Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM V CPA10-0002 GI7Y ~E~ wASHINCronr AGEIVDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject Date: September 24, 2010 CPA10-0002, 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Initiated Policy/Text Amendments Departrnent: Planning and Attachments: P/T # 6 and P!T # 7- Budget Impact: N/A Development See separate section within Com rehensive Plan binder Adminisfrative Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of 2010 City-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Group 2. Background' Summary: The City of Aubum adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended. Since then the Aubum Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually. ~ Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by the City ofAuburn (city-initiated) and by private citizens (privately-initiated). This year the city is initiating one set of map amendments and a few policy ancl text amendments. In addition, this year the city received no privately-initiated plan map amendments and one privately-initiated policy/text amendment. The City initiated map amendments and five city initiated policy and text amendments were considered by the Planning Commission at their September hearing mee6ng. The privately initiated policy/text amendments will be reviewed under separate agenda " bills and will be heard by the Planning Commission attheir October meeting. This staff report and recommendation addresses Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments P/T #6and#7. . Comprehensive plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process before the City of Aubum Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City,Council for final action. City Council consideration and action on fhe amendments will occur prior to the end of this year. Reviewed by Council 8 Committees: Reviewed by Departrnents 8 Divisions: ❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: ❑ Building ❑ M&0 ❑ Airport ❑ Finance ❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor ❑ Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Services ❑ Finance ❑ Parks ❑ Human Services J@ Planning & Dev. ❑ Fire Z Planning ❑ Park Board ❑ Public Works ❑ Legal ❑ Police ❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other Z Public Works ❑ Human Resources Action: Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Counal Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing Referred to Until / / - Tabled Until Councilmember: Staff: Dixon Meetin Date: October 5, 2010 Item Number. Page 1 of 4 AUBuRN 'k .MOIZE THAN YC?U IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA10-0002, 2010 Gomprehensive Plan Date: September 24, 2010 Amendments - City Initiated Policy/Text Amendments A. Findings 1. RCW 36.70A.130 (Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides for amendmentsto locally adopted GMA comprehensive plans. Except in limitetl circumstances provided for in State law, comprehensive plan amendments shall be considered by the city or county legislative body no more frequently than once per year. The annual limitation and exceptions are also resfated in city code at ACC 14.22.060. 2. The City of Auburn established a June 10, 2010 deadline for the submittal of priyately- initiated comprehensive plan applications (map or policy/text). Notice to the pablic of the filing deadline was provided on the City,s website, the Seattle Times, the Aubum Reporter, and senf fo a compiled notification list. The City received no privately initiated comprehensive plan map amendments and one policy/text amendment by the submittal deadline. 3. A combined Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) and Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was issued for the City-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments on September 18, 2010 under City file # SEP10-0028. 4. Aubum City Code Chapter 14.22 outlines the process for submittal of Comprehensive Plan amendments and the processing of comprehensive plan amendments as follows: Section 14.22.100 A. The planning commissionshall hold at least one public hearing on.all proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following: 1. For site-specific plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper ofithe city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing; 2. For area-wide plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within the area subject to the proposed amendment; c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing. B. Notwithstandin9 the above, the director maY exPand the minimum noticin9 Provisions noted above as deemed necessary. C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those findings to the ' city council. D. The city conncil, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance. Page 2 of 4 AUBURN *MORE THAN YC}U IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA10-0002, 2010 Comprehensive Plan Date: September 24, 2010 Amendments - City Initiated Policy/Text Amendments E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning ~ commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW 36.70A.106. F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.) 5. Pursuant fo RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Office of Commerce, formerly the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) and other state - agencies as required for the 60-day state review. No comments were received from Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. 6. Due to the minor nature of the city-initiated map amendments and the city-initiated policy/text changes and receipt of only one privately-initiated policy/text change, the optional process of a public open house was not conducted. 7. The public hearing notice was published on September 22, 2010 in the Seattle Times at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing seheduled for October 5, 2010. 8. The foflowing report identifies Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text (P/T) amendments scheduled for the Planning Commission's October 5, 2010 public hearing with a staff recommendation. CPAA #6 Incorporate the City of Auburn's 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2016, into the City Comprehensive Plan. Discussion A Capital Facilities Plan is one of the comprehensiye plan elements required by the Washington Stafe Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A). The GMA requires that a capital facilities plan include an inventory of existing capital facilities (showing locations and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such capital facilities, proposed locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities, and a minimum of a six-year plan to finance capital facilities with identifed sources of funding. The proposed City of Aubum 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2016 satisfies the GMA requirements for a capital facilities element as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Each comprehensive plan prepared under the GMA must include a capital facilities plan element. RCW 36.70A.070(3) of the GMA states the following: A capital facilities plan element consisting of: • (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs of such capital facilities; (c) the proposed loeations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) a requirement to reassess the land use elemenf if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan Page 3 of 4 AuBjJRN'!r MQRE THAN `YC3U IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA10-0002, 2010 Comprehensive Plan Date: September 24; 2010 Amendments - City initiated Policy/Text Amendments element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinafed and consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the capital facilities plan element. A capital facility is a structure, street or utility system improvement, or other long-lasting major asset; including land. Gapital facilities are provided for public purposes. Capital facilities include, but are not limited to, the following: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks; street and road lighting systems, fraffic signals, domestic water systems, sform and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreation facilities, and police and fire protection facilities. These capital facilities include necessary ancillary and support facilities. The proposed City of Aubum 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2016 is incorporated by reference in the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5, Capital Facilities. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council. P/T #7 Add new policy EN-41.A to Objective 18.6 _(Wthin Chapter 9, The Environment) to provide policy support for future change in development regulafions in response to House Bill 1481 adopted in April 2009, to encourage the transition to electric vehicle use. Discussion The Washington State Legislature approved House Bill (HB) 1481 in April 2009 with an effeetive date of July 26, 2009. This HB 1481 encourages the transition to electrical vehicle use through the establishment of requirements for electric vehicle infrastructure. Elecfrical vehicle infrastructure is defined as the stnactures, machinery, and equipment necessary and integral to support an electric vehicle, including battery charging stations, rapid cfiarging stations, and battery exchange stations. HB 1481 specifies that counties, cities and towns throughout Washington Stafe are required to amend their development regulations to allow electric vehicle infrastructure as a permitted use in all zones except those zoned for residential, resource or critical areas. In these areas, the statute does not prohibit local governments from allowing electrical vehicle infrastrucfure; however, consideration of special conditions or limitations is encouraged. The statute also established a timeframe for local govemmentsto comply with the statute. For the City ofAuburn, this means that it must update its development regulations to allow battery charging stations by July 1, 2011. A new policy EN-41.A to Objective 18.6 within Chapter 9, The Environment, is proposed to provide the policy basis for fufure development regulations to encourage the transition to electric , vehicle use. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council. Page 4 of 4 $URN* MORE THAN Y(JU iMAG1NED CHAPTER 9 THE ENVIRONIVIEN'T " Introduction One of the key attractions of Auburn and the Puget Sound Region has always been the abundant natural resources found throughout the area. T'he Green River Valley was once a major supplier of agricultural goods for the region and farming remains in some parts of the valley. Thick forests, wetlands, and wildlife. fiabitafs aze found throughout the area. As the area develops, many of these features, which serve to make the area attractive in the first place, are being lost. The strong emphasis placed on the designation and protection of resource lands and critical areas in the Growth Management Act, the Countywide Policies and this plan refleet the important role that these areas play in maintaining the health, safety and welfare of the area's citizens. Issues Environmental Constraints and Land Use The City's overall environmental policy should describe the kinds of environmental information and factors that are important to the community. This information can be used to decide if, where and how certain kinds of development and other activities should be allowed. City policy should recognize the natural constraints placed on development by such factors as unstable slopes, flooding and wetlands. A critical environmental concern is the proper management of gravel extraction. This is an industcy which has been active in Auburn for many years and which remains a viable industry. The City should establish clear policies to guide the retention of valued aspects of the City's environment, such as protection of the City's open space and significant wildlife habitats. The policy should seek to ensure ample opportunity for the City's residents to meet their recieational needs. Policies should be esta.blished to protect the public health, safety and quality of life, and to also protect the area's most unique, sensitive and productive Page 9-1 Amended 2009 Environment environmental resources. New development should be directed toward areas where their adverse impacts can be minimized. This Plan has increased the specificity of the City's policies relating to use and protection of the natural environment: It also provides a set of general policies which will be used to require the mitigation of significant adverse impacts. GOAL 18. ENVI1tONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES To maintain and promote a safe and healthy environment and preserve the quality of life, and to protect the area's most unique, sensitive and productive natural resources. To encourage na.tural resource industries within the city to operate in a manner which enhances, (rather than detracts from), the orderly development of the City. Objective 18.1. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of surface water, ground water, and shoreline resources in the City and Region. Policies: EN-1 The City shall seek to ensure adequate and healthful supplies of domestic water by protecting groundwater from degrada.tion, by providing for surface water infiltration, by minimizing or prohibiting unnecessary withdrawals of groundwater and by preventing unintended groundwater discharges caused by disturbance of water-bearing geological formations. EN-2 Stormwater drainage improvement projects that are proposed to discharge to groundwater, such as open water infiltration ponds; shall provide for surface water pretreatment designed to standards outlined in the Washington State Deparlment of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Se- Basin-Western Washin t~on. Drainage improvement projects that may potentially result in the exchange of surface and ground waters, such as detention ponds, sha11 also incorporate these standards. EN-3 The City shall seek to minimize degrada.tion to surFace water quality and aquatic habitat of creeks, slreams, rivers, ponds, lakes and other water bodies; to preserve and enhance the suitability of such water bodies for contact recreation and fishing and' to preserve and enhance the aesthetic' quality of such waters by ' requiring the use of current Best Management Practices for control of stormwater and nonpoint runoff. Page 9-2 Amended 2009 Environment EN-4 The City will regulate any new storm water discha.rges to creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and other water bodies with the goal of no degradation of the water quality or habitat of the receiving waters, and where feasible seek opporhinities to enhance the water quality and habitat of receiving waters. EN-5 The City Shoreline Master Program, shall govem the development of all designated Shorelines of the City (Map 9.1). Lands adjacent to these areas should be managed in a manner consistent with that program. EN-6 Where possible, streams and river banks should be kept in a natural condition, and degraded streambanks should be enhanced or restored. EN-7 Uses along the Green and White Rivers should be limited to residential, agricultural, open space, recreational, mineral resource extraction and public and quasi-public uses. Commercial development shall only be allowed on the rivers, if such development adds new public access to the shoreline area. and is constructed in a manner that will protect the shoreline and water quality of the rivers through the use of Best Management Practices. EN-8 Storm drainage structures and facilities located within the . shoreline environment, parklands, or public open space shall incorporate high standards of design to enhance the natural appearance, protect signif cant cultural resources and appropriate use of the site and surrounding area. Any such facilities located within the shoreline environment sha11 be consistent with the State Shoreline Management Act and the City's Shoreline Management Program. If accessible to the general public, such facilities should, whenever possible, be designed to preclude the need for security fencing, and should use native vegetation and be properly maintained, EN-9 The City shall discourage the use of septic tanks except in those areas wluch are desigriated for m~ol tises Residential Conservancv and have suitable soils. EN-10 The City's design standards shall ensure that the post development peak stormwater runoff rates do not exceed the predevelopment rates. EN-I 1 The City will seek to ensure that the quality of water leaving the City is of equivalent quality to the water entering. This will be Page 9-3 Amended 2U09 ' Environment accomplished by emphasizing prevention of pollution to surface and ground ' waters through education programs and implementation and enforcement of Best Management Practices. EN-12 The City shall continue to work with adjacent jurisdictions to enhance and protect water quality in the region through coordinated and consistent programs and regulations: EN-13 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on water quality as part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Impacts on fish resources shall be a priority concern in such reviews. EN-14 The City shall require the use of Best Management Practices to enhance and protect water quality as dictated by the City's Design and Construction Standards and the Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for ' the Western Washin on. In all new development, approved water quality treatment measures that are ' applicable and represent the best available science or technology shall be required prior to dischazging storm waters into the City storm drainage system or into environmentally sensitive areas ~ e. . wetlands rivers and oundwater. ~ g , ~ ) EN-15 The City recognizes that new development can have impacts including; but not limited to, flooding, erosion and decreased water quality on downstream communities and natural drainage courses. T'he City shall continue to actively participate in developing and implementing regional water quality planning and flood hazazd :reduction efforts within the Green Riyer, Mill Creek and White River :drainage basins. The findings and recommendations of these regional efforts, including, but not limited to, the "Draft" Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the Mill Creek Basin, the "Draft" Mill Creek Flood Control Plan, the Green River Basin Program Interlocal Agreement, and - the Mill Creek Water Quality Management Plan, sha11 be considered by the City as City programs and plans are developed and updated. EN-16 The City recognizes the value and efficiency of utilizing existing natural systems (e.g., wetlands) for storm water conveyance and stora.ge. However, these natural systems can be severely impacted or destroyed by the uncontrolled release of contaminated storm waters. Prior to utilizing naturaT systems for storm drainage purposes, the City shall carefully consider the potential for adverse impacts through the environmental review Page 9-4 Amended 2009 Environment process. Important natural systems shall not be used for storm drainage storage or conveyance, unless it can be demonstrated that adverse impacts can be adequately mitigated to a less than significant level EN-17 The City recognizes that stormwater treatment facilities do not function efficiently unless maintained. The City sha11 strive to ensure that public and private stormwater collection, detention and treatment systems aze properly maintained and functioning as designed. EN-17A Encourage the use of low impact development techniques in public and private development proposals in order to rrLnimize impervious surfaces and improve water quality. Objective 18.2. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of air resources in the City and Region. Policies: EN-18 The City shall seek to secure and maintain such levels of air quality as will protect human health, prevent injury to plant and animal life, prevent injury to property, foster the comfort and eonvenience of area inhabitants, a.nd facilitate the enjoyment of the natural attractions of the area. EN-19 The City will continue to support and rely on the various Sta.te, Federal and local programs to continue to protect and enhance air quality. EN-20 The City shall encourage the retention of vegetation and encourage landscaping in order to provide filtering of suspended particulates. EN-21 The City shall support an increased role for public transportation as a means to reduce locally generated air emissions. EN-22 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on air quality as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Objective 18.3. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of land, wildlife and vegetative resources in the City anci region. Page 9-5 Amended 2009 Environment • Policies: EN-23 The City shall seek to protect any unique, rare or endangered species of plants and animals found within the City by preventing the indiscriminate and unnecessary removal of trees and grou.ndcover; by promoting the design and development of landscaped areas which provide food and cover for wildlife; and by protecting and enhancing the quality of aquatic habitat. EN-24 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the quality of land, known or suspected fish and wildlife ttabitats (Map 9.2) and vegetative resources as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Such mitigation may involve the retention of significant habitats and the use of native landscape vegetation. EN-25 The preferred method of crossing a watercourse tha.t has habitat suitable for anadromous fish use or that has the potential to be rehabilitated for fish use in the future is a bridge. The use of culverts sha11 be discouraged as a crossing method for such watercourses. Culvert systems may be considered if streambeds similar to natural channels can be provided, no loss of anadromous fish habitat will occur or the cost of a bridge is prohibitive as reasonable method of mitigation. EN-26 T'he City shall work in collaboration with other agencies, the development community and other affected or interested parties to protect identified wildlife corridors and encourage the clustering of significant or adjacent resources to maintain connectivity of these systems. Objective 18.4. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of important wetland resources in the City and region. Policies: EN-27 The City recognizes the important biological and hydrological roles that wetlands play in providing plant and animal habitat, protecting water quality, reducing the need for man-made flood and storm drainage systems, maintaining water quality, and in - providing recreational, open space, educational and cultural opportunities. The City will consider these roles and functions in all new development and will also pursue opportunities to enhance the existing wetland system when these multiple benefits can be achieved. Page 9-6 Amended 2009 Environment EN-28 The City recognizes that wetlands provide varying degrees of biological and hydrological functions and values to the community depending on the size, complexity and location of the individual system, and that the overall degree of functions and values should be considered when reviewing proposals which impact wetlands. In a similar manner, the levels of protection afforded to a wetland sha11 be consistent with its existing function and values. The City shall continue to promote policies and practices of enhancing the wetlands that aze hydraulically connected to the river systems to improve fish resources and aquatic ha.bitat. EN-29 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the quality of wetland resources as part of its environmental review , process and shall require appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures of important wetland azeas. Such mitigation ,may . involve conservation, enhancement or restoration or replacement of important wetlands, and provisions for appropriate buffering. The goal of the mitigation should be no net loss of wetland . functions and values. A permanent deed restriction shall be placed on any wetlands created or enhanced to ensure that they are preserved in perpetuity. EN-30 Wetlands which are associated with a river or stream, or provide significant plant and animal ha.bitat opportunities aze recognized by the City as the most important wetland systems, and shall ' receive the highest degree of protection. and mitigation through conservation, enhancement or relocation measures. Wetlands which are limited in size, are isolated from major hydrological systems or provide limited hydrological or plant and animal habitat opportunities may be considered by the City for development and displacement in conjunction with appropriate mitigation. EN-31 Speculative filling of wetlands shall only be permitted if in compliance with the Special Area Management Plan for Mill Creek, when it is adopted. EN-32 It is the City's intent to pursue development of an area-wide wetlands management program for the entire City to establish a systems approach to wetlands management. The City sha11 work with adjacent communities to adopt and implement the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the Mill Creek Basin, a draft version of which has. been developed with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose of the SAMP is to establish uniform wetland definitions and methodology throughout the planning Page 9-7 Amended 2009 Environment area, to develop a regional consensus and preelictability by identifying important wetlands which must be conserved and less important wetlands which may be developed. The SAMP is intended to ensure a balance of the City's commitment between environmental and economic development interests. The City shall strive to streamline the permitting process for development in the areas covered by the SAMP. Map 93: General Location of Wetlands Map Note: This map provides an illustration of wetlands located within Auburn. Prepared on an azea-wide basis, the inventory map provides a general delineation of known wetlands based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definition and the 1989 Federal Manual Far Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands field methodology. It is important to note that this map is only a wetland inventory and not a wetland plan. Over time wetlands develop, expand and contract in conjunction with changing climatic, natural and artificial conditions. The map does not imply that a pazcel covered by a wetland designation is fully occupied by wetlands. It is an indicator, however, that an in depth wetland delineation is required. Therefore, future site specific wetland studies conducted by the property owner will identify the precise location, delineation and functional characteristics of known wetlarid azeas, and additional wetland areas not previously inventoried. The Auburn Planning Department has wetland reports that can provide information regarding soils, hydrology, vegetation and wildlife for these wetlands. Objective 18.5. To recognize the aesthetic, environmental and use benefits of vegetation and to promote its retention and propagation. Consideration shall be given to promoting the use of native vegetation. Policies: EN-33 The City recognizes the important benefits of native vegetation including its role in attracting native wildlife, preserving the natural hydrology, and maintaining the natural character of the Pacific Northwest region. Native vegetation can also reduce the use of pesticides (thereby reducing the amount of contaminants that may enter nearby water systems) and reduce watering required of non-native species (thereby promoting conservation). The City shall encourage the use of native vegeta.tion as an integral part of public and private development plans through strategies that include, but are not limited to, the following: Page 9-8 Amended 2009 Envirnnment o Encouraging the use of native plants in street landscapes and in public facilities. o Providing greater clazity in development regulations in how native plants can be used in private development proposals. o Pursuing opportunities to educate the public about the, benefits of native plants. EN-33A Development regulations shall emphasize the use of native plant materials that complement the natural character of the Pacific Northwest and which are adaptable to the climatic hydrological characteristics of the region. Regulations should provide specificity as to native plant types in order to facilitate their use. EN-34 The City shall discourage the unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation in new development. EN-35 The City sha11 encourage the use of water conserving plants in landscaping for both public and private projects. EN-36 The City sha11 update and amend its landscaping ordinances to ensure that sufficient laridscaping is a required component of all development. Emphasis should be placed on higher quality and quantity of landscaping. EN-37 The City shall strengthen the tree protection ordinance targeted at protecting large stands of trees and significant trees within the City. EN-38 The City sha11 develop a tree planting and maintenance program. Objective 18.6. To promote energy efficiency and management of resources in the development and operation of public facilities and services, as well as in private development. Policies: EN-39 The City shall encourage the use of renewable energy and other na.tural resources over non-renewable resources wherever practicable and sha11 protect deposits or supplies of important non-renewable natural resources from developments or activities which will preclude their future utilization. EN-40 The City of Auburn Energy Management Plan is hereby incorporated as an element in this Comprehensive Plan. Page 9-9 Amended 2009 Environment EN-41 The City encourages site design practices that maximize winter exposure to solar radiation. EN-41.A The City sha11 encourage and promote the use of electric vehicles by providing for a broad range of opQortunities for vehicle recharge. Objective 18.7. Enhance and maintain the quality of life for the City's inhabitants by promoting a healthy environment and reducing the adverse impact of environmental nuisances. Policies: EN-42 The City shall seek to minimize the exposure of area inhabitants to the hazmful effects of excess noise. Performance measures for noise impact on surrounding development should be adopted and enforced. EN-43 The City shall seek to minimize the exposure of area inhabitants to excessive levels of light and glare. Performance measures for light and glare exposure to surrounding development should be adopted and enforced. EN-44 The City sha11 seek to minim;ze the exposure of azea inhabitants from noxious plant species. Objective 18.8. To establish management policies which effectively control the operation and location of mineral extraction in the City, in order to reduce the inherent adverse impacts that such activities produce in an urbari environment. Policies: EN-45 The cost effective availability of sand and gravel materials is needed to support the development of freeways, roads, public works, and private construction. Mineral extraction may therefore be permitted if in accord with these policies. EN-46 Existing mineral eartraction operations (as specifically authorized - by a City pernut to mine) shall be allowed to continue operation for the duration of, and in accord with, their existing permits. EN-47 Mineral extraction operations shall not be considered a permitted use in any zoning district. They are to be reviewed as special uses and shall be conducted only in accord with the measures Page 9-10 Amended 2009 Environment. needed to mitigate any adverse impact. Permits for the opera.tion shall be denied whenever any impact is deemed by the CiTy Council to be unacceptable or cannot be acceptably mitigated. EN-48 A final grading, draina.ge and erosion control plan shall be submitted with every application. Conditions of operation shall be spelled out in detail with performance bonds required to ensure compliance. Failure to comply with the provisions will be adequate grounds for suspension and subsequent termination of the pernut. EN-49 The burden to demonstrate compliance with these policies and to demonstrate the need for a new permit or a renewal of a permit for any mineral extraction operation rests solely on the operator. The burden to operate in compliance with these policies and any permit issued in accord with the same shall also be on the operator. EN-50 The City shall consider impacts of mining on groundwater and surface water quality as well as possible changes in hydrology as a result of the mining during the environmental review process and require appropriate mitigating measures to prevent water quality degradation. EN-51 Mineral resource areas or lands are those lands which have high quality resources that can be eommercially mined for a minimum - of twenty years (Map 9.4). Properties around which urban growth is occurring should not be considered as mineral resource azeas. As required by RCW 36.70A.060, the City shall require notification on all plats, short plats, development permits and building permits issued for development within 500 feet of these lands on which a variety of commercial activities may occur that are not compatible with residential development for certain periods of limited duration. EN-52 Additional mineral extraction operations or major expansion of existing operations onto adjacent parcels shall be permitted within mineral resource areas: Impacts of the operations must be studied thoroughly under tlie provisions of SEPA, and the City shall require implementation of a11 reasonable mitigating measures identified in those studies. Pernuts for the operation and renewal of permits for existing operations shall be denied whenever any impact cannot be acceptably mitigated. EN-53 Additional mineral extraction operations or expansions of existing opera.tions will only be allowed outside of mineral Page 9-I 1 Amended 2009 Environmeut resource areas where it is advisable to modify slope to create usable land (or to provide another public benefit associated with the site) and where the community will suffer no substantial short or long term adverse effect. Impacts of the operations must be studied thoroughly under the provisions of SEPA, and the City shall require implementa.tion of all reasonable mitigating measures identified in those studies. Permits for the operation and renewal of permits for existing.operations shall be denied whenever any impact cannot be acceptably mitigated. EN-54 New mineral extraction operations and expa.nsion of existing mineral extraction operations will not be permitted in areas designated for "open space" uses. EN-55 The creation of usable land consistent with this comprehensive plan should be the end result of a mineral exrtraction operation. The amount of material to be removed sha11 be consistent with the end use. While this policy shall be rigidly applied to developed areas and to all areas outside of mineral resource azeas, some flexibility may be appropriate within mineral resource areas. EN-56 Aesthetic qualities, erosion control, the effect on community and the creation of usable land which is consistent with approved Washington State Deparlment of Natural Resources and City Reclamation Plans shall be the primary considerations in a decision to grant a pemut for a new mineral extraction opera.tion or to extend the scope of an existing minera.T extraction operation outside designated mineral resource areas.. GOAL 19. I3AZAItIDS To minimize the risk from environmental and manmade hazards to present and future residents of the community. Objective 19.1. To reduce potential hazards associated with flood plains without unduly restricting the benefits associated with the continued development of the Lower Green River Valley floor. Policies: EN-57 The City sha11 seek to protect human health and safety and, to minimize damage to the property of area inhabitants by minimizing the potential for and extent of flooding or inundaxion. Page 9-12 Amended 2009 Environment EN-58 Flood prone properties outside of the floodway may be developable provided that such development can meet the standards set forth in the Fedefal gsed National Flood Iinsura.nce . Pprogram. EN-59 Any subdivision of property within the flood plain shall avoid creating lots which would be subject to serious threats to life, health and property from floodwaters. EN-60 Site plan review shall be required under SEPA for any significant (e.g. over the SEPA threshold) development in the flood plain. Appropriate mitigating measures shall be required whenever needed to reduce potential hazards. EN-61 Any development within the floodway which would reduce the capacity of the floodway shall'be prohibited. EN-62 The City shall enact ordinances and review development proposals in a manner which restricts and controls the discharge of storm water from new development. At a minimum the peak dischazge rate after development sha11 not exceed the . peak dischazge rate before development. EN-63 The City's development standaTds should require control and management of storm waters in a manner which minimizes impacts from flooding. EN-64 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on frequently flooded areas (Map 9.5) as part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. As part of this review process, flood engineering and impact studies may be required. Within FEMA designated 100 year floodplains, the City of Auburn Re urv Floodplain, and other designated frequently flooded areas, such mitigation may include flood engineering studies, the provision of compensatory flood storage, floodproofing of structures, elevating of structures, and downstream or upstream improvements. EN-65 Areas designated as frequently flooded azeas should include 100 yeaz future condition floodplains wherever future condition flows have been modeled and adopted by the City as part of a basin plan. EN-66 Land uses and public and quasi-public facilities which would present special risks, such as hazardous waste storage facilities, hospitals, schools, nursing homes, and police and fire stations; Page 9-13 Amended 2009 Environment should not be constructed in designated frequently flooded areas unless no reasonable alternative is available. If these facilities are located in designated frequently flooded azeas, these facilities and the access routes needed for their operation, should be built in a manner that protects, public health and safety during at least the 100 year flood. In addition, special measures should be taken to ensure that hazardous or toxic substances aze not released into flood waters. EN-67 Developers in floodprone areas sha11 provide geotechnical information which identifies seasonal high groundwater elevations for a basis to design stormwater facilities in conformance with CitY design criteria. EN-68 The Mill Creek Basin Flood Control Plan, when completed, shall be the basis for the establishment of downstream drainage conditions for development in that area. Objective 19.2. To ensure that development is properly located and constructed with respect to the limitations of the underlying soils ancl subsurface drainage. Policies: EN-69 The City shall seek to ensure that land not be developed or otherwise modified in a manner which will result in or , significantly increase the potential for slope slippage, landslide, subsidence or substantial soil erosion. The City's development standards shall dictate :the use of Best Management Practices to minimize the potential for these problems. EN-70 Where there is a high probability of erosion (see Map 9.6), grading should be kept to a minimum and disturbed vegetation should be restored as soon as feasible. The City's development standards shall dictate the use of Best Management Practices for clearing and gra.ding activity. EN-71 The City sha11 consider the impacts of new development on , hazards associated with soils and subsurface drainage as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. EN-72 Lazge scale speculative filling and grading activities not associated with a development proposal sha11 be discouraged as it reduces a vegetated site's natural ability to provide erosion control and biofiltration, absorb storm water, and filter suspended - Page 9-14 Amended 2009 Environment particulates. In instances where speculative filling is deemed appropriate, disturbed vegeta.tion shall be restored as soon as possible, and appropriate measures to control erosion and sedimentation until the site is developed sha11 be required. EN-73 The City sha11 consider the impacts of new development on Class I and Class III landslide hazard areas (Map 9.7) as part of its environmenta.l review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. The impacts of the new development, both during and after construction, on adjacent properties shall also be considered. EN-74 Auburn will seek to retain areas with slopes in excess of 40 percent as primarily open space areas in order to protect against erosion and landslide hazards and to limit significant removal of , vegetation to help conserve Auburn's identity within the metropolitan region. Slopes greater than 15 percent with zones of emergent water (springs or ground water seepages) and all slopes with mapable landslide potential identified by a geotechnical study shall be protected from alteration. EN-75 The City will require that a geotechnical report prepared by a professional engineer licensed by the State of Washington with expertise in geotechnical engineering be submitted for all significant activities proposed within Class I and Class III landslide hazard azeas (Map 9.7). The City shall develop administrative guidelines which identify the procedures and information required for the geotechnical reports. EN-76 New development within Class I and Class III landslide hazard areas (Map 9.7) shall be designed and located to minimize site disturbance and removal of vegetation, and to maintain the natural topographic character of the site. Clustering of structures, minimizing building footprints, and retaining trees and other natural vegetation, shall be considered. Objective 19.3. To reduce risks associated with the transportation and storage of hazardous ma.terials. Policies: EN-77 The City shall seek to.minirnize the exposure of area inhabitants to the risk of explosion or hazardous emissions, and to require proposals involving the potential risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances to include specific measures which will protect the public health, safety and welfare. Page 9-15 Amended 2009 Environment EN-78 The risk of hazardous materials, substances and wastes shall be incorporated into the City's emergency management programs.. EN-79 New commercial (other than retail commercial) or industrial uses which involve the transport or storage of hazardous materials, substances or wastes shall only be located in that portion of the designated Region Serving Area of the City between the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and east of ttie West Valley Highway. EN-80 Any existing.wholesale storage or manufacturing of hazardous materials, substances or wastes in the designated Community Serving Area of the City, or within 2000 feet of a school or medical facility, shall be considered a non-conforming use and the City should assertively seek its removal. EN-81 The treatment, storage, processing, handling and disposal of any hazardous material, substances or wastes shall be only in the strictest compliance with any applicable local, state or federal law. EN-82 The City shall consider the imPacts Posed bY new develoPment on risks associated with hazardous materials, substances and wastes as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. " EN-83 The Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle/King County, and the King County Solid Waste Interlocal Resolution No. 90-001, are hereby adopted and incorporated as an element of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. EN-84 The City's surface water, ground water, sanitary, and storm drainage systems shall be protected from contamination by hazardous materials or other contaminants. EN-85 Use or removal of existing underground storage tanks shall only be done in the strictest compliance with applicable local, state and federal law. GOAL 20 POLICIES FOR PROTECTION OF ENDANGEI2ED FISH SPECIES The City recognizes that anadromous Salmonids require clean, cool, well- oxygenated water in adequate quantity for survival and especially during Page 9-16 Amended 2009 Environment the critical periods of rearing and migration both before spawning and after juveniles emerge. Salmonid eggs are highly affected during incubation and ha.tching by water temperature, flow velocity, water quality and excessive turbidity. Streams composed of complex habitats with a high proportion of riffles and pools provide productive spawning habitats, as well as juvenile rearing azeas in eddying and off-channel areas. Objective 20.1 To aid in the protection of listed and; candidate endangered fish species. Policies: EN-86 The City will continue to participate and support the various State, Rederal and local programs including Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) No. 9(Green River) and WRIA No. 10 (White-Stuck River) to protect and restore endangered species. EN-87 The City shall seek to minimize surface water quality and aquatic habitat degradation of creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lalces and other water bodies; to preserve and enhance the suitability of such water bodies as habitat for restoration of endangered species. EN-88 The City shall obtain information during the review of development proposals, as it relates to the Endangered Species Act, so that best management practices and best available science are considered and included in 'the City's evaluation and decision-making process. ' EN-89 The City shall identify the types and qualities of aquatic resources within its borders and further deyelop plans and program for the protection and enhancement of these resources based on their characteristics. GOAL 21 GENERAL POLICIES AND REGULATIONS WITHIN AUBURN'S SHORELINES The following general policies and regulations apply to all shorelines of the state that are located in Auburn, regardless of the specific shoreline environment designation in any one location. Objective 21.1 Ensure conservation and restoration within Auburn's shorelines. Polices: Page 9-17 Amended 2009 Environment EN-90 Prioritize enhancement and restoration efforts at public parks and public open space lands. EN-91 Work with owners of other publicly-owned land to encourage restoration and enhancementprojects. EN-92 Work with the public and other interested parties to prioritize restoration opportunities identified in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. EN-93 Promote vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds and nonnative species to avoid adverse impacts to hydrology, ~ and reduce the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion. EN-94 Integra.te bioengineering and/or soft engineering approaches into . local and regional flood control rneasures, infrastructure, and related capital improvement projects. EN-95 Develop a program to implement restoration projects, including , funding strategies. EN-96 Monitor and adaptively manage restoration projects. EN-97 Continue to work with the State, King County, Pierce County, Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 and 10 Forums,. the Muckleshoot Tribe, and other governmental and non- governmental organizations to explore how local govemments (with their assistance) can best address the needs of preserving ecological processes and shoreline functions. EN-98 Continue to work with the State, King County, Pierce County; Green River Flood Control Zone District, and the Inter-County River Improvement Agency to identify and implement flood management stra.tegies that protect existing development and restores floodplain and channel migration functions. EN-99 Continue to work with the WRIA 9 and 10 Forums to restore shoreline habitats and seasonal ranges that support listed Page 9-18 Amended 2009 Environment , endangered and threatened species, as well as other anadromous fisheries. EN-100 Create incentives that will make it economically or otherwise attractive to integrate shoreline ecological restoration into development projects. EN-101 Encourage restoration or enhancement of native riparianvegetation through incentives and non-regulatory programs. EN-102 Establish public education materials to provide shoreline landowners technical assistance about the benefits of native vegetation plantings. EN-103 Explore opportunities with other educational organizations and agencies to develop an on-going program of shoreline education for all ages. EN-104 Identify areas where kiosks and interpretive signs can enhance the educational experiences of users of shoreline areas. EN-105 Develop strategies to fund shoreline-related edueational and interpretive projects. Objective 21.2 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation. . ' Polices: EN-106 Developments and activities in the City's shoreline should be planned and designed to retain native vegetation or replace shorelirie vegetation with na.tive species to achieve no net loss of the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes performed by vegetation. ' EN-107 Woody debris should be left in river corridors to enhance wildlife habitat and shoreline eeological functions, except where it threatens personal safety or critical infrastructure, such as bridge pilings. In such cases where debris poses a threat, it should be dislodged, but should not be removed from the river. l , Page 9-19 Amended 2009 Environment Objective 21.3 Environmental Impact Mitigation. Polices: EN-108 All shoreline use and development should be carried out in a manner that avoids and minimizes adverse impacts so that the resulting ecological conditions do not become worse than the current condition. This means assuring no net loss of ecological functions and processes and protecting critical areas designated in Appendix A, Chapter 16.10 "Critical Areas" that are located in ' the shoreline. Should a proposed use and development potentially create significant adverse environmental impacts not otherwise avoided or mitigated by compliance with the master program, the Director should require mitigation measures to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Objective 21.4 Critical Areas. Policies: EN-109 Provide a level of protection to critical areas within the shoreline that is at least equal to that which is provided by the City's critical areas regulations adopted pursuant to the Growth. Management Act and the City's Compreherisive Plan. EN-110 Allow activities in critical areas that protect and, where possible, restore the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes of the City's shoreline. If conflicts between the SMP and the critical area regulations arise, the regulations that are most consistent with the SMA or its WAC provisions will govern. EN-111 Preserve, protect, restore and/or mitigate wetlands within and associated with the City's shorelines to aehieve no net loss of wetland area and wetland functions. ' EN-112 Developments in shoreline areas that are identified as geologically hazardous or pose a foreseeable risk to people and improvements during the life of the development should not be allowed. Page 9-20 Amended 2009 Environment Objective 21.5 Public Access (including views). Policies: EN-113 Public access improvements should not result in adverse impacts to the natural character, and quality of the shoreline and associated wetlands or result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Developments and activities within the shoreline should not impair: or detract from the public's visual or physical access to the water: EN-114 Protection and enhancement of the public's physical and visual access to shorelines should be encouraged. - EN-115 The amount and diversity of public access to shorelines should be increased ' consistent with the natural shoreline character, properry rights, and public safety. , EN-116 Publicly owned shorelines should be limited to water-dependent or public recreation uses, otherwise such shorelines should' remain protected, undeveloped open space. EN-117 Public access should be designed to provide for public safety; Public access facilities should provide awxiliary facilities, such as ' parking and sanitation facilities, when appropriate, and should be designed to be ADA accessible. Objective 21.6 Flood Hazazd Reduction. Policies: EN-118 T'he Gity should manage flood protection through the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan, Comprehensive Plan, stormwater regulations, and flood hazard area regulations. EN-119 Discourage development within the floodplains associated with the City's shorelines that would individually or cumulatively result in an increase to the risk of flood damage. Page 9-21 Amended 2009 - - --ment nvirnn EN-120 Non-structural flood hazard reduction measures should be given preference over structural measures. Structural flood hazard reduction measures should be avoided whenever possible. When necessary, they should be accomplished in a manner tha.t assures no net loss of ecological function and ecosystem-wide processes. Non-structural measures include setbacks; land use controls prohibiting or limiting development in areas that havi-a-are historically flooded, stormwater mana.gement plans, or bioengineering measures. EN-121 Where possible, public aecess should be integrated into publiely financed flood control and management facilities. Objective 21.7 Water Quality; Storm Water'and Non-Point Pollution. Policies: EN-122 The City should preyent impacts to water' quality and storm water quantity that would result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions; or a significant impact to aesthetic qualities, or recreational opportunities. E1N-123 Storm water management treatment, conveyance, or discha,rge facilities should be discouraged in the shoreline jurisdictiorr unless no other feasible alternative is available. EN-124 Low impact development techniques that allow for greater amount of storm water to infiltrate into the soil should be encouraged to reduce storm water run-off. EN-125 Encourage conservation of existing shoreline vegetation which provides water quality protection by slowing and filtering storm water run-off. Objective 21.8 Educational and Archeological Areas and Historic Sites. Policies: Page 9-22 Amended 2009 Environment EN-126 Where possible, Educational and Archeological Areas and Historic sites in the shoreline should be permanently preserved for scientific study, education, and public observation. EN-127 Consideration should be given to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Chapter 43.51 RCW to provide for , the protection, rehabilita.tion, restoration and reconstruction of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects located or associated with the shoreline that are significant in American, Washington and local history, architecture, archeology or culture. EN-128 Where feasible and appropriate, access trails to shorelines should incorporate access to educational signage acknowledging protected, historical, cultural and archeological sites or areas in the shoreline. Objective 21.9 Nonconfornung Use and Development Standards. Policies: EN-129 Legally established uses and developments that predate the City's Shoreline Master Program (1973, as amended) should be allowed to continue as legal nonconforming uses provided that future development or redevelopment does not increase the degree of nonconfornuty with this program. GOAL 22 SHORELINE MOIDIFICAT'ION Shoreline modifications are generally related to construction of a physical element such as a levee, bulkhead, or pier at or near the edge of a river or extending into the channel. Other modification actions include dredging, filling, or vegetation clearing. Modifications are usually undertaken in support of or in preparation for an allowed shoreline use or development. Objective 22.1 Prohibited Modifications The following shoreline modifications are prohibited in all shoreline environments unless addressed separately in this shoreline master program under another use: 1. Breakwaters, jetties, groins and weirs: 2. Dune modifications; and Page 9-23 Amended 2009 Environment 3. Piers and docks. i Objective 22.2 Dredging Dredge Material Disposal. Policies: . EN-130 Dredging and dredge matenal disposal should be done in manner which avoids or minimizes significant ecological impacts. Where impacts cannot be avoided, mitigation measures are required that result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. EN-131 Dredge spoil disposal in water bodies, on shorelands, or wetlands within a river's channel migration zone should be discouraged, except as needed for habitat improvement. EN-132 New development sha11 be sited and designed to avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize the need for new and maintenance dredging. Objective 22.3 Piers and Docks. Policies: EN-133 The City should discourage the construction of new piers, docks, or floats in the shoreline jurisdiction along the Green and White Rivers. Objective 22.4 Shoreline Stabilization (bulkheads and revetments). Policies: EN-134 Shoreline stabilization activities that may necessitate new or increased shoreline stabilization on the same or other a.ffected properties where there has been no previous need for stabilization should be discouraged. EN-135 New shoreline uses and development shoul be located away from the shoreline in order to preclude the need for new stabilization structures. Page 9-24 Amended 2009 Environment _ EN-136 Structural or "hard" shoreline stabiliza.tion techniques and structures should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that non-structural or "soft" shoreline protection measures are not feasible. EN-137 The cumulative effect of allowing bulkheads or revetrnents along river segments should be evaluated. If it is deternuned that the cumulative effects of bulkheads or revelments would have an adverse effect on shoreline functions or processes, then permits for them should not be granted. EN-13$ Bulkheads should not be pemutted as a solution to geo-physical problems such as mass slope failure, sloughing, or land slides. Bulkheads and revetments sfiould only be approved for the purposes of protecting existing developments by preventing bank erosion by the rivers. Objective 2-.422.5 Clearing and Crrading. Policies: EN-139 Clearing and grading activities should only be allowed in association with a permitted shoreline development. EN-140 Clearirig and grading activities shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the intended development, including residential development. Objective 22.6 Fi1L Policies: EN-141 Fill placed waterward of the OHWM should be prohibited and only all "owed to facilitate water dependent uses restoration projects. EN-142 Where pernutted, fill should be the minimum necessary to . provide for the proposed use and should be permitted only when - Page 9-25 Amended 2009 . Environment tied to a specific development proposal that is permitted by the , Shoreline Master Progratn. EN-143 The perimeter of fill activities should be designed to avoid or eliminate erosion and sedimentation impacts, both during initial fill activities and over time. Objective 22.7 Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects. _ Policies: EN-144 All proposed shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects should assure that the activities associated with each project address legitimate restoration needs and priorities and facilitate implementation of the Restoration Plan developed with this Shoreline Master Program pursuant to WAC 173-26- 201(2)(f)• GOAL 23 ' SHORELINE USE Shoreline use activities aze developments or activities that exist or are, anticipated to occupy shoreline locations. Objective 23.1 Prohibited Uses within the Shoreline Environment. Policies: EN-145 The following uses should be prohibited in a11 shoreline environments unless addressed separately in " the Shoreline Master Program under another use: See Section 1 2 of the Shoreline Master Program for definitions of the following uses: 1. Boat houses; - 2. Commercial development; 3. Forest practices; and 4. Industrial development; 5. New or expanded mining; and 6. Permanent solid waste storage or transfer facilities. Page 9-26 Amended 2009 Environment Objective 23.2 Agriculture Policies: EN-146 This Program allows for existing, ongoing agricultural activities while also maintaining shoreline ecological functions and processes. EN-147 Agricultural activities that do not meet the definition for existing and ongoing agricultural activities should not be allowed in the shoreline. EN-148 Appropriate farm management techniques and new development construction should be encouraged to prevent contamination of nearby water bodies and adverse effects on valuable plant, f sh, and animal life from fertilizer, herbicides and pesticide use and applicafion. - ' EN-149 A vegetative buffer should be encouraged to be placed and maintained between agricultural lands and water bodies or wetlands in order to reduce harmful bank erosion and resulting in sedimentation, enhance water quality, provide shade, reduce flood hazard, and maintain habitat for fish and wildlife, EN-150 Public access to the shoreline should be encouraged where it does not conflict with agricultural activities. EN-151 Proposals to convert agricultuTal uses to other uses should comply, with a11 policies and regulations established by the CompreHensive Plan and this Master Program for said uses and should not result in a net loss of ecological functions. Objective 23.3 Aqua.culture Policies: EN-152 Aquaculture is a water-dependent use, and when consistent with control of pollution and avoidance of adverse impacts to the Page 9-27 Amended 2009 Envvonment environment and preservation of habitat for resident native species, is an accepted use of the shoreline. EN-153 Development of aquaculture facilities and associated activities, such as hatcheries and fish counting stations should assure no net loss to shoreline ecological functions or processes. Aquacultural facilities should be designed and located so as not to spread disease to native aquatic life, establish new non-native species which cause significant ecological impacts, or significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. EN-154 Since locations for aquaculture activities are somewhat limited and require specific water quality, temperature, oxygen content, and adjacent land use conditions, arid because the technology associated with some forms of aquaculture is still experimental, some latitude should be given when implementing the regulations of this section, provided that potential impacts on existing uses and shoreline ecological functions and processes are given due consideration. Experimental aquaculture projects should be monitored and adaptively managed to maintain shoreline ecological functions and processes. Objective 23.4 Boating Facilities. Policies: EN-155 Boating facilities should not be allowed unless they are accessible to the general public or serve, a commuriity. EN-156 New boat launching ramps should be allowed only where they are located at sites with suitable environmental conditions, shoreline configurations, access and neighboring uses. EN-157 Development of new or modifications to existing boat launching ramps and associated and accessory uses should not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or other significanf adverse impacts. Objective 23.5 In-Stream Structural Use. Policies: EN-158 Approval of applications forin-stream structures should require inclusion of provisions for the protection and preservation of Page 9-28 . Amended 2009 Environment ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural ' resources, including, but not limited to, fish and fish passage, wildlife and water resources, shoreline critical areas, hydro geological processes, and natural scenic vistas. EN-159 The location and planning of in-stream structures should give consideration to the full range of public interests, watershed functions and processes, and environmental concerns, with special emphasis on protecting and restoring priority habitats and species. EN-160 Non-structural and non-regulatory methods to protect, enhance, and restore shoreline ecological functions and processes and other shoreline resources should be encouraged as an alternative to structural in-stream structures. Objective 23.6 Mining. Policies: EN-161 Limit mining activities near the shoreline to existing mining uses: Objective 23.7 Recreation. Policies: EN-162 Prioritize shoreline recreational development that provides public access, enjoyment and use of the water and shorelines of the State over other non water-oriented recreational uses. EN463 Shoreline azeas with the potential for providing recreation or public access opportunities should be identified for this use and, wherever possible, acquired and incorporated into the Public Park and open space system. ~ EN-164 Public recreational facilities should be located, designed and operated in a manner consistent with the purpose of the environment designation in which they are located and such that no net loss of shoreline ecological functions or ecosystem-wide , processes result. Page 9-29 Amended 2009 En"vironment EN-165 The coordination of local, state, and federal recreation plarining should be encouraged so as to mutually satisfy needs. Shoreline recreational developmenfs should be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. EN-166 Reereational development should not interfere with public use of navigable waters. Objective 23.8 Residential Development. Policies: EN-167 New over-water residences, including floating homes, are not a preferred use and should be prohibited. EN-168 New multiunit residential development and land subdivisions for more than four parcels should provide community and/or public access in conformance to the City's publie access planning and this Shoreline Master Program. Adjoining access shall be considered in making this determination. EN-169 Accessory development (to either multiple family or single family) should be designed and located to blend into the site as much as possible. EN-170 New residential development should avoid the need for new shoreline stabilization or flood hazard reduction measures that would cause significant impacts to other properties or public improvements or a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Objective 23.9 Signs. Policies: EN-171 Signs should be designed, constructed and placed so that they aze compatible with the natural quality of the shoreline environment and adjacent land and water uses. - Page 9-30 Amended 2009 Environment Objective 23.10 Transportation. Policies: EN-172 Plan, locate, design and where appropriate construct, proposed roads, non-motorized systems and pazking facilities where routes will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features, will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned watei-dependent uses. Where other options are available and feasible, new roads or road expansions should not be built within shoreline jurisdiction. EN-173 The number of river crossings should be minimized. EN-174 Parking facilities in shorelines are not preferred and shall be allowed only as necessary to support an authorized use and then as remote from the shoreline as possible. EN-175 Trail and bicycle systems should be encouraged along the White and Green Rivers wherever possible. EN-176 Joint use of transportation corridors within the shoreline jurisdiction for roads, utilities, and non-motorized transportation should be encouraged. EN-177 New railroad corridors should be prohibited. Objective 23.11 Utilities. Policies: EN-178 Utility facilities should be designed and located to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, preserve the natural landscape and vistas, preserve and protect fish and wildlife habitat, and minimize conflicts with present and planned land and shoreline uses. EN-179 Primary utility production and processing facilities, such as power plants, sewage treahnent plants, water reclamation plants, Page 9-31 Amended 2009 r Environment or parts of those facilities that are non-water-oriented should not be allowed in shoreline areas. EN-180 Utilities should utilize existing transportation and utilities sites, rights-of-way and corridors, whenever possible. Joint use of rights-of-way and corridors should be encouraged. EN-181 Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines, cables, and pipelines, shall be located outside of the shoreline azea where feasible. Where no other option exists, utilities should be placed underground or alongside or under bridges. EN-182 New utilities facilities should be located so as not to require extensive shoreline protection structures. EN-183 Where storm water management, conveyance, and dischazge facilities are pernutted in the shoreline, they should be limited to the minimum size needed to accomplish their purpose and should be sited and designed in a manner that avoids, or mitigates adverse effects to the physical, hydrologic, or ecological functions. EN-184 Stormwater conveyance facilities should utilize existing transportation and utility sites, rights-of-.way and corridors, . whenever possible. Joint use of right-of-way and corridors should be encouraged. Page 9-32 Amended 2009