joint 8/27/2014
PC & Council Study Session
.!! u w I u in't �i�,000
i t, 111 V � i
S ��ir� Se
1 1"r �i 1
Citizen Participation and the Pu.�..,,.,.... �
blic Process
The fundamental justification for citizen participation is the premise that people
have the right to participate in decisions that affect them
Citizen participation is an established part of the land use planning and
regulatory process in Washington State. All state planning taws require citizen
participation—through public hearings—before plans or regulations are adopted,
or before granting some land development permits.
The GMA states that "Each county and city ... shall establish... procedures providing
for early and continuous public participation in the development and yam' jj
amendment of comprehensive plan use plans and development regulations �t ,
implementing such plans. The procedures shall provide for broad dissemination
of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public
meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication
programs, information services and consideration of and response to public
comments." (RCW 36.70A.140)
-Slide 7-
Pl
lliii ll (Glltiitil � lon F e lli Pi,Lt
c
n m S II Sli,,W S�e i 1 21) i 4
Identifying Study Session Agenda Items °w
o Roles of Committees, Commissions, and Council
a-
Growth Management Act, Comprehensive Plan (and sub -area plans), Yakima
Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable state and local laws that
guide Planning Ft Development in the City of Yakima.
%v
The Comprehensive Plan Update 2040 and revised Department of Commerce
Checklist
-Slide 8-
4
YPC Presentation re: Prep for Upcoming Joint
PC & Council Study Session
llu�lll lli t milli Il; u° �mm iul� a i lu ��w�; �1 Vmmi f wmll I)c 6w.
wC
w
Comp Plan Update Program - 2040 Horizon
The Comprehensive Plan Update Program - revised Department of Commerce
Checklist:
Highlights applicable statutory requirements and legislative changes since 2003
Revised Expanded Checklist for cities mandated to Update by June 30, 2017
After review of the Checklist, there maybe minor text amendments to the
YUAZO, to allow things like "Electronic Charging Stations" for electric vehicles
and other updates required by the applicable statutory regulations
Staff level discussions with Yakima County Planning Division, and city -only 2040
Growth Horizon
8/27/2014
5
' e
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47600 * Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000
711 for Washington Relay Service w Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341
August 15, 2014
l
The Honorable Micah Cawley CITY OF YAKIMA
City of Yakima°m' !
129 North Second Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Re: City of Yakima Comprehensive Shoreline Master Program Update — Conditional
Approval
Dear Mayor Cawley:
I would like to take this opportunity to commend the City of Yakima (City) for its efforts in
developing the proposed comprehensive Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. It is obvious
that a significant effort was invested in this update. The SMP will provide a framework to guide
development and habitat restoration along the City's shorelines.
As we have already discussed with your staff, the Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology) has identified specific changes necessary to make the proposal approvable. These
changes are detailed in Attachment B. Recommended changes are proposed in Attachment C.
The findings and conclusions that support Ecology's decision are contained in Attachment A.
Pursuant to RCW 90.58.090 (2)(e), at this point, the City may:
• Agree to the proposed changes (required and/or recommended changes), or
• Submit an alternative proposal. Ecology will then review the alternative(s) submitted for
consistency with the purpose and intent of the changes originally developed by Ecology and
with the Shoreline Management Act.
Final Ecology approval will occur when the City and Ecology agree on language that meets
statutory and Guideline requirements.
r, 41*0
The Honorable Micah Cawley
August 15, 2014
Page 2
Please provide your written response within 30 days to the Director's Office at the following
address:
WA State Department of Ecology
Attention: Director's Office
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-6700
Ecology appreciates the dedicated work that the City Council, City staff (Jeff Peters), the Planning
Commission, and the community have put into the Shoreline Master Program update.
We look forward to concluding the SMP update process in the near future. If you have any
questions or would like to discuss the changes identified by Ecology, please contact our Regional
Planner, Angela San Filippo, at.nela,S< paec ,wa(509) 454-3619.
Sincerely,
Maia D. Bellon
Director
Enclosures (3)
By Certified Mail [7012 1010 0003 3028 3553]
cc: Joan Davenport, City of Yakima
Jeff Peters, City of Yakima
Tim Gates, Ecology
Gary Graff, Ecology
ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CITY OF YAKIMA
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM R F mm
SMP Submittal accepted February 20, 2014, Ordinance No. 2013-050 AUG 2 -vPrepared by Angela San Filippo on August 8, 2014 2014
Brief Description of Proposed Amendment: PLANNING play,
The City of Yakima has submitted to Ecology for approval, a comprehensive update to their Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) to comply with Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and SMP Guidelines
requirements. The updated master program submittal contains locally tailored shoreline management
policies, regulations, environment designation maps, and administrative provisions. Additional reports
and supporting information and analyses noted below, are included in the submittal.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Need for amendment. The proposed amendment is needed to comply with the statutory deadline for a
comprehensive update of the City's local Shoreline Master Program pursuant to RCW 90.58.080 and
100. This amendment is also needed for compliance with the planning and procedural requirements of
the SMP Guidelines contained in WAC 173-26 and 27. The City of Yakima currently follows Yakima
County's SMP, originally adopted by Ecology in 1974 and last amended in 1981. The SMP has never
been comprehensively updated. This SMP update is also needed to address land use changes that have
occurred along the City's shorelines over the past 40 years and to provide consistency between the
updated SMP and the environmental protection and land use management policies and practices
provided by the City's Critical Areas Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
SMP provisions to be changed by the amendment as proposed:
This comprehensive SMP update is intended to entirely replace the City's existing SMP. This SMP
will regulate approximately 1,696 acres of shorelands. The City of Yakima has two rivers, one stream,
and three lakes which have been identified as shorelines of the state: the Yakima River, Naches River,
Cowiche Creek, Willow Lake, Lake Aspen, and Rotary Lake. The updated SMP is a significant
upgrade from the current 1981 SMP. Much has changed in Yakima over the last 40 years including
development pressures, state laws and guidance, and knowledge of best development and conservation
practices. The proposed SMP contains locally tailored shoreline management policies, regulations,
environment designation maps, and administrative provisions that have been updated to reflect these
changes. Overall, the state SMP guidelines are more restrictive than they were for the 1974 SMP and
this SMP update is consistent with the most current state guidelines.
The following elements outline the key differences between Yakima's proposed SMP and the existing
1981 SMP.
Environment Designations
Yakima's existing SMP has four environment designations: Urban, Rural, Conservancy, and Natural.
The proposed SMP has six environment designations: High Intensity, Essential Public Facilities,
Shoreline Residential, Floodway/Channel Migration Zone, Urban Conservancy, and Aquatic -Lakes
(Section 10.3.7 —10.3.42). The proposed SMP's environment designations include a purpose
AUG 2 s 2014
CITY OF "UP
�1statement, designation criteria, and management policies have been devel1 t ie City of
Yakima's unique shorelines and are consistent with the broader goals and policies of the SMP.
Shoreline Uses and Modifications
The proposed SMP provides a Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix (Table 03.070-1) that outlines
categories and sub -categories of uses and modifications and identifies whether they are permitted, ,
conditional, or prohibited uses and whether they are subject to use limitations. Through the text and the
Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix the proposed SMP contains detailed policies and regulations
with more direction and detail for specific types of uses.
The proposed SMP distinguishes between water -oriented and non -water -oriented uses for commercial,
industrial, institutional, and recreational uses and favors development and activities associated with
preferred uses of the Shoreline Management Act.
Supporting Documents
The proposed SMP also includes a cumulative impacts analysis and restoration plan. The purpose of
the cumulative impacts analysis is to ensure that the SMP includes policies and regulations that will
achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions as the SMP is implemented over time. The
analysis describes anticipated shoreline development and assesses cumulative impacts of such
development over the long term.
The restoration plan compiles restoration opportunities identified in other reports and studies and
expands on areas identified in the inventory and characterization where shoreline ecological functions
are impacted. Jointly the restoration plan and the cumulative impacts analysis provide the basis for the
no net loss report and the groundwork for the next review cycle for SMP updates which per 2010
legislation is now on an eight year review cycle.
Amendment History, Review Process: From 2004 to 2008 the City of Yakima worked cooperatively
with Yakima County and other jurisdictions of Yakima County to develop a regional SMP.
Attributable 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. The regional effort included numerous public workshops
and a countywide Planning Policy Committee, but it is unclear how much this public participation
reflected Yakima's population, stakeholders, and local issues.
In 2012 the City of Yakima began a local planning process utilizing the Yakima County regional SMP
as a starting point to develop a more locally focused plan for the City. The record shows that
stakeholder meetings and interviews were held on February 5, 13, 25, and 26. The Planning
Commission held five public meetings to review the various components of the City's draft SMP on
the following dates: February 27, March 27, April 10, May 16, and June 12, 2013. A public hearing
before the Planning Commission was held on August 28, 2013. Affidavits of publication provided by
the City indicate notice of the hearing was published on July 9, 2013.
With passage of Resolution #2013-050, on November 5, 2013 the City authorized staff to forward the
proposed amendments to Ecology for approval. The City formally submitted the SMP to Ecology on
February 20, 2014.
The proposed SMP update was received by Ecology for state review and verified as complete on
March 5, 2014. Notice of the state comment period was distributed to state agencies, Ecology
2
identified interested parties, and interested parties identified by the City on April 25, 2014, in
compliance with the requirements of WAC 173-26-12, and as follows: the state comment period began
on April 28, 2014 and continued through May 29, 2014. Ecology received one written comment letter
from Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Ecology sent the
written comment letter and a responsiveness summary to the City on June 3, 2014. On August 6, 2014,
the City submitted to Ecology its responses to issues raised during the state comment period. Ecology's
own responses to issues raised during the comment period are available as part of the SMP amendment
process record.
Consistency with Chapter 90.58 RCW: The proposed amendment has been reviewed for
consistency with the policy of RCW 90.5 8.020 and the approval criteria of RCW 90.58.090(3), (4) and
(5). The City has also provided evidence of its compliance with SMA procedural requirements for
amending their SMP contained in RCW 90.58.090(1) and (2).
Consistency with "applicable guidelines" (Chapter 173-26 WAC, Part III): The proposed
amendment has been reviewed for compliance with the requirements of the applicable Shoreline
Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through 251 and 173-26-020 definitions).. This
included review of a SMP Submittal Checklist, which was completed by the City.
Consistency with SEPA Requirements: The City submitted evidence of SEPA compliance in the
form of a SEPA checklist and issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposed
SMP amendments on July 10, 2013. Notice of the SEPA determination was published in the Yakima
Herald Republic on July 9, 2013. Ecology did not comment on the DNS.
Other Studies or Analyses supporting the SMP update: Ecology also reviewed the following
reports, studies, map portfolios and data prepared for the City in support of the SMP amendment:
These supporting documents include: RECEIVED
• Public participation plan AUG s 2 014
• Shoreline inventory and characterization
• Cumulative impacts analysis CITY OF YAKIMA
• Restoration plan PLANNINGI .
Summary of Issues Raised During The Public Review Process:
The City's SMP amendment public review process generated several comments from members of the
public, state agencies, and the Yakama Nation. The primary themes of these public comments were in
regard to shoreline jurisdiction determinations on Cowiche Creek and Buchanan Lake and integration
of the City's CAO into the SMP. In regard to whether Cowiche Creek should be included or excluded
from shoreline jurisdiction state agencies and the Yakama Nation submitted comments in support of
including Cowiche Creek in shoreline jurisdiction. After further review and analysis Ecology and the
City of Yakima decided that Cowiche Creek should in fact be considered a shoreline of the state. Other
comments were received in regard to such topics as inclusion of Buchanan Lake, integration of Critical
Areas Ordinance language in the SMP, specific wording suggestions, and complaints regarding
personal property being included in shoreline jurisdiction. City staff addressed comments through
modifications to the SMP and/or explanations to the commenter explaining how the comments were
addressed or why the City was not able to incorporate their comments or suggestions.
W
AUG 2 1 2014
Summary of Issues Identified by Ecology as Relevant To Its Decision: GIY OF YAKIMA
PLANNING DIV.
Many of Ecology's required changes relate to the clarity and specificity of SMP provisions. These
include the addition of definitions for technical terms that were not previously defined; clarification
regarding exemptions and the need for exempt activities to still comply with the applicable provisions
of the Shoreline Management Act and the City's SMP; clarification regarding required geotechnical
reports for shoreline stabilization activities; internal consistency when providing references to specific
sections of the SMP; and clarification regarding the channel migration zone map and because of its
definition as an environment designation it is inherently regulatory.
Several of Ecology changes are required to provide consistency with relevant sections of the RCW
these include; clarification over the effective date of the SMP; when appeals may be filed to the
Shoreline Hearings Board; and the necessity of requiring a conditional use permit for mining within
the channel migration zone.
Ecology's required changes also include removing the programmatic exemption from the City's SMP.
Exemptions are essentially a type of permit and are part of the implementation of an SMP and are
guided by WAC 173-27; therefore it is not appropriate to issue a programmatic exemption within an
SMP.
Several of Ecology's recommended changes are based on a written comment letter received during the
state's public comment period from Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation. This comment letter addressed the wording of existing goals, policies, and regulations
that may affect archaeological and cultural resources and the addition of a policy in the Historic,
Cultural, and Educational Resources sub -element section.
Other recommended changes include spelling out acronyms; simplifying statements to provide clarity;
removing website links; providing internal references rather than specific WAC and RCW citations
when the information has already been incorporated into another section of the SMP; and
modifications to the definition of `appurtenance, residential' with additional language from the WAC.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
After review by Ecology of the complete record submitted and all comments received, Ecology
concludes that the City's proposed comprehensive SMP update/amendment, subject to and including
Ecology's KgRirgd changes (itemized in Attachment B), is consistent with the policy and standards of
RCW 90.58.020 and RCW 90.58.090 and the applicable SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through
251 and .020 definitions). This includes a conclusion that approval of the proposed SMP, subject to
required changes, contains sufficient policies and regulations to assure that no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions will result from implementation of the new updated master program (WAC 173-
26-201(2)(c).
Ecology also concludes that a separate set of recorrunendedchanges to the submittal (identified during
the review process and itemized in Attachment C) would be consistent with SMA policy and the
guidelines and would be beneficial to SMP implementation. These changes are not required; but can,
if accepted by the City, be included in Ecology's approved SMP amendments.
C].
Ecology concludes that those SMP segments relating to shorelines of statewide significance provide
for the optimum implementation of Shoreline Management Act policy (RCW 90.58.090(5).
Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the requirements of RCW 90.5 8. 1 00,regarding the
SMP amendment process and contents.
Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the requirements of RCW 90.58.130 and WAC
173-26-090 regarding public and agency involvement in the SMP update and amendment process.
Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the purpose and intent of the local amendment
process requirements contained in WAC 173-26-100, including conducting open houses and public
hearings, notice, consultation with parties of interest and solicitation of comments from tribes,
government agencies and Ecology.
Ecology concludes that the City has complied with requirements of Chapter 43.21 C RCW, the State
Environmental Policy Act.
Ecology concludes that the City's comprehensive SMP update/amendment submittal to Ecology was
complete pursuant to the requirements of WAC 173-26-110 and WAC 173-26-201(3)(a) and (h)
requiring a SMP Submittal Checklist.
Ecology concludes that it has complied with the procedural requirements for state review and approval
of shoreline master program amendments as set forth in RCW 90.58.090 and WAC 173-26-120.
Ecology concludes that the City has chosen not to exercise its option pursuant to RCW
90.58.030(2)(d)(ii) to increase shoreline jurisdiction to include buffer areas of critical areas within
shorelines of the state. Therefore, as required by RCW 36.70A.480(6), for those designated critical
areas with buffers that extend beyond SMA jurisdiction, the critical area and its associated buffer shall
continue to be regulated by the City's critical areas ordinance. In such cases, the updated SMP shall
also continue to apply to the designated critical area, but not the portion of the buffer area that lies
outside of SMA jurisdiction. All remaining designated critical areas (with buffers NOT extending
beyond SMA jurisdiction) and their buffer areas shall be regulated solely by the SMP.
DECISION AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Based on the preceding, Ecology has determined the proposed amendments comprehensively updating
the SMP, are consistent with Shoreline Management Act policy, the applicable guidelines and
implementing rules, once required changes set forth in Attachment B are approved by the City.
Ecology approval of the proposed amendments with required changes is effective 14 days from
Ecology's final action approving the amendment.
As provided in RCW 90.58.090(2)(e)(ii) the City may choose to submit an alternative to the changes
required by Ecology. If Ecology determines that the alternative proposal is consistent with the purpose
and intent of Ecology's original changes and with RCW 90.58, then the department shall approve the
alternative proposal and that action shall be the final. Approval of the updated SMP and proposed
alternative/s is effective 14 days from Ecology's final action approving the alternative/s.
RECEIVED
AUG 2! 2014 5
Attachment B: AUG 2 -' 2014
CITY OF YAXIMA
PLANNING mv
Ecology Required Changes
The following changes are required to comply with the SMA (RCW 90.58) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26,
Part 111):
1
J�F
17.01.090
Definitions
Y7,111111,111! 1-M151 )BOHN
"Advanced Mitigation" is a form of permittee -responsible mitigation constructed in advance of fi,air,r�'�c
The term 'advanced
mitigation' is used as an
example of innovative
mitigation in Section
17.09.010(P)(4) but without
perr itted impact. An ad—vance mitigation site needs to be pis nned, designed, permitted, and
constructed before a project can use any mitigation credit. Advance mitigation can be proposed by
any applicant, but the advance compensatory mitigation credits generated by La mitigation effort in
advance of impacts can only be used by that same applicant.
a definition of this term
there is too much room for
interpretation on what
advanced mitigation could
entail. Without an adequate
definition no net loss of
ecological function cannot
be ensure as required in
WAC 173-26-186(8)(b) and
-
Table 03.070-
Shoreline Use
and Modification
Matrix
S
Shoreline High VE8senllal Shonefii—ne—FU— T-1—oodwa—y/Channel [—Aquatic-
Use or Intensity Public Residential Conservancy migration Zone Lakes
Modification Facilities (CMZ)
173-26-291( CL
. ?jL
All mining within the
Channel Migration Zone,
See WAC 173 -26 -
241(3)(h)(ii)(E), shall
Mining
May 8, 2014
May 8, 2014
. . .....
Surface
...... . ......
require a Shoreline
Mining
C
x
x
x
x
x
Conditional Use Permit.
Underground
........
.
. .....
. .......
. . . ...................
RECEIVED
Mining
x
x
x
x
x
x
.
. .......
AUG 24 2094
Mining for
Habitat
S
S
S
S
SC:
S
CITY OF YAKIMA
Restoration
PLANNING IIIV.
--17X5.030(C)
Shoreline
C. Other vegetation within shoreline jurisdiction, but outside of buffers, other stream buffers,
YMC 17.05.010 is
Vegetation
wetlands and wetland buffers, and other WDFW-mapped priority habitats and species areas,
Archaeological and Historic
Conservation
must be managed according to YMC 17.05.01-0020, Environmental Protection, and any other
Resources and therefore
regulations specific to vegetation management contained in this SMP and City of Yakima
doesn't really apply to,
Code.
vegetation management. I
believe you want to refer to
YMC 15.05.020
Environmental Protection.'
4
17.05.060(B)
Flood Hazard
A. The channel migration zone (CMZ) is considered to be that area of a stream channel which
Since the Channel
Reduction
may erode as a result of normal and naturally occurring processes and has been mapped
Migration Zone is also an
consistent with WAC 1-73-26-224-(3)(b) A-RegutatoppChanne4A4FeAeR7ZoRp--Map
Environment Designation
ls,-a� efeFenee afid
and therefore regulatory,
study4f-they
changes to the mapping of
berieve-these
the CMZ will require an
is
SMP amendment and
cannot be modified as
described in this provision.
least-4e*pera ce4n-assessing-fi4v4al-geoi oiphic,-pfocesses arid-GhaRnel
See RCW 90.58.030(3)(c).
fespense-
The language here seems
to refer to CAOs and the
mapping of CAOs used for
reference and not
regula ry_purpases.
-5—J17—.07.130(6)(2)
1-§ line
set
Geotechnical report is
Stabilization
the rovisions of the definition vided in 17.01.090
always required. See WAC
May 8, 2014
May 8, 2014
. .... . ......
. .. . . .......... . .
173-26-231(3—)(Ffl).
6
17.07.160(A)
Utitlities
A. Utilities activities consistent with exemptions in YMC 17.13.050 are exemptfromthe------
This —internal SMP
requirementto obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, but shall meet applicable
reference should be YMC
provisions of this Master Program. Applicants may apply for a multiyear utilities maintenance
17.07.170; there is no YMC
plan for exempt and hon-exempt repair and maintenance activities consistent with YMC
17.07.190 in this SMP.'
17.07.4-90170.
7
17.07.170(1)
Redevelopment,
I Transportation facilities. Applications for transportation maintenance plans shall
Exemptions, including
Repair, and
demonstrate compliance with regulations in YMC 17.07.150.
programmatic exemptions
Maintenance
fee"e&-uWer-t#e
are a part of the
Department of -far
implementation of this
SMP. See WAC 173-27-
2. This Apperr x is cons; nt
040. Ecology supports the
to-YMC-47-13-,02"R4-m- nt to the proce�f-YMG
content of Appendix A but
4-7-4-3-. IMP-AfnisndmoRt-pfoGedum--fGr4MG4-74444g-.
is not authorized to issue a
3The
programmatic exemption
date of this-&M42-.
through approval of this
4.1.
SMP. Rather than including
the SSM- P-update process censistpM-wi4r-
the programmatic
RGW--90 "'
exemption as a component
of the SMP the City should
regufatio
issue the permit directly to
WSDOT.
Once the references to the
programmatic exemption in
RECEIVED
Appendix are deleted there
is only one provision left for
this section and it should
AUG 2 1- 2014
be reformatted.
Cil'y ()F YAKIMA
PLANNING O1V
Section 17.13.050(A)
includes normal
maintenance and repair of
existin2_structures or
May 8, 2014
.......... .. -
... . ...... . . . . ......................... . ......
RECEIVED
AUG 2 -1 2014
Ci OF YAKIMA
PLANNING GIV.
developments, therefore
issuing a programmatic
exemption for
transportation facilities
under the responsibility of
the Washington State
Department of
Transportation should be
feasible once this SMP
becomes effective,
_8
1 17.09.010(D)
G . eneral
D. Applicability. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to any new development, construction,
This Chapter is pan of the
Provisions
or use within the incorporated portion of the City of Yakima's shoreline iurisdiction that is
SMP and applies only to
designated as a critical area and upon any land within shoreline jurisdiction that is mapped
critical areas that are within
and designated as a special flood,hazard area under the National Flood Insurance Program.
shoreline jurisdiction.
However, this Chapter does not apply to the situations below, except that the Flood Hazard
Reword to clarify this
protection provisions of YMC 17.09.020 will continue to apply as determined by YMC
statement and the
17.09.020.A-G:
applicability of the
9
17.09.010(D)(2)
General
2. It is the intent of this Chapter to permit these pre-existing legally non-conforming uses and
Provision (a) is not correct.
Provisions
structures to continue until such time as conformity is possible;
This SMP applies to
federally owned lands.
49-.a. Minor, temporary, or transient activities (including those of a
Federal uses and activities
recreational nature) that do not alter the environment or require a dedicated staging area, use
taking place on federally
area, or route (including temporary signs) are not subject to this Chapter;
owned land do not have to
o b. Mining, as defined in YMC 17.01.090, is carried out under a
be permitted however,
Washington Department of Natural Resources reclamation permit is not subject to the
nonfederal developments
geologically hazardous areas provisions of this Chapter for erosion hazard areas, over
and uses undertaken on
steepened slope hazard areas, landslide hazard areas and suspected geologic hazard areas.
federal lands and on lands
Other critical areas provisions continue to apply.
subject to nonfederal
ownership, lease or
easements will need to be
permitted. See WAC 173-
27-060(3). This is also
addressed in Section
.... .... . .. . ......
17.01. and(2) of
May 8, 2014
...... .
........
.....
this SMP.
CITY OF YAKIi
PLANNING Dik,
Reformatted for
-_
consistency.'
10
17.09.010(E)(5)(1)
Ge-neral
5. -Coordination with Other Jurisdictions-'-
The Shoreline
Provisions
1. Where all or a portion of a standard development project site is.within a designated critical
Administrator cannot
area and the project is subject to another local, state, or federal development permit or
abrogate responsibility. All
authorization, the Shoreline Administrator shall determine whether the provisions of this
development within
Chapter can be processed in conjunction with a local, state, or federal development permit or
shoreline jurisdiction
authorization.
requires authorization. See
review_-proGes&4s-neGessaFy,-The decision of the Shoreline Administrator shall be based upon
WAC 173-27-140(1); No
the following criteria:
authorization to undertake
a. The nature and scope of the project and the critical area features involved or potentially
use or development on
impacted;
shorelines of the state shall
b. The purpose or objective of the permit or authorization and its relationship to protection of
be granted by the local
the critical area;
government unless upon
c. The feasibility of coordinating the critical area development authorization with other
review the use or
permitting agency;
development is determined
d. The timing of the permit or authorization.
to be consistent with the
2. If When a determination has been made that provisions of this Chapter can be handled
policy and provisions of the
#hrorrgh-un conjunction with another applicable development permit or authorization process,
Shoreline Management Act
the Shoreline Administrator will not accept the development authorization and/or permits in
and the master program.
place of a Shoreline permit or critical area developmenLauthadzation. Piproject proponents
may be required to provide additional site plans, data and other information necessary as part
Reword this provision to
of that process to ensure compliance with this Chapter. The Shoreline Administrator's
ensure proper review by
decision on the critical area development authorization shall be coordinated to coincide with
local government.
other permits and authorizations.
-17.13.120(E)
--Appeals--
oom-, aFi-a
11
E. Appeals to the Shoreline Hearings Board of a final decision on a Shoreline Substantial
To be consistent with RCW
Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Variance, or a decision on an
90.58.180 and RCW
appeal of an administrative action, may be filed by the applicant or any aggrieved party pursuant to
90.58.140(6) this should be
RCW 90.58.180 within twenty-one 21]LtWly4Wdays of receipt of the final decision by the City or
twenty-one days rather
by Ecology as provided for in RCW 90.58.140(6)..___.
than thirty days.
May 8, 2014
12
17.13.140(B)
SMP
Amendments
This SMP and all amendments thereto shall become effective immed+ately-fourkeen 14 da s from
the date of Ecology's written notice of final action. by-Eceleg-y-
............... _ _ _
As per RCW 90.58.090(7)
the effective date of th is
SMP will be 14 days from
the date of the
department's written notice
of final action to the local
government stating the
department has approved
the proposed SMP—..
13
Appendix
2014Ci-y—of
.„�nAa-- A,-'IA V-4C , 1113 �--6— �� �........
`�"�"��`' '�® '
Delete Appendix A.
Yakima
Ecology supports orts the uses
Programmatic
s
of the programmatic
Exemption
Central
exemption for state DOT
projects, but the SMP is not
the appropriate location for
a programmatic exemption.
Local government has the
primary responsibility for
administering the
regulatory provisions of the
RECEIVED
SMP (90.58.050).
Exemptions, including
AUG 2 , 2014
programmatic exemptions
are part of the
M
CITY OF YAKIMA
implementation of this
PLANNING
SMP; see WAC 173-27-
040.
An exemption is
authorization from local
government, not Ecology,
which establishes a
proposed activity as
exempt from the SDP
—
..................
......... ..__..... ..._..... ... _....
Processing requirements
May 8, 2014
May 8, 2014
.
. ......... . .....
(WAC 173-27-250).
Inclusion of this Appendix
would not constitute
authorization from the City
or Ecology for the
programmatic permit. If the
City would like to authorize
DOT's maintenances
activities the City will need
to authorize this
programmatic exemption
following their established
Ufa z Z014
administrative provisions.
ary a UKIMA
The City's SMP includes
1PLONING DIV.
authorization for
programmatic exemptions
in YCC 17.07.170(K).
Also, note that many
activities intended to be
covered under this
programmatic exemption
will require the City to
prepare individual letters of
exemption for activities that
are subject to U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Section
10 permits or 404 permits.
Ecology is designated as
the coordinating agency for
the state with regard to
permits issued by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
. . . .............
The Ci tv will need to issue
May 8, 2014
. ... . .... . ....
letters of exemption for
each instance where the
DOTS activities trigger this
federal nexus. See WAC
173-27-050 and 173-27-
.. . .... . ............ ......... ............. - ------- . . .... . ........ . ..... .
May 8, 2014
Attachment C: AUG %zZ014
11TY 11 IMP 01,J
Ecology Recommended Changes
The following changes are recommended tOclarify elements Ofthe City's updated SMP
1
10.3.131
Histori
Development along shorelines sheuld include eGrisLdtatuien-planning that Incorporate
This provision was reworded
C,
expertise and recommendations gfw44 qualified cultural resource professionals includinq
based on a recommendation
Cultur
archaeologists, historians, bio�, heAVa&h4KjtGn4)epar4n4ent-G��gy-and
in a comment letter received
at, and
4istoriG�4ation-,,siid4he-Yakafl4a-Nat�owand tribal representation to identify
from the Washington State
Educa
cultural and historic resources that could..be affected by prolect; evaluate an
Department of Archaeology
present resources for significance: and recommend awropriate Preservation strategies.
tio ' nal
and Historic Preservation.
Resou
Sub-
eleme
nt
2
10.3.133
Histori
Development w4iGh-that would destroy archaeological, cultural and or historical sites or
This provision was reworded
C,
data may -Will be delayed for an appropriate amount of-re-a-sGriable time as determined by
based on a recommendation
Cultur
the City in consultation with interested parties, that would to allow anthe appropriate
in a comment letter received
at, and
ager+Gy-or-orgarijzatieRentity to purehase4h"Ae-o
from the Washington State
Educa
mitkqate the affected resource(s).
Department of Archaeology
tional
and Historic Preservation.
Resou
rces
Sub-
eleme
-3--
—10.3.1-33.1-kIsfad
nt
Establish and impijirient —r)rocedures tha—tprotect CUltural and historic resources b
This provision was adde
. .... ..............
.. ---
C,
...... .
designing projects to avoid impacting resources to the greatest extent possible, o
based on a recommendation
identifyina and implementing mitigation measures when avoidance or preservation is not
Cultur
in a comment letter received
possible.
at, and
from the Washington State
Educa
RECEIVED
Department of Archaeology
tional
and Historic Preservation.
Resou
AUG 2 � 2014
roes
This should probably be
Sub-
CITY OF YAKIW,
reformatted so that it is
eleme
PLANNING DIV
10.3,134, but that will require
nt
reformatting of all subsequent
policies�
-4—
17.01.030(C)
lFinclin
C. Willow Lake and Lake Aspen are owned by Eomeowners associations, and Lake
For clarity, please spell out
gs
Aspen's residential community is governed by GG&Rscovenants _concritions and
this acronym.
restrictions.
5
i7.01.080
Effecti
T4bie4 , -heFeby-adGpted-eR-#+"X-da-t"f->(Xr2-0-1-3—This SMP and all amendments
To eliminate potential
ve
thereto shall become effective 14 days from the date of the Washington Department of
confusion Ecology
Date
Ecology's written notice of approval.
recommends only stating
when the SMP will be
effective rather than including
the date of local adoption.
-�---v.01.090
I Definiti
"Appurtenance, residential" is necessarily connected.,to..the use and enjoyment of a
To better define this term
ons
single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the
Ecology recommends adding
perimeter of a wetland. Normal aPPLirtenances includes a garage; deck; driveway;
language from WAC 173 -27 -
utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield; and grading which does not
040(2)(g) and deleting the last
exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any
sentence as this Master
wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark. L -Goal rir ums anees--rnay-diictate
Program is the applicable
additional terpral4tions,-of-nofmakap eRanGevihiAh Fegulated
program and stating this
mas ef-proWm-.
provision from the WAC does
not make sense in this
context.
7
7.61.090
Definiti
.... . .........
"Public Trust Doctrine" is a legal principle derived from English Common Law. The
Website links can become
ons
essence of the doctrine is that the waters of the state are a public resource owned by
obsolete rather quickly. The
and available to all citizens equally for the purposes of navigation, conducting
definition here is adequate
commerce, fishing, recreation, and similar uses and that this trust is not invalidated by
and there is no need to
L-1
private ownership oftheunderyl n and. The Pu�lic Trust Doctrine does not allow the
reference this vv
public to trespass over privately owned uplands to access the watim It does, however,
would still like to incluoe a
protect public use of navigable water bodies below the ordinary high water mark. gee
reference Ecology
ht4p�'4www-eey4akjaviprog4�an;s4ealgma�laws—rWe&�publ+r.—tfust-14t"
recommends making a
broader reference to
Ecology's laws and rules
rather than including a
specific hvi)erlink.
8
17.05.020(E)
Enviro
E. Mitigation Plan, All proposed alterations to shoreline jurisdiction that Aill may -have
This can be interpreted as
nment
adverse effects on ecological functions require mitigation sufficient to provide for and
meaning that all development
al
maintain the functions and values of the shoreline area or to prevent risk from a critical
will need to have a mitigation
Protec
areas hazard.
plan prepared by a qualified
tion
professional. Reword to
provide clarity and to ensure
that not all development will
necessarily need to prepare a
miti ation plan.
Shorel
It is unnecessary to call out
ine
6ha4—VP4Y4"l4h"ir9e stabilization activities wRhW+Shorehri,—JU M'dietiop,
provision G as being
Stabili
4-.G Shoreline stabilization measures shall be designed, located, and constructed
additional standards and
zation
in such a manner as to minimize the disruption of natural channel characteristics.
applying to all shoreline
2-.H Where a geotechnical analysis or report is required, it shall meet the
stabilization. All of the
provisions of the definition provided in 17.01.090.
provisions under the title
"L.1 Demonstration of necessity. New structural shoreline stabilization measures
Shoreline Stabilization,
sl�all not be allowed except when necessity is demonstrated in the following
including provisions A -G,
manner:
apply to all shoreline
a. New or enlarged structural stabilization measures to protect an existing
stabilization within shoreline
primary structure, including residences, shall not be allowed unless there is
jurisdiction not just G.
conclusive evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis that the
Recommend deleting this
structure is in danger from shoreline erosion caused by currents or waves.
language and reformatting
Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline erosion itself,
this section to be consistent
without a scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need.
with the other provisions of
The geotechnical analysis should evaluate on-site drainage issues and
this section.
address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before
considering structural shore stabilization.
There are also some editorial
b. Erosion control structures in sgippaq of new nonwater-dependent _
changesto this �sectiorr �these
.......... . ......
......
development. Including single-family residences, when all of the conditions
include spelling and
below apply:
elimination of language that is
L The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as the
not pertinent to this SMP (e,g.
loss of vegetation and drainage.
tidal action).
ii. Nonstructural measures, such as placing the developments
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 a&-Wat-asfier�-currents
or waWeswaves.
c. Erosion control structures in support of water -dependent development
when all of the conditions below apply:
i. The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as the
loss of vegetation and drainage.
ii. Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on-site
drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient.
iii. The need to protect primary structures from damage due to
erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report.
d. Erosion control structures to protect projects for the restoration of
ecological functions of 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-J. 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.
Replacement walls or bulkheads shall not encroach waterward of the
ordinary high water mark or existing_ structure unless the residence was occupied
4&6
�?O/
4*1 y
. ...... . . ........
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.
46�1-. Soft shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline
ecological functions Lqaj
10
17.07.140(D)
Signs
D. The Shoreline Administrator may condition signage regarding size, illumination, and
This RCW citation refers to
placement, to ensure that signage is compatible with adjacent shoreline environments
the 35 feet height limitation
and does not: I)significantly (see definition in YMC 17.01.090) obstruct visual access to
which is provided already in
the water from public lands or a substantial number of residences pgr Section 17.03.080
this SMP, recommend citing
Development Standard paf-RGW4)G-.5&32Q-and shorelines hearings board case law; or
Section 17.03.080
2) impair scenic vistas to the Yakima Greenway or Neches River or associated lakes; or
Development Standards
3) impair driver vision such as due to lines of sight, type of frequency of lighting, or other
instead of the RCW.
--�I--i-7.07.160(L)
feature that has ffie p tential to result in safety concerns.
Utilitie
L. M"efla4-&4efe4F�e. &'- daFds far Utility TFansn*sion-t4nes-an d Farlliti�--. �11—
The first sentence is
s
f"wir-empnts--below-shall apply to all ut'�4y4rar*mis�sian4kies-an44aGi4ges-w4*H'R
unnecessary because it is still
services to individual projects undergoing Shoreline review,
part of the utilities section
including those where the primary use may be in a different Shoreline environment than
standards and therefore it
the utility service, shall not require separate Substantial Development Permits for utility
does not need to be stated
service installations, but are subject to all of the provisions in this section, except those
that these are additional
listed below. Utility service to projects outside Shoreline jurisdiction is subject to normal
standards.
Shoreline permitting , and is subject to all of the provisions in this section, except those
listed below
The second sentence is
repetitive from the statement
at the beginning of this
section which states the
provisions apply to all
location, construction, and
installation of utility
transmission lines and
facilities within shoreline
jurisdiction. Delete to simplify
and eliminate unnecessary
repetitions,
12
17.09.020(D)
F�Iod—
Documented Exemptions. The following uses and activities are exempt from the
This provision was reworded
—J_____LlLazar
provisions of YMC 17.09.020, but are not exempt from this SMP (Title 17) or related
based on a recommendation
4*1 y
2�1
d
shoreline permit requirements in Chapter 17.13:
in a comment letter received
Areas
1 . TheAny_alteration Gr-6ubrtan-t4al4w4Y-cv&rnent-of any-GtFu<3tur-estructure building,
from the Washington State
site, Structure, district, or ob'ect listed in
Department of Archaeology
the National Register of Historic Place he
and Historic Preservation.
Yakima Reuister of Historic Places, or included in a or state inventory of hist ri
pt—,pmnarties,
2. The installation and maintenance of aboveground utility transmission lines and
poles; and
3. Private driveways, fences and other accessory activities andlor 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.
-13 --11-7.11.010(B)
Nonco
B. Nonconforming single-family residential uses that are located landward of the
A definition for
nformi
ordinary high water mark may be enlarged or expanded in conformance with applicable
"appurtenance, residential is
ng
dimensional standards by the addition of space to the main structure of by the addition
included in the definitions
Uses
of normal appurtenances as defined in WAG4-74-27-040(2)�g)aoction 17Q1 .090 upon
section of this SMP which has
approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit by the Hearing Examiner.
language that is directly
derived from the WAC,
recommend citing section
17.01.090 rather than using
the s ecific WAC c tation.
14
-48—
1T.13. O(B)(2
-Sti 1
Sti
-Sti
-Sti
2. Variance pen -nits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the
These RCW citations are
ine
OHWM, as defined in-RGW--9 �-030(2)(b).-section 17.01.090, and/or landward
unnecessary, the first
Varian
of any wetland as defined in -RM --9 �., G(20 -§action 17.01.090).
references the definition of
ce
floodway and the second is a
Permit
definition of wetlands; both of
s
which are defined in section
17.01.090; recommend citing
this SMP's definitions which
are consistent with the RCW
initions.
15
7 13.080(B)(3
§horel
3. Variance permits for development and/or uses that Will be located waterward of
These RCW citations are
ine
the OHWM, as defined in-RQVWV- 9 section 17.01.090, or within any
unnecessary, the first
L
V�!rian
wetland as defined in --R section 17.01.090, may bq authorized
references the definition of
2�1
. . .
..........
ce
Permit
s
- -------- . . ......
provided the applicant can demonstrate the following:
floodway and the second is a
definition of wetlands; both of
which are defined in section
17.01.090; recommend citing
this SMP's definitions which
are consistent with the RCW
definitions.
16
7.13.166-(—A)
Authorization to begin construction. Each permit for Substantial DeveloprrieW,-Shoreline
Both of these exceptions are
on of
Conditional Use or Shoreline Variance, issued by the City shall contain a provision that
not applicable to the City of
Devel
construction pursuant to the permit shall not begin and is not authorized until twenty-one
Yakima, the first concerns I-
opmen
(21) days from the date of receipt with Ecology as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and
90 on or adjacent to Lake
t
WAC 173-27-130, or until all review proceedings initiated within twenty-one (21) days
Washington and the second
from the date of receipt of the decision -ex-eept-as-prov4ded-k-RGW4�"9.4 40(5)(a) -and
is in regard to floating bridges
(b). The date of receipt for a Substantial Development Permit means that date the
and landings of the state
applicant receives written notice from Ecology that it has received the decision. With
route number 520 Evergreen
regard to a permit for a shoreline variance or a shoreline conditional use, date of receipt
Point bridge on or adjacent to
means the date the.City or a �ELIic�jnt receives the written decision of E�..
Lake Washington.
17
17.13. 0
SMP
C. The SMP may be amended annually or more frequently as needed pursuant to
Unnecessary RCW citation,
Amen
the Growth Management Act-, RCW--36.7Q"GR4W00_-
delete to simplify and
dment
eliminate potential confusion
s
in the future when the RCW is
modified.
Rpc"�r
IUG
city OF V 1 U14