Loading...
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