HomeMy WebLinkAbout6095 Part 3DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master
Chapter 5. Shoreline Master Program Amendments
5.1.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to set forth procedures when proposals are made to
adopt or amend the official controls of area-wide applicability which implement the
shoreline master program, i.e., the shoreline use regulations and maps made a part
thereof.
5.1.2 Amendments authorized.
The provisions of the shoreline master program use regulations or the shoreline
environment map may be amended as provided for in RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200
and Chapter 173-26 WAC.
5.1.3 Adoption required by the council.
Adoption of an amendment to the official controls shall be adopted by the city council by
ordinance after a public hearing and report by the planning commission.
5.1.4 Initiation of amendments.
The shoreline use regulations or map amendments thereto may be initiated by:
A. The adoption of a motion by the city council requesting the planning commission to
set a matter for hearing and recommendation.
B. The adoption of a motion by the planning commission.
C. Application of one or more owners of property affected by the proposal.
D. A department or agency of the city or governmental entity.
5.1.5 Applications required.
The dDirector shall prescribe the form(s) on which applications are made for
amendments to the master program use regulations and/or shoreline environment map.
Applications for amendments to the master program must satisfy the requirements of
the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 41.21 C RCW and Chapter 197-11 WAC).
5.1.6 Public hearing required by planning commission.
Whenever an amendment to the use regulations and/or shoreline environment map is
initiated under ACC XX, the Planning Commission shall hold at least one public
hearing thereon, and notice of such hearing shall be given.
b_? Draft
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master
5.1.7 Burden of proof.
Proponents for shoreline environment map redesignations (i.e., amendments to the
shoreline environment designation map) shall bear the burden of proof for
demonstrating consistency with the shoreline environment criteria of the master
program, Chapter 173-26 WAC, and the goals and policies of the City of Auburn
Comprehensive Plan.
5.1.8 Public notice.
Notice shall be given pursuant to Chapter 173-26 WAC. Additional notice may be
employed at the discretion of the Director of Planning, Building, and Community.
5.1.9 City council.
The action by the Planning Commission on an amendment shall be considered advisory
to the council. Final and conclusive action on an amendment shall be taken only by the
council.
5.1.10 Transmittal to the Department of Ecology.
Subsequent to final action by the council adopting or amending the Shoreline Master
Program or official control, said Master Program, official control or amendment thereto
shall be submitted to the Department of Ecology for approval. No such Master Program,
official control or amendment there to shall become effective until approval by the
Department of Ecology is obtained.
Draft 5-2
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master
Chapter 6. Shoreline Management Administrative and
Permitting Procedures
6.1. Sections:
Adoption of shoreline management procedures.
The City of Auburn hereby adopts by reference the following sections or subsections of
Chapter 173-27, as amended, of the Washington Administrative Code ("WAC") entitled
Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures.
WAC:
173-27-020 Purpose
173-27-030 Definitions
173-27-040 Developments exempt from substantial development permit requirement
173-27-060 Applicability of Chapter 90.58 RCW to federal land and agencies
173-27-090 Time requirements of permit
1 74 77 9 nn KuyisiORG to Permits
173-27-120 Special procedure for limited utility extensions and bulkheads
173-27-130 Filing with department
173-27-140 Review criteria for all development
173-27-180 Application requirements for substantial development, conditional use or
variance permit
173-27-190 Permits for substantial development, conditional use or variance
173-27-210 Minimum standards for conditional use and variance permits
173-27-240 Authority and purpose
173-27-250 Definitions
173-27-260 Policy
6-1 uran
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master Program
173-27-270 Order to cease and desist
173-27-280 civil penalty
173-27-290 Appeal of civil penalty
173-27-300 Criminal penalty
173-27-310 Oil or natural gas exploration
6.2. Permit processing.
Permits for shoreline permits shall be processed in accordance with ACC Title 14,
Project Review.
6.3. Shoreline Substantial Development permit review criteria
A substantial development permit shall be granted by the Hearing Examiner only when
the development proposed is consistent with the following:
A Goals policies and use reaulations of the SMP;
B Auburn Comprehensive Plan and City Code;
C. The policies guidelines and regulations of the Shoreline Management Act;
The Director and Hearing Examiner may attach conditions to the approval of permits as
necessary to assure consistency of the proposal with the above criteria. The burden of
proving that the proposed substantial development is consistent with the criteria shall be
on the applicant.
6.4. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit review criteria
The criteria below shall constitute the minimum criteria for review and approval of a
conditional use permit Uses classified as conditional uses not uses prohibited by the
regulations of this SMP may be authorized provided that the applicant can demonstrate
all of the following:
A That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020,
Legislative Findings the policies of this SMP the City of Auburn Comprehensive
Plan and other applicable plans programs and/or regulations;
B That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public
shorelines;
C 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 Shoreline Master Program.
Draft 6-2
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master
D That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline
environment in which it is to be located;
E That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect;
F That consideration of cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed use has
occurred and it has been demonstrated that no substantial cumulative impacts
are anticipated, consistent with WAC 173-27-160 Review Criteria for Conditional
Use Permits.
The Hearing Examiner and City Council may attach conditions to the approval of
permits as necessary to assure consistency of the proposal with the above criteria.
6.5. Shoreline Variance Permit review criteria
The criteria below shall constitute the minimum criteria for review and approval of a
Shoreline Variance Permit Variance permits for development that will be located
landward of the ordinary high water mark and/or upland of any wetland as defined in
RCW 90 58 030 (2)(h) Definitions and Concepts 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 Master Program precludes or significantly interferes with a
reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by this SMP;
B That the hardship described above 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 Master Program 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
Shoreline Master Program 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
ordinary high water mark or within any wetland may be authorized provided the
applicant can demonstrate all the criteria stated above as well as the following:
A That the strict application of the bulk dimensional or performance standards set
forth in this SMP precludes all reasonable use of the property not otherwise
prohibited by this SMP; and
6-3 urdtl
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master Program
B That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely
affected.
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
ranted 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, Legislative Findings, and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the
shoreline environment Variances from the use regulations of the Master Program are
prohibited.
Permit Revisions
A permit revision is required whenever an applicant proposes substantive changes _to
the design terms or conditions of a project from that which was approved in the permit.
When a revision of a permit is sought the applicant shall submit detailed plans and text
describing the proposed changes in the permit and demonstrating compliance with
minimum standards pursuant to WAC 173-27-100, Revisions to Permits.
If the proposed changes are determined by the Administrator to be within the scope and Forma
intent of the original permit and are consistent with the SMA, the Guidelines, and this Font cc
SMP the revision shall be approved. Forma
Font cc
Draft 6-4
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master
„ „
other similaf-apparatuse&-.
E-1 uratr
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master Program
lands GubjeG-t W this GhapteF at aRy state ef water level.
,
"D9Gk" meaRs a StFLIGtUre that abuts the shwe"Re and floats upen the water aRd us used
"DpedgiRg"
bedY,
" DFY Wel"' means a pit fi'18d With Goarse FeGk eF IiRed With GFW6hed FeGk er gravel fqF use
,
fadity, OF •
"
levels.
Draft
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master
j +iGn I Clem! In UFaRG e Drrin
a " .
„ n
zee.
u »
i
;
l ?M 11y, said
ulaFit
bl
th F
Rg that GGGUF w
eed
f y,
e Feg
easeRa
state.
a
u n
,
„
"
i
Hab
tat
,
' FeGtE) FatieR, Great
E-3 urarc
nPAPT 4rrhrrrn Shoreline Master Proaram
l f i6h habi tat
sup p
y, '
sit
u e in the imm orliate aFea
n
G9
A J;6tFUGt ed.
a oll" -
.- B
La
in n
u Rdf
hnrela Rd
hore
4R ? +
.
"
Le
"
m vee,
+
il
t
th
R
I= eaF ,
ra ,
pa +
i
i .
h
k
u ng, ++
u
deS
"M
u Griptive mat
ay" erial a Rd text.
i d a
t Fe !E)Gated aR d designed t o avoid IeGs e
us es, whetheF tt
perm or e
e xemp
,
.
as
Draft
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master
ini mmprp or g Rai
["One Hundred YeaF Peed Plawn" means lowlaRds adjemRffiRg the GhaRRel e-f a wateF body
"GRe Hundred YeaF Pleed" meaR6 a fleed that has a magRitude that may be equaled er
that maFk
dt -GhaPteF9Fa
eefthi 9
G'tFna!
.-- - ,
t[
-.9 -F system
a n
•
f
i
, ergaR izati
f
"
"
o
w
P
u
trail, path, f
r--am travel fFem a pUbImG Fead to a peiRt ef view 9F to a pIa4Ge suitable feF IaWRGh'
E-5 Draft
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master
,
"
"PubliG aGGess" means the PFGteGt'G-R Gf the PUbI;G'G Fight tO 61se navigable waters and
"
fleat enther PWbIiG'Y eF pFffivately owned :-;Rd maintained, intended fGF 616e by th8 gGReFal
mm "7-r7uTmcr
u „
u play,
ZIFOUP, OF
F- 9
,
then title6 )
a >>
'm rl
1-1
, mebile heme parks and ether simmlw gFOUp housing, tOgetheF With
f
f sheds, f f
mbankMeRt, eF GhWe against eF9609R by waves OF GUFF Rt6,.. i t I PVetMeRt
, embankMeRt,
usually Wilt Gf FGGk FOP Fap, weed, 9F pewed GE)RGFete. One 9F ME)% filte layers E)f
usually Wilt Gf FGGk FOP Fap, weed, 9F pewed GE)RGFete. One 9F ME)% filte layers E)f
smallw FGGI( GF filteF Gleth and "Draft 6
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master Program
"
"
"
Read
GFess eve
"Shall" m
r r wat
eans
„ er.
oblig
rr
ed
to. Sha
ll is maRd
.r
atery.
l d ti l
d
fl ain are
as; tWe huRdre d feet fF
water ma rk; f
o od ays GE
an gUeUG
)R ea
p - lakes
,
90.58.03
r 0.
„
l fI Rt
t
* GUNG fe eF Se
et GGRd er less a Rd the wetlands
where th e R;e aR a RR61 GW
a y
We
6 P
nre in e Rd wetl aRd
n eniated with Q1 r nh sm°11 laL
a, „ 6tFU GtUFaI
a u
u „ .
d Red t
i uide O
o F diFe Gt pedes #iaRs O F Vehi
Fn -
e g
6 g
u „
o
b
ned to war
i
i
d
edestriaRs OF VehiGies
n
ef some
S
gn VVaFR
Rg
,
imminent dange
" „ g
gR
means a S
es
r, p
, ,
9F G
a ,
adywtiGinn
u
v , ,
E-7 Dratt
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master
"
' l il „
S
R g
e f am
y
11
hi
h t F FnaFk aRd t h otor A W etiand. OR a state wid e b asis, R eFM al
g wa e
"
i' „ t
a di
h al of
e
arba
Se d w aste s spG
e g
s g ,
deb
„ F;s.
„
„ to
G eF
hi
FaR R
G g ,
i vesteGk h ay,
R, s
Draft
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master Program
eXGeed a height ef th iFty five f eet a bove aveFage gr ade 'ey e! an d wh iGh4neet &44
Inn ic
,
,
;
WatiG
RfI R Of the EAe are W) GGRdifi eR 6
g W elfie n first pe st
E_9 urarr
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master Program
Wat d re
h a+ion proie^t?
st e#ined he The
Fei Git
6h all Yev1ew the pro ier•ts
. ers
e eF • y
restor
a atien nroi eGts as used- in this s
n ention
Ge"
eGt
tre
at
tr
;;P .r e
p;t tri
o
??at
rm
power
r?drainage f
ru
es sew ,
ag
e
re , e
nlaimerd w
ateL
-
T
1l'l77'TJi 17•c-C1Ga'iTr
c7 "f7VPPGT' P4LtC
,
, , L1? ,
9? ,
dev
i
.
°V eRts'
S
her si Inh as rdistrihi Minn
a gran
e"Re" or seniine l
ef f
t of Fe ines
?he sn
eGifiG b
dime
ulk
nsional
rsr
aF
G
?tt RGe,
ttbe..
r
vnv Fit lt , ,
Mani a
"V use of th
t
ti e shoreline
ie
ege a
GR
h
" habita
th
t
i
i
i t less aRd the im
aG t Gf iRv asive
la RtG
eres wE)R aRd
Rear s Res
ere a
M
R
pa
ze p p ,
t ti
a
f vege eR o
that a
"W
te re exempt
r Depend from a permit req w
ent Uses" means a u ement
se or porti
on of a Us
e Whin
h re
sires
rdirent r
•entaGt
A q
ate by reaso f the intrinsin gat i
n re of the e peratiGn Some e leO
VaM Of water
w
F o p
"
t F e" mean tho
t e uses Wh iGh nrg?iid e fnr re nreatinn i RyGI ling th
a
e =Rjey }
F
" eR
LJ
th
and mu
h
d
ti
e
the , g i
an
e peFa
en a sswes
parks
as
and ed
Gatignal/snieRtifin res
"
eniec
a
el
teF
ted e
use.
a
e e ,
e
Draft 10
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master
ERV*FGnm°nt" 1 Dnl; Gy AGt
17-3 26 WAG and the Innol master rnrn/vram
?
" n
t
tm d GF unstable stFeam bank that employ
d
f
GR
GFa
B.A PFGjeGt feF the FeG e
an eFe
o
and with pFmrn
tee ef the baRk aFy emphasis OR USORg native vegetation W GGRtFGI
,
E-11 Draft
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master
d iE; 19Gated abeve the GFdonaFy
t *
fl
f high wateF mark e
ew aFea aR
R
ee
hundFed squaFe
the he strtseam
vna, , , .
u „
f
th
f th
is
er
e pu
f rpeseG o ,
swa mps
,
marshes, be gs,
,
u u M..P-a-RS the width of a pier or dGGk at 46 Widest pGiRt measured paFalle, to the
float at the wi`Jest nnint
A. City deve'GpMeRt ,
,
C. ARy statute OF FegulatieR of the state ef VVaSh*RgtOR (i.e., the mest ,
F=. The nemmen ` mGt1eRaFy
Draft 12
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master Program
Exhibit A.
Shoreline Environment Designation Maps
1. Overview Map (city-wide)
2. Green River 1
3. Green River 2
4. Green River 3
5. Green River 4
6. White River 1
7. White River 2
8. White River 3
9. White River 4
10. White River 5
E-1 uran
DRAFT Auburn Shoreline Master Program
Appendices
A. ACC Chapter 16.10 Critical Areas
B. ACC Chapter 18.56 Signs and 18.08 - 18.32 Density and Dimensions
C. ACC Chapter 18.54 Nonconforming Structures Land and Uses
D. ACC Chapter 13.48 Storm Drainage
E. ACC Chapter 15.68 Flood Damage
F. Permit Data Sheet
A-1 uran
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
Comments from the Department of Ecology, November 2007
City Response and Recommendations, March-May 2008
# Ecology Comment from Letter City Response and Recommendation
Preface
I This information would be helpful to current and future City staff Preface expanded
and is generally used by Ecology in the final approval process. It
also helps establish the SNIP as a complete program for shoreline
management that coordinates with other plans and codes but is
self-contained with goals, policies, maps, diagrams, charts,
descriptive material and text, uses, standards and development
regulations, as the Shoreline Master Program is defined in the
SMA - RCW 90.58.030(3)(b). It should be included again unless
there is an important reason to remove it.
Chapter 2 Shoreline Environments
2 Page 1, paragraph 3, regarding Shoreline Environment Phrase changed as suggested.
Designation determinations;
Change the phrase, "the biological and physical capabilities and
limitations of the shoreline" to "the biological and physical
character of the shoreline", to convey the SNIP Guidelines [WAC
173-26-211 (2)(a)] instruction to use the findings of the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization to determine shoreline
environment designations, uses, and development standards.
"Physical capabilities and limitations of the shoreline" implies that
activities might be allowed that would push shoreline ecosystems
to their maximum capacity instead of protecting shoreline
ecological functions identified in the Auburn Shoreline Inventory
and Characterization.
1 of 26
# Ecology Comment from Letter City Response and Recommendation
"
Pl
i
h
"
3 Urban Conservancy an
ve
ens
consistent with the Compre
Phrase changed to
Purpose: Page 2, end of sentence,"... while allowing a variety of
compatible uses as established by the Comprehensive Plan". If
this added qualifier is necessary, it should be changed to "...while
allowing a variety of compatible uses consistent with the
comprehensive plan " instead of "...while allowing a variety of
compatible uses as established in the comprehensive plan or
use the simpler SNIP Guidelines language of WAC 173-26-
211(5)(e)(i), "... while allowing a variety of compatible uses."
The SMA and SMP Guidelines require that policies for lands
adjacent to shorelines be consistent with the SMA, implementing
rules, and local SNIP [RCW 90.58.340; WAC 173-26-191(1)(c);
211(3), (3)(a) and (3)(b)]. In addition, the GMA (Ch. 36.70A
RCW) requires that shoreline development regulations be
consistent with local comprehensive plans.
The SMA, its provisions, and the local SMP prevail within
shoreline jurisdiction after approval by Ecology, but the current
draft language indicates that uses established for the area by the
Comprehensive Plan could be automatically applied in the
shoreline environment, which may not be true. Many inland uses
are inappropriate for shoreline locations and should not be
allowed. The City must determine their preferred uses for each
shoreline environment while considering the local comprehensive
plan, zoning codes, etc. to make sure they are compatible and will
not significantly interfere with each other.
rimar
ific
i
h
4 Management Policies: Page 2, Policy 1. This says that "Primary" y
p
s on spec
as
Policy statement revised to remove emp
allowed uses for the Urban Conservancy shoreline environment allowed uses (including residential).
are "Residential, recreational, and public facility uses", which
does not match the information in the Permitted Use Table on
Do not agree that the list of permitted activities requiring SDP
2 of 26
# Ecology Comment from Letter City Response and Recommendation
pages 13-15 in Chapter 3. In that table, "New single family
residences residential subdivisions and multi-family
development" are listed as Conditional Uses, and "Public facility
uses" are not listed at all.
The actual primary, allowed uses for the Urban Conservancy
shoreline environment - or those that need only a shoreline
substantial development permit (SDP) according to the Permitted
Use Table, are:
1. Dredging to maintain authorized location, depth, and
width; Dredged material disposal;
2. Replacement or rehabilitation of existing flood control
levees;
3. New bulkheads and revetments accessory to single family
should be changed to conditional use permit process. The standards
and provisions established by the draft SMP and CAO (by reference)
for how these uses would be designed do provide adequate
protection for "sensitive lands where they exist in urban and
developed settings." A conditional use process will introduce
greater uncertainty and a more time-intensive review and approval
process for uses that are considered by state law as "exempt" from
obtaining an SDP (such as single-family development and
bulkheads).
residences,
4. Clearing and grading for permitted development;
5. Fill landward of the OHWM or bank if associated with
allowed development;
6. Public boat launch ramps
7. Recreational trails, viewpoints, boardwalks, piers,
pedestrian bridges, over water enjoyment uses (like
what?), golf courses, and retail activity associated with
public shorelines.
8. Accessory uses/structures associated with single family
residences;
9. New transportation facilities, roads, bridges;
10. Storm drain outfalls, pump stations and pipelines,
accessory utility facilities to serve permitted
development
Some of these do not appear to support the goal of preserving the
natural character of the area, open space, floodplains or sensitive
lands In particular, new bulkheads, revetments, over water water-
3 of 26
# Ecology Comment from Letter City Response and Recommendation
enjoyment uses, roads, bridges, clearing and grading would appear
to need justification for their location in shoreline jurisdiction.
Perhaps they should be "conditional uses " because of their
potential to interfere with the purpose for the Urban Conservancy
shoreline environment.
Page 2, Policy 2. Last sentence about standards to establish for
shoreline stabilization
measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline
modifications in the Urban
Conservancy environment states, "The standards, in combination
with proposed mitigation for any
anticipated impacts, should ensure that new development does not
result in a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions or. further degrade other shoreline values. "
The underlined phrase should be
removed because it implies that mitigation measures for damage
that is anticipated from proposed
shoreline development will be automatically considered with the
project proposal.
Standards and regulations established as consistent minimum
requirements for all uses and activities
in each shoreline environment should be completed and approved
because they are intended to
protect the shoreline ecological functions identified in the
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization.
In circumstances where compliance with the required minimum
standards is impossible, mitigation
measures should be required through the shoreline permit system
as a variance permit. To
consider mitigation immediately establishes a "case by case"
Underlined text stricken as suggested and as we discussed in our
meeting with Ecology staff on April 16.
It is important to note that the guidelines acknowledge that "no net
loss" cannot be met without mitigation. The guidelines state that
"the concept of "net" as used herein [when protecting ecological
functions of the shorelines], recognizes that any development has
potential or actual, short term or long term impacts and that through
application of appropriate development standards and employment
of mitigation measures in accordance with the mitigation sequence,
those impacts will be addressed in a manner necessary to assure that
the end result will not diminish the shoreline resources and values as
they currently exist" (WAC 173-26-201(2)(c)) .
It is also important to note that the mitigation sequence required by
the guidelines begins with avoidance first. The sequence itself is a
"standard" established by the SNIP. Compliance with the mitigation
sequence, including allowed development with unavoidable impacts
that require mitigation action, is compliance with the SNIP
standards.
4of26
ti
d
# Ecology Comment from Letter on
a
City Response and Recommen
review system that can result in
"piecemeal development" which does not ensure protection of
shoreline ecosystems.
the
il 16
A
ff
6 Natural Shoreline Environment ,
pr
on
As we discussed in our meeting with Ecology sta
Purpose term "intolerant of human use" was removed during CAC discussion
Page 3 Revise the first sentence to match the "Purpose" for the as it does not make sense or provide clarity in this context.
environment given in the SMP Guidelines, WAC 173-26-
211(5)(a)(1). Add the underlined text, "The purpose of the
Re-phrased to read "...shoreline functions that would become
"Natural environment is to protect those shoreline areas that are irreversibly impaired as a result of human development and
relatively free of human influence or that include intact or activity."
minimally degraded shoreline functions intolerant of human use.
7 Management Policies Phrase changed as suggested.
Policy 2. Revise first sentence to match policy in the SMP
Guidelines (WAC 173-26-211(5)(a)(ii)(B). The draft SNIP text is
stricken and required text is underlined, "The following new uses
should be 69seetwaged not be allowed in the "Natural
environment:
imilar to
hibit A (
d i
E
8 Shoreline environment descriptions, map, and boundaries s
x
n
Additional mapping and detail is provide
Pages 4-6 The existing and proposed shoreline environment maps series of parcel scale maps prepared for review by the CAC) and
are currently in the March 20, 2007 Cumulative Impacts report as included in the SNIP document.
Attachments 1 (1973) and 2 (current-2006), but not in the draft
SMP. I assume that Attachment 2 is the final draft shoreline
environment map, and if so it should be included in this section of
the SMP, perhaps in several 8" x 12" panels that contain more
detailed features like street names and parcels. While the
boundary descriptions of shoreline environments are probably
accurate, the maps must be more detailed so project reviewers can
implement the shoreline permit system.
For instance, the Shoreline Environment boundary descriptions on
- -Pages 4-6 give Section, Township and Range, but those are not on
5 of 26
# Ecology Comment from Letter City Response and Recommendation
the maps. Some streets indicated as boundaries are not on the
maps either, such as 2"d Street SE. In addition everything is too
small to read. Expanding the maps to multiple panels with more
information will assure consistency for permit applicants and
reviewers, including Ecology. Although GIS maps are extremely
valuable, there is variability in access and product quality, so
having shoreline maps as part of the approved SNIP is essential. It
is also required for the Ecology's official SMP files.
9 Organization - Continuous page numbering throughout the Page numbers changed to reference chapter and page number (e.g.,
document is referable to starting over with eve chapter. 1-1; 2-1; etc.).
Chapter 3 - Shoreline Master Program Policies, Development
Standards and Use Regulations
Clarified text to note that Auburn does not have a Shoreline
10 Page I
Make sure all shoreline goals, policies, standards, uses, and
d Management Element in the Comprehensive Plan. Following the
the City would integrate shoreline goals and
rocess
date
SNIP u
.
regulations in the SNIP so they can be reviewed and approve ,
p
p
policies as a new element of the Comp Plan.
Are all of the Shoreline Master Program Goals and Policies in this
chapter? It is not clear whether all the Shoreline Goals and
City preference is to avoid duplicating the standards in the SNIP
Policies from the local Comprehensive Plan's Shoreline document to the greatest extent feasible. As we discussed in our
Management Element are included in this Chapter or document. meeting with Ecology staff on April 16, relevant code sections
Although the GMA requires that they be included in the (including the Critical Areas Ordinance) have been added as
Comprehensive Plan, they must also remain in the SNIP or it will
W appendices to the SNIP for reference. We have also created a table
es the basic requirements from the zoning and CAO
ri
h
not be a complete master program according to the SMA - RC z
at summa
t
90.58.030 (3)(b). In addition, they are subject to review and codes.
approval by Ecology.
The shoreline regulations, including those that apply to critical
areas within shoreline jurisdiction, must be part of this SNIP for
review, approval, and implementation (RCW 90.58 Finding - -
Intent- - 2003 c 321(3). Please include them for all critical areas
within all shoreline environments, plus the eneral regulations
6 of 26
# Ecology Comment from Letter City Response and Recommendation
that apply in all shoreline environments. These should include
requirements like minimum setbacks from the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) to proposed development; width and composition
of riparian buffers; instructions on where to measure buffers;
formulas for buffer averaging; structure heights and any other
dimensional or performance requirements the City has
established for shorelines and critical areas within shorelines.
These might include things like view protection measures, yard
setbacks, fence heights, location of driveways, garages, septic
fields, etc. that the City requires. A comprehensive table similar to
the Permitting Use Table on pages 13-15 would be a consistent
style that could work throughout the SMP.
11 Scope Threshold changed.
Page 1, The current cost threshold for Shoreline Substantial
Development has been raised from $5000 to $5718.
12 Since the scope consists of the SMA definitions of Development References added.
and Substantial Development, it seems the citation should be
included here too (RCW 90.58.030(3)(d) and (e). It is educational
for staff and applicants.
13 Definitions should be placed here instead of at the back of the Definitions now follow the Preface.
Auburn SMP because the staff and permit applicants using it will
benefit from having shoreline-related definitions given to them
Definitions have been integrated from the SMA, RCW, WAC, and
early in the organization of the SNIP. In addition to those that are City code. We have created a key (I = RCW, 2 = WAC, etc) and
listed, the section should include and integrate definitions from the labeled each definition with its corresponding source.
Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58.030; WAC 173-27-030 -
Shoreline Permitting and Enforcement, and WAC 173-26-020 -
the SNIP Guidelines.
ll be treated as
h
fi
d"
"
14 Page 2 B. Interpretation by Director a
uses s
e
unclassi
Clarified in this section that
Under what circumstances would the Director of Planning, "conditional uses" and that the Director has the authority to
"
Building, and Community Development decide to include or determine if a proposed use is "unclassified.
exclude a use from a articular shoreline environment?
7 of 26
ti
d
# Ecology Comment from Letter on
a
City Response and Recommen
While some discretion regarding particular projects or proposed
uses for various shoreline environments might be necessary, the
SNIP Guidelines (WAC 173-26-211) require that appropriate
allowed, prohibited and conditional uses be determined for each
shoreline environment for consistency among permits and
protection for ecological functions identified in the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization. Uses that are neither prohibited
nor included for a shoreline environment are "unclassified" and
may be allowed through the conditional use permit (CUP) process
described in WAC 173-27-160. There are criteria that must be
satisfied, Ecology must also review and approve the permit, and
both the City and Ecology may add conditions so the project will
comply with the local SMP, the SMA and its provisions in the
WAC.
licatin
id d
i
15 Page 2 Adoption of other regulations by reference. g
up
s to avo
See response to #10 above. City preference
cument to the maximum extent feasible.
SMP d
i
h
d
o
n t
e
s
the standar
A. CAO regulations for shoreline jurisdiction in ACC
ff
10 must be included within the SNIP as text,
Chapter 16 on
However, as we discussed in our meeting with Ecology sta
.
and/or diagrams; reviewed by Ecology as
maps
charts April 16, we have included copies of each code (CAO, zoning,
,
,
part of the SNIP submittal, and approved. CAO regulations storm drainage, and flood damage) as appendices to the SMP for
reated a table that summarizes standards
l
h
W
for critical areas within SMA shoreline jurisdiction
become shoreline regulations in the SMP. (RCW so c
ave a
e
reference.
adopted by reference from the CAO (e.g., buffers and setbacks, etc.).
90.58.030 Notes: Finding - Intent - 2003 c 321)
B. ACC Chapters 18.08-18.32 Density and Dimensions from
Specific regulations from the CAO have been incorporated as text in
Title 18 Zoning _Code must be included as text where it
applies to shoreline jurisdiction, or an Appendix with that the following sections: shoreline vegetation, environment impact
mitigation, public access, nonconforming uses and development
language identified. This is because it must be reviewed standards and public access.
for consistency with the SMA since the SMA contains
height limits and the SNIP Guidelines address density and
some dimensional issues. Some zoning requirements may
create conditions that are incompatible with shoreline
8 of 26
# Ecology Comment from Letter City Response and Recommendation
environments or conflict with the SMA or SNIP
Guidelines.
C. ACC Chapter 13.48 Storm Drainage should be included as
Appendix since stonnwater runoff, contaminants, and
sediment have significant negative effects on shoreline
ecosystems.
D. ACC Chapter 15 68 Flood Damage should be included as
an Appendix since potential flood damage, erosion, or
slope failure are primary reasons that shoreline owners
armor banks and bluffs. This may need to be reviewed and
approved b Ecology for regulations affecting
16 Chapter 3 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation
Include an introduction to this topic explaining its
Page 4
As we discussed in our meeting with Ecology staff on April 16,
,
importance to the shoreline environments so permit applicants and such introductory language could be useful but it would lengthen the
shoreline permitting staff understand why there are SNIP document and is not technically required by the guidelines. The
regulations to address it. functions provided by vegetation are explained in the shoreline
inventory and characterization report.
For instance, you could paraphrase from the SNIP Guidelines,
WAC 173-26-211(5) "The intent of Vegetation Conservation is to
protect, maintain, and restore ecological functions and ecosystem-
wide processes performed by trees and other vegetation along
shorelines. These include:
• providing shade to maintain cool water temperatures and
higher dissolved oxygen levels for salmonids and other
aquatic organisms;
• provide organic plant material and terrestrial insects to
the aquatic.food chain:
• stabilizing banks, minimizing erosion, and reducing the
occurrence of landslides:
• reducing harmful effects of fine sediments by slowing and
.filtering stormwater runoff,.
• reducing effects o toxic contaminants and fertilizers by
9 of 26
# Ecology Comment from Letter City Response and Recommendation
vegetative uptake from runoff and groundwater;
• providing large woodv debris to moderate flows, create
salmon refuge and rearing habitat
• creating or maintaining wildlife migration corridors and
"
habitat. (minimum 100-feet
ff
b
ers
u
The CAO regulations for Class I stream
17 Regulations
Page 4. Some sound more like policies than regulations because from OHWM of both rivers) provide specific requirements,
erformance
in the buffer
ti
t
f
they do not contain firm requirements, dimensions or performance
The
li
h
i
i , p
on
a
vege
including limited alteration o
mitigation planting requirements (if applicable), and
standards
y
nes.
ore
n s
on
standards regarding conservation of vegetat ,
indicate the intention to provide Shoreline Vegetation monitoring requirements.
Conservation measures somewhere else in the SNIP, but this
appears to be the appropriate place and I did not find them
As we discussed in our meeting with Ecology staff on April 16, our
AO
They could be organized similar to the Permitted Use
elsewhere as
intention is to use the shoreline buffer established under the C
.
Table in Chapter 3. the primary tool for vegetation conservation and enhancement.
Specific standards from the CAO (performance standards, mitigation
include regulations here to address tree and plant clearing, earth requirements and monitoring) have now been integrated into this
grading, filling, and paving along the shoreline within the
h
i section. In addition, we have added more specific regulations
: herbicide/pesticide/fertilizer; need for TESC and
ddressin
n t
e
setback/buffer established for each shoreline environment
SNIP (WAC 173-26-221(5)(a). They could also include g
a
SWPPP for clearing/grading; and preservation of significant trees.
regulations for selective pruning to preserve views and provide
safety from danger trees; removing exotic or noxious plant
species; limiting or prohibiting herbicides, pesticides, and
fertilizers in shoreline environments with identified sensitive
t
i
l f
i
c..
ons, e
unct
ca
ecolog
18 Include all regulations from the CAO that address these topics for See response to # 17 above.
each shoreline environment
The CAO doesn't distinguish between different shoreline
environments. The CAO treats the resource uniformly, regardless of
adjacent upland uses. We believe this meets the intent of the
shoreline guidelines and statutory requirement to provide
"equivalent protection" to critical areas. More stringent standards
(e. g., 200-foot buffer vs. 150-foot buffer have been incorporated to
10 of 26
i
d
# Ecology Comment from Letter on
at
City Response and Recommen
i
on.
distinguish protections for the Natural designat
19 Regulation 1., Page 4, Refers to CAO requirements for protecting, Sec response to #17 above.
maintaining and enhancing native plant communities during
which is very important. However, it is also
development
The requirement as proposed would result in the "gradual
,
important to retain vegetation along the shoreline even if it is not replacement" over time, as replanting would only occur on specific
native because it is probably providing some of the functions listed properties at the time of proposed shoreline development activity
in the SNIP Guidelines. Gradual replacement of non-native with (i.e., triggered by a shoreline permit). To prevent erosion related to
native plants and trees is preferable to mass clearing and mass clearing, a regulation requiring development of a TESC and/or
replanting with native or landscaping plants. SWPPP has been added.
tion added
l
R
d
dd
20 Regulation 3. Page 4, Requires mitigation for development a
egu
e
.
Regulation requiring critical areas study a
impacts on shoreline vegetation and its ecological functions. How that the director should use the IC report and the critical area study
would this exercise and decision be linked to the Shoreline to determine ecological function.
Inventory and Characterization for each shoreline environment
and parcel location when City or Ecology staff review proposed
development? Some of the most important functions of vegetation
along shorelines are carried out simply by its established existence
there
.
21 Regulation 5. Page 4, Aquatic weed control - include some New regulation added.
measures to limit applications of herbicides, pesticides, and
fertilizers along shorelines because they have significant
detrimental effects on both terrestrial and aquatic ecological
functions when the run off the land.
idelines (WAC
l
E
22 Environmental Impact Mitigation Policies ogy gu
co
Language shown is taken verbatim from
Page 4 1. This is not clear regarding who will analyze the 173-26-20i(2)(e)(i)). However, clarity can be improved.
environmental impacts of proposed development because it says,
"To assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, proposed
Policy language changed to indicate that Director of Planning,
uses and developments in the shoreline should analyze Building and Community is responsible for analysis.
environmental impacts of the proposal and include measures to
mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts not otherwise
avoided or mitigated by compliance with the master program and
other applicable regulations."
1 l of 26
ti
d
# Ecology Comment from Letter on
a
City Response and Recommen
Indicate who will be responsible for analysis because it sounds
like it would be the proposed uses and developments themselves,
which may be a typographical error. While the applicant may be
responsible for assessing possible impacts and suggesting
mitigation, this function would need City - and perhaps Ecology -
oversight and review, depending on what type of shoreline permit
was required. Not many applicants or their project designers
would have the expertise to accurately assess a project's probable
impacts on shoreline ecosystems, follow up with suitable
mitigation, and carry out maintenance and monitoring measures
i
over t
me.
the
ril 16
A
ff
t
l
23 This policy is unacceptable because it implies that projects are ,
p
on
a
ogy s
As we discussed in our meeting with Eco
automatically approvable if the applicant states they can not/will
li mitigation sequence as outlined in Regulation 2 of this section is
sistent with state guidelines and begins with "avoidance" of
ne
not comply with the SNIP requirements for the shore
but have mitigation proposals ready to submit with
environment con
impact as the highest priority. This is a standard consistent with and
,
their applications. This could establish a case-by-case permit required by state guidelines. We have rephrased the policy to
review and approval system resulting in piecemeal shoreline improve clarity.
development, which is contrary to SMA policy of RCW
90.58.020. The cumulative impacts of this
Auburn draft SMP comments policy on shoreline ecosystems
could undermine the purpose for the shoreline environment
designation and protection of ecological functions identified in the
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization.
is the one
Cit
t th
b
li
24 Regulations y
e
u
cant
The SEPA checklist is done by the app
Page 5 that issues the SEPA determination.
1. This policy requires that analysis of environmental impacts
from proposed shoreline development be consistent with
Regarding the need to process projects with mitigation as a shoreline
SEPA requirements, which is good and essential. However, variance, see response to comment #5 above.
that should not be relied on for the only analysis because the
SEPA checklist is generally done by the applicant, who may
not have the background or interest to find all significant
12 of 26
# Ecology Comment from Letter City Response and Recommendation
impacts from their proposed development. If the established,
approved standards for the shoreline environment can not be
met by the design of the proposed development, the project
should be revised or go through the shoreline variance
process of WAC 173-27-170.
2. The mitigation sequencing described here should occur
during the shoreline variance process if the prescribed
standards can not be met by the applicant.
25 Critical Areas See responses to comments 10 and 15 above.
Include the critical areas regulations text or table from the CAO in
the SNIP for implementation by City and Ecology staff.
Summary table prepared and included in this section. Complete
CAO included as Appendix A. Other text with requirements from
CAO integrated throughout SMP.
tate that if
d t
difi
i o s
e
Applicable policy and regulation language mo
26 ons
Regulat
Page 6 conflicts between SMP and CAO provisions arise, standards most
1. Regarding Auburn CAO regulations applied within consistent with the SMA and WAC govern.
Shoreline jurisdiction. Standards for critical areas within
SMA shoreline jurisdiction become shoreline standards
and regulations included in the SMP and implemented
through project and permit review. If there seem to be
discrepancies when they are used to make shoreline permit
decisions, the SNIP provisions prevail within SMA
shoreline jurisdiction because they will have been
determined to provide "a level of protection at least equal
to that provided by the local CAO " according to your
Critical Areas Policy 1. The SMA and GMA have some
different objectives that might be reflected when the
regulations are applied, and what appear to be the most
"restrictive" requirements may not always apply. The
regulations that apply will be those most consistent with
rovisions
WAC
it
SMA
h
.
p
s
or
e
t
13 of 26
# Ecology Comment from Letter City Response and Recommendation
onsistent
d i
27 Public Access s c
Intent of comment is not clear. Language as propose
with SMPs for Port Townsend and Marysville, recently approved by
Regulations
2d. This states that "Public access is not required
#27 Page 7 Ecology. It would be difficult to compare the cost of providing
,
where the cost of providing the access or easement is access to the benefit of the development. How do you assess the
unreasonably disproportionate to the long-term cost of the "benefit"?
proposed development".
This does not sound right. Should it say "... where the cost of
providing the access or easement is unreasonably
disproportionate to the long-term benefit of the proposed
development," instead of
"...where the cost of providing the access or easement is
unreasonably disproportionate to the long-term cost of the
proposed development."? How would that be assessed and
decided?
221(5) and
26
173
28 Flood Hazard Reduction -
-
Revised 4.d. to remove specific reference to
replaced with reference to the vegetation conservation provisions of
Regulations
Page 9, 4d. The shoreline vegetation conservation measures and the SMP (and CAO by reference).
regulations required by WAC 173-26-221(5) must be established
in the SMP to be used for this flood control requirement.
29 Page 9. This needs the same clarification on cost or benefit as See response to comment #27.
Public Access Regulation 2d.
This regulation says that "New structural public flood hazard
reduction measures, such as dikes and levees, shall dedicate and
provide or improve public access unless those improvements
would ...(have) a cost that is disproportionate and unreasonable
to the total long term cost of the development. " Should it say "... a
cost that is disproportionate and unreasonable to the total long
velo ment" instead?
th
d
b
e
e
ene rt o
term
30 Storm water and Non-point Pollution
Water Quality Policy added.
,
14 of 26
ti
d
## Ecology Comment from Letter on
a
City Response and Recommen
Policies, Page 10
Include a policy that refers to measures (that will be) established
in the SMP for shoreline vegetation conservation, since slowing
and filtering stormwater runoff to reduce impacts from sediment
and contaminants are some of its primary functions.
dards included
t
i
31 Regulations, Page 10
2. When they are established, include the Auburn SNIP Shoreline
Vegetation Conservation standards in this list of requirements that
address storm water runoff and non-point pollution. .
an
on s
Reference to shoreline vegetation conservat
32 Non-conforming Use and Development Standards Chapter added as appendix.
Regulations
Page l 1
1. Include the Auburn Zoning Code for nonconforming
structures, land, and uses
(ACC 18.54) as an appendix to the SNIP.
33 Page 12
6. Include the requirement that a Shoreline Conditional Use Included.
Permit (CUP) needed to
change one non-conforming use to another must satisfy
the criteria in WAC 173-27-160.
discontinued for
i
i
"
34 9. A non-conforming use changed to a different non-conforming
use through a shoreline conditional use permit can not become a
conforming use just because it satisfies the criteria in the local
SNIP or WAC 173-27-160 for granting a conditional use permit.
That only justifies its right to exist as a different non-conforming
use than existed there previously.
If this measure were applied in shoreline jurisdiction it would
effective) amend the Shoreline Master Program without required s
ng use
If a nonconform
Rephrased to read
twelve consecutive months or for twelve months during any two-
year period, the nonconforming rights shall expire and any
subsequent use shall be made conforming. A use authorized
pursuant to subsection (6) of this section shall be considered an
allowed nonconforming use for purposes of this section.
15 of 26
# Ecology Comment from Letter City Response and Recommendation
review or public input. Over time this measure could create
incompatibility between preferred, allowed uses and those
established as "conforming" uses through the process described
here. That could have significant effects on an area if, for instance,
it pitted the needs of large parcel/low cost per square foot, water-
dependant uses like fish processing against small parcelihigh cost
per square foot non-water-dependent uses like retail, restaurants
and residences.
ulatory
ll" is re
h
"
"
35 Shoreline Stabilization (bulkheads and revetments) .
g
a
s
is appropriate policy language;
"Should
"
Policies Added definition for "should.
Page 17, 2. Change "should" to "shall" to make sure new
development is required to be designed and located to avoid the
The guidelines indicate that "should" does not exactly mean "shall":
need to armor the shoreline with bulkheads or revetments in order
to protect the development. The SNIP Guidelines indicate that
WAC 173-26-020 (32) states that "should means that the particular
"should" means "shall" but the Auburn SMP does not, so "shall" action is required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason,
Shoreline Management Act and this chapter,
f th
li
is recommended here. e
cy o
based on po
against taking the action".
WAC 173-26-020 (28) states that "shall means a mandate; the action
must be done".
n will be used as a tool
ti
i
za
o
Generally, the inventory and character
36 Regulations
There should be clear guidance and directions on how permit for planning staff, but pennitting any in-water work or other
uire field investigation and critical
tions will re
difi
li
applicants, project designers, City and Ecology staff can use the
ation in the Auburn Shoreline Inventory and
f
i q
ca
ne mo
shore
areas report. Other types of guidance (such as applicant assistance
orm
n
Characterization to assess existing ecological conditions for handouts), outside the SNIP document itself, may be established
i
i
i
d after approval of the SNIP.
ons.
s
ec
on
shoreline modificat
37 Page 19, 14. It is very difficult to establish trees and vegetation in Regulation amended as suggested.
most riprap, so existing trees and vegetation that are shading
streams and rivers should not be removed when placing riprap if it
can be avoided.
The policy and regulation language as proposed is consistent with
38 Clearing and Grading SMPs for Port Townsend and Marysville, recently approved b
Policies
16 of 26
n
ti
d
# Ecology Comment from Letter a
o
City Response and Recommen
staff on
l
ith E
i
Page 19, 1. and 2. These policies require that clearing and grading
on shorelines be the minimum necessary and only for permitted
development. They must be followed by regulations that establish co
ogy
ng w
Ecology. As we discussed in our meet
April 16, Ecology is not able to provide other examples from other
approved SMPs for Auburn's consideration.
grading and clearing limits for each shoreline environment so
identified ecological functions will be protected from erosion and
sedimentation.
We have added additional regulations in this section and in the
vegetation conservation section (these apply in all environment
designations if associated with an allowed use or development).
39 Regulations
Page 19, 1. This regulation is exactly the same as Policy 1. above,
which is incorrect. This regulation should implement that policy
by establishing limits for clearing vegetation or grading surface See response to comment #38.
areas in each shoreline environment.
40 Page 20, 2. This regulation allows sites to be fully cleared and then
replanted, which can cause mass sedimentation of nearshore
ecosystems. The vegetation along the shoreline or within shoreline
jurisdiction should not be cleared until the project design and
building schedule is complete and everything is ready.
The second sentence sounds more like a goal than a regulation and Standards added.
would be difficult to enforce. It says "Surfaces cleared of
vegetation and not developed must be replanted as soon as
possible. " This needs a time limit so the raw land will not remain
exposed and contribute sediment to shoreline ecosystems.
41 Page 20, 4.and 5. These both sound like policies because they do
not include any definite standards or limits. They should both Section revised; standards added.
reflect actual quantitative requirements for shoreline vegetation
conservation because they address cleared soils near shorelines.
1. This regulation requires that a project proponent include
stormwater treatment measures that may include "new
dikes, berms, catch basins or settling ponds; installation
grassy swales,
intenance o oil/water separators
d
,
ma
an
17 of 26
ti
d
{# Ecology Comment from Letter on
a
City Response and Recommen
interceptor drains and landscaped buffers." Some of
these appear to need SDPs although the terms and
descriptions do not match those of the Permitted Use
Table. Some, like storm water storage and treatment
ponds need shoreline conditional use permits (CUPS),
while new levees and dikes (and berms?) are prohibited
in all shoreline environments. These discrepancies must
be reconciled so project proponents can either include the
measures in their designs or consider ways to avoid
producing significant amounts of stormwater runoff
during construction and after. These policies and
regulations may help define the designs and densities of
proposed developments.
5. This Regulation also sounds like a policy, "Stabilization
of exposed erosional surfaces along shorelines shall,
whenever.feasible, utilize soil bioengineering techniques." It
should contain requirements to make sure land is not
totally cleared to expose "erosional surfaces" in the first place. It
is preferable to allow existing vegetation to remain until it must
be removed for building, and then plant native species where
plants were disturbed. Bioengineering doesn't seem like it
would be necessary unless a large amount of land was cleared
e
d l
ft b
ar
.
e
an
tion does not
l
f
i
42 Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects
"
" a
regu
te o
Revised per suggestion, although re-wr
finitive in terms of measurable standards
d
b
Regulations
Page 21, 1. and 3. These are "Policies" instead of e
e any more
appear to
because they include goals but do not establish definite than what is written now.
requirements or standards. The "Regulations" should include
requirements and instructions to carry out and govern this use or Regulation #3 amended as suggested
activity in all shoreline environments. For instance, Regulation 1.
might be written, "A shoreline habitat or natural systems
enhancement project involving environmental remediation
activities shall not harm human health or the environment.
18 of 26
ti
d
# Ecology Comment from Letter on
a
City Response and Recommen
Cleanup methods used shall not have significant negative impacts
on adjacent and existing uses in the area.
Regulation 3. might be written, "Habitat improvement projects
shall use an ecosystem or landscape approach, integrate projects
into their surrounding shoreline environments, and include
greenbelts forspecies movement and use."
43 Shoreline Uses Re-written as suggested.
Page 21, third paragraph. This is a long sentence that should be
divided to convey„the desired information. It could say, "Each
proposed development within the Shoreline Management Act's
jurisdiction will be evaluated to determine its conformance with
the use activity policies and regulations, as well as the Shoreline
Management Element goals and policies, the SMA, and the SMP.
Even uses and activities that are exempt from the requirements for
a shoreline substantial development permit must be consistent with
the policies and regulations of the SMP, the SMA, and its
"
i
i
ons.
prov
s d in the SMP
hibit
.
e
Commercial aquaculture and boat houses are pro
44 Prohibited Uses
Page 21, This states that 1. Commercial aquaculture, 2. Boat The Permitted Use Table should only be used as a general reference.
houses, 3. New or expanded mining, and 4. Permanent solid waste
e or transfer facilities are prohibited in all shoreline
stora
Permitted Use Table has been amended to reflect new or expanded
g
environments unless addressed in the SMP under a different use. mining is prohibited in all shorelines. Existing mining and related
activities allowed as a CUP in Urban Conservancy.
However, the Permitted Use Table (Chapter 3, pages 13-15) does
not include Commercial Aquaculture or Boat houses at all, making
Changed solid waste disposal in permitted use table to permanent
them unclassified uses that could be permitted through the solid waste storage or transfer facilities to make sure there is no
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. The Table prohibits "New confusion.
mining" in all shoreline environments but does not include
"expanded mining", which might cause applicants to seek permits
to expand as "repair or replacement", which may allow some
expansion. The Table only prohibits Solid Waste Disposal in all
environments, but not Permanent solid waste storage or trans er
19 of 26
ti
d
# Ecology Comment from Letter on
a
City Response and Recommen
facilities , so solid waste transfer stations, recycling centers,
recyclable holding facilities, etc. might seem like unclassified uses
that could seek shoreline conditional use permits (CUPS).
These discrepancies between the Permitted Use Table and
definitions included here could cause a lot of confusion when
shoreline staff review proposed projects or permits. These should
all be reconciled so the reflect the same intentions and language.
regulations and Permitted Use Tables need to be accurate
Policies
45 Boat Launching Ramps ,
but not identical.
and consistent
Policies ,
Page 22, 1. This policy says that "Public and community boating
facilities are preferred over individual private facilities" but does
Policy language reviewed and revised to address inconsistencies.
not say private ones are prohibited. The Permitted Use Table
(Chapter 3, pages 13-15) says Public Boat Ramps are permitted
(SDP) in the Urban Conservancy and Shoreline Residential
environments but prohibits all others. This information should be
reconciled so the Permitting Table, Policies and Regulations
convey identical and accurate information. This will allow City
and Ecology shoreline staff to implement the SMP correctly.
46 Regulations Reference to zoning regulations included.
Page 22, 2.e. This regulation requires "adequate" buffers between
the parking area and adjacent properties, but should contain
dimensions for those buffers and setbacks, or reference to
regulations that apply to the situation.
47 There should also be a Regulation stating the required dimensions Added specific reference to CAO buffer standards and provisions.
and perhaps composition of setbacks and buffers between the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and vehicle parking areas.
This could also refer to regulations in the SNIP that apply to the
i
i
on.
tuat
s
i
l
48 Mining on.
at
Text in table changed to match regu
Regulations
Page 24, 1. As i mentioned in #43, Prohibited Uses, the Permitted
Uses Table is not consistent with information in policies and
20 of 26
ti
d
# Ecology Comment from Letter on
a
City Response and Recommen
regulations. This Regulation says, " New or expanded mining
activities shall be prohibited", but the Permitted Use Table only
says "New Mining" is prohibited but does not address "expanded
mining". Again, the Table and Regulation terminology should be
identical to implement the SMP without confusion or conflict.
" This would
t
d
i
"
"
"
en
e
.
essentially water-or
to
dependent
Changed
49 Recreation occur where you have a waterfront park on property less than 200-
Regulations
Page 24, 1. This Regulation states that accessory uses like rest
l feet deep, so that parking and/or restrooms could not physically be
ide shoreline jurisdiction and still support the use of the
t
t
l
d
ess
rooms and parking areas must be set back from the OHWM un ou
s
oca
e
they are "shoreline" dependent (water dependent?). It seems facility.
unlikely that either one of these accessory uses would require a.
shoreline location closer than the required setback of 200 ft. in the
Vegetation conservation standards referenced; storm drainage code
Natural shoreline or 100 ft. in the Urban Conservancy or Shoreline added in appendix.
Residential. In addition there should be vegetation conservation
and other measures required so drainage from parking lots or
septic systems do not affect shoreline ecosystems.
If minimum requirements exist in the SMP or other local codes for
storm water treatment, drainage management, septic system
design, siting and monitoring, etc. they should be referenced here
and the codes included as SMP Appendices. If accessories to
development can not meet the minimum required setbacks a
shoreline variance permit should be required.
dards under
t
ith
i
50 Page 24, 2. This regulation addresses the need to manage an
s
stency w
Added regulation ensuring cons
application of fertilizers, pesticides and toxic chemicals near water vegetation conservation section.
bodies and wetlands. It requires permit applicants to submit plans
showing how they intend to stop those chemicals from entering the
Many large scale recreational facilities like golf courses do maintain
water, but this Regulation should be able to reference requirements their own water quality monitoring or best management plans for
in the SMP that address this issue, either within the Shoreline application of fertilizers, etc.
Vegetation Conservation standards or elsewhere. Requiring
one to comply with the same approved regulations is more
ever
y
21 of 26
## Ecology Comment from Letter City Response and Recommendation
likely to result in no net loss of ecological functions from those
chemicals than if everyone produces their own plans for managing
them.
25
on
6
d
l
ti
51 Page 25, 3.d. This regulation addresses vegetation planning, .
pg.
.
.
on
a
Assume comment is referencing regu
planting, and clearing in a general policy manner. It should be able
to reference required Clearing and grading and Shoreline Reference added.
vegetation conservation standards established in the SMP for this
ments
i
li
h
.
ron
ne env
ore
use in all s
l
i
d
52 Page 25, f. This Regulation requires the applicant to make ace.
n p
y
Setbacks as suggested are alrea
provisions for screening and buffering parking areas so enjoyment
of adjacent areas is not affected, but it does not address protecting
the shoreline from the parking areas. While there may be general
parking area requirements in a local zoning code, the SNIP should
contain standards for parking areas within SMA jurisdiction if
they are allowed to locate there. They should require setbacks of at
least the minimum required for the shoreline environment -100 or
200 ft. from the OHWM. They should also require protection such
as storm water runoff management and treatment, shoreline
vegetation conservation, and an special design requirements.
with SNIP and SMA.
t
nc
i
t e
y
s
Regulation text changed to ensure cons
53 Residential Developmen
Regulations
Page 26, 1 This regulation indicates that if there is a discrepancy
between requirements in the local Zoning Code, other regulations,
and the SNIP, the most restrictive will prevail. Consistency with
the local SMP, SMA and its provisions should prevail even if they
may not seem to be the most restrictive. The objectives of some
plans or codes may be different than those of the SMA, which
might result in what appears to be a less restrictive requirement.
These all should be able to refer to Shoreline
d
b
c
2
26
P
Intent of comment is unclear. All regulations covered in SNIP under
54 .
.,
.,
.
,
age
Vegetation Conservation standards established in the SNIP, as well "General Policies and Regulations" (including vegetation and water
as local codes for building, stormwater management and quality standards a 1 everywhere, regardless of use or
22 of 26
tion
d
# Ecology Comment from Letter a
City Response and Recommen
them here
in
f
i
treatment, and construction site management. These should be
included as SNIP appendices. g
erenc
ng or re
environment designation. Replicat
seems redundant.
Stormwater and CAO regulations added to appendix.
in shoreline
t
f
55 Page 26. 4.a. Why are driveways excluded from the maximum
33.3 impervious surface limit? Driveways are generally a large
part of the paved areas of waterfront homes. y
proper
This standard is applied to the portion o
jurisdiction. In almost all cases, driveways will be located and
oriented away from the river toward the street. In situations where a
parcel is wholly within shoreline jurisdiction, driveways need to be
provided to allow access to the property from public right of way.
1
56 Page 26, 4.b. Regarding setbacks other than those from the
OHWM. These codes should be included as appendices if they
apply within shoreline jurisdiction because they are often part of 5.
See response to comments #10 and #
Code sections added as appendices.
i
lik
e v
ews.
disputes over things
for Port Townsend
h SMP
i
57
8 Page 27, 5. This Regulation addresses site preparation and
indicated there will be limits placed on clearing and grading on a
site-by-site basis in order to preserve shoreline amenities (and
hopefully, ecological functions). Clearing and grading regulations
should already be established in the SMP's Shoreline Vegetation
Conservation standards. This should be included when completed.
Transportation s
t
Language as proposed is consistent w
and Marysville, recently approved by Ecology. Requirements for
TESC and SWPPP added to vegetation conservation and clearing
and grading sections (these apply for all uses, including residential).
Typo. Revised to remove the word "not".
Regulations
Page 28, 6. This Regulation states, "Roads shall not be located so
as to avoid the use of culverts to the maximum extent possible."
Should it say, "To the maximum extent possible, roads shall be
located to avoid the need for culverts" instead? Revise to reflect
'
s intention
the City
Chapter 5
Shoreline Management Administrative and Permitting
Procedures
's SNIP is not
Cit
th
27 i
59 This is not adequate as the SMP's section on the shoreline
permitting process. It is only a reference to an incomplete listing y
e
n
Replicating all provisions of 173-
referred. City staff would develop more user friendly permit
23 of 26
mendation
d R
# Ecology Comment from Letter ecom
City Response an
of topics in Chapter 173-27 WAC - Shoreline permitting and
t
ff assistance handouts for applicants. City staff are capablc of
standards from WAC 173-27 for their own permit
referencin
mus
enforcement. If all current and future City shoreline sta g
access this WAC section on the internet or another place, they will review.
not learn what is required for shoreline management. There is too
much information that will never be seen or used, which can result
WAC 173-27-100, 150, 160, 170 and pcnnit data sheet added.
in the SMP not being administered consistent with the SMA. At
the last public hearing in the winter of 2007, two men spoke on the
difficulty of finding someone who could help them apply for
shoreline permits. Abbreviating the entire code as a one page
reference will not remedy that situation.
These things must be included as text in the Auburn SNIP, along
with any local criteria or requirements for permits or permit
review.
The current Auburn SNIP has a permit section that includes
definitions of permit types, permit requirements, forms,
administrative, and appeal procedures. This one needs that
information also.
Use Chapter 173-27 WAC where necessary for definitions and
requirements. Things like complete application requirements;
review criteria for substantial development, shoreline conditional
use and variance permits; complete permit submittals to Ecology;
shoreline permit revisions; development exempt from substantial
development permit requirements; definitions in WAC 173-27-030
and the SMA, RCW 90.58.030; the SMA Permit Data Sheet and
Transmittal Letter (WAC 173-27-990), and other requirements,
are clear and concise enough so that it is preferable to include
them in the local SNIP instead of trying to rewrite the text. In
addition, some requirements are precise and can lead to
inconsistent decisions if local SNIP language is far different than
24 of 26
mendation
d R
# Ecology Comment from Letter ecom
City Response an
the regulations.
For example, WAC 173-27-210 requires that local governments
and Ecology apply the same minimum criteria to review shoreline
conditional use and variance permits. This language is located in
WAC 173-27-160 and 170 and it is often necessary to consider
a permit for proposed development.
d when reviewin
h
g
wor
eac
Chapter 6 Definitions
60 In addition to those already listed, definitions in the Chapter 90.58 See response to comment #13.
the SMA; WAC 173-26-020, the SNIP Guidelines; and
RCW
,
Shoreline permitting and enforcement, should
WAC 173-27-030 Definitions added.
,
be included. These definitions are important to understanding
shoreline phenomena and processes, as well as objectives of
shoreline management under the SMA and its provisions in the
1 Washington Administrative Code.
The Cumulative Impacts report includes general descriptions of
We understand Ecology is developing guidance on cumulative
'
6 conditions within Auburn's SMA shoreline jurisdiction, predicts t believe the cumulative
impacts analysis. At this time, we don
nt would need revision based on changes made
development patterns for the future, and describes changes to uses,
ment regulations as being "generally more
d develo
d
d impacts assessme
from this review cycle with Ecology.
p
s, an
ar
stan
protective that those in the existing SMP." After generally
describing new measures required by the SNIP Guidelines and
Shoreline Regulations from the CAO, it states on Page 9 that
"Over time these changes will likely have a net beneficial effect
on shoreline ecological processes as properties are re-developed."
It does not specifically address Auburn's new standards for
various shoreline environments and effects they may have on
shoreline ecosystems or ecological functions identified in the
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization.
Since some important standards and regulations must still be
completed for uses in the various shoreline environments, it is
likely that assessed cumulative impacts of allowed development
25 of 26
Ecology Comment from Letter
would be more detailed.
City Response and Recommendation
26 of 26