HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-07-2019 Agenda (2)Planning Commission Meeting
May 7, 2019 - 7:00 PM
City Hall
AGENDA
I.CALL TO ORDER
A.ROLL CALL/ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
B.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II.Approval of Minutes
A.April 2, 2019 Draft Minutes from the Planning Commission Regular
Meeting.
III.OTHER BUSINESS
A.Shoreline Master Program and Critical Areas Ordinance Updates .
Discuss with the Commission the status of the SMP update and present information
on associated updates to the City's critical area regulations.
Presentation by Rick Mraz from Dept. of Ecology
Staff to introduce Rick Mraz, who is a Professional Wetland Scientist with
the Dept. of Ecology's shorelands office. Rick will provide a Power Point
presentation on wetlands and their buffers followed by questions and
answers with the Commission.
V.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
Update on Community Development Services activities.
VI.ADJOURNMENT
The City of Auburn Planning Commission is a seven member advisory body that provides
recommendations to the Auburn City Council on the preparation of and amendments to land
use plans and related codes such as zoning. Planning Commissioners are appointed by the
Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
Actions taken by the Planning Commission, other than approvals or amendments to the
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, are not final decisions; they are in the form of
recommendations to the city council which must ultimately make the final decision.
Page 1 of 30
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
April 2, 2019 Draft Minutes from the Planning Commission
Regular Meeting.
Date:
April 25, 2019
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Draft Minutes April 2, 2019
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Planning Commission review and approve the April 2, 2019 regular meeting minutes.
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Dixon
Meeting Date:May 7, 2019 Item Number:
Page 2 of 30
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 2, 2019
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA.
a.) ROLL CALL/ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Planning Commission Members present were: Chair Judi Roland, Commissioner
Mason, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioner Stephens, Commissioner Shin, and.
Commissioner Moutzouris was excused.
Staff present included: Assistant City Attorney Doug Ruth, Planning Services
Manager Jeff Dixon, Planner II Alexandria Teague, Planner Jeremy Hammar,
Administrative Assistant Tina Kriss, and Office Assistant Jennifer Oliver.
Members of the public present: Sean Douglas representing PSERN, Ross Rembac
representing Motorola, Jeff Watson, Commander Jamie Douglas Auburn Police
Department, Rick Cardoza representing LDC Inc, Robin Mulenga.
b.) PLEDGE OF ALLEGENCE
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. March 5, 2019
Administrative Assistant Tina Kriss informed the Commission an acronym within the
minutes has been updated. Referring to Page 2, paragraph 2 of the minutes, Public
Safety Emergency Radio Network PSERN has been updated to read Puget Sound
Emergency Radio Network PSERN.
Commissioner Stephens moved and Commissioner Khanal seconded to approve
the minutes from the March 5, 2019 meeting as corrected.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A. PSERN – Emergency Wireless Communication Facility Code Amendment
(ZOA18-0001)
Chair Roland opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 PM on PSERN.
Commissioner Khanal asked that he be recused from agenda Item III A. as his
employer does work for Verizon.
Page 3 of 30
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2019
Page 2
Planner II Teague presented the staff report for the code amendment for PSERN –
Emergency Wireless Communication Facility ( ZOA18-0001), providing the
background and proposal and an overview of the discussion held at the March 5,
2019 Planning Commission Meeting.
Staff reviewed the changes to the three zoning code chapters:
• Chapter 18.04 (Definitions),
• Chapter 18.31 (Supplemental Development Standards), and
• Chapter 18.35 (Special Purpose Zones)
Based on the findings contained in the staff report, staff recommends the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the Amendments as proposed in Attachment
Exhibit A to the City Council.
Chair Roland invited members of the public to come forward for public testimony
either for or against PSERN.
Rick Cardoza, LDC, 24328 SE 440th St E Enumclaw, WA
Mr. Cardoza is a consultant representing PSERN. Mr. Cardoza offered he was
happy to assist the public and Commission with any questions at any time. He
provided a handout of a communication signal coverage map showing holes before
tower installation. The map also showed the same area after tower installation to
show the difference in coverage and how those gaps would be filled in by the facility.
A key aspect of the facility is that the system enhances first responder’s
communications to each other as well as improvement for the 911 system. Details
were provided on the tower pieces and types, how they operate and why the
antennas require installation at a great height.
Commander Jamie Douglas 348 East Main St Auburn, WA
Commander Douglas explained he is with the Auburn Police Department and a
member of the PSERN Board. He explained the code amendment to allow the facility
will improve communication between different counties and will allow officers to
communicate if an incident crosses over into multiple counties. PSERN could service
20,000 Police, Fire and other types of first responder’s. Commander Douglas
stressed the importance of updating the network but also the need for it to be used
by other jurisdictions such as the City of Auburn Public Works Department.
Commander Douglas reminded the Commission and the public that he is available
for any questions at any time.
Again, Chair Roland invited members of the public to come forward for public
testimony. After a third request, and without response, Chair Roland closed the
Public Hearing at 7:30 P.M. on PSERN and the Commission deliberated.
The Commission asked if staff could give a brief summary or highlights of the
written comments received from the public. Alexandria Teague, City of Auburn
Planner II showed a map of an adjacent property owner who commented. Mr.
Wooding in written comments concluded that there appears to be no direct impact on
his property. Jeff Watson, Planner representing the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, also
Page 4 of 30
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2019
Page 3
sent correspondence regarding the process, and the combined SEPA and DNS
issued by the City. Mr. Watson had general comments about the overall project and
inquired on the processed being followed. Staff appreciated Mr. Watson’s
suggestions how the Planning Department could possibly improve the SEPA
Processing.
The Commission asked for clarification on how many other PSERN towers have co-
location antennas established currently. In answering, Mr. Rick Cardoza provided
feedback on a nearby tower that contains co-location established one being a mile
away. Mr. Cardoza mentioned that other carriers may want to look at the new tower
to carry antennas, but believed that most major carriers are already on this nearby
existing tower under a master lease agreement so co-location on the new tower is
unlikely.
Chair Roland stated that one of the Commission’s concerns was from the last couple
of months was that the Commission wanted to ensure that the 911 communication
needs were not interrupted as a result of co-location on the towers. Commander
Douglas confirmed that it would not interrupt the 911-communication system.
The Commission asked of the 57 other PSERN sites, how many other had
co – location by other communication providers. Commander Douglas responded
with the specific number.
Vice Chair Lee moved and Commissioner Stephens seconded to move to City
Council for review and approval the proposed code amendment consisting of
changes to the following three sections:
PSERN – Emergency Wireless Communication Facility (ZOA18-0001)
• Chapter 18.04 (Definitions),
• Chapter 18.31 (Supplemental Development Standards), and
• Chapter 18.35 (Special Purpose Zones)
MOTION CARRIED 4-0
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Discuss joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council proposed
for the regular City Council Study Session meeting May 13th.
Planning Services Manager Dixon re-affirmed the joint Study Session meeting
proposed for May 13, 2019 at 5:30 P.M. between the Planning Commission and City
Council Members.
He indicated that the topic was introduced at the Planning Commission meeting last
month. He requested confirmation of members that would be able to attend and
asked for any topics that the Commission would like to discuss at the meeting that
would be of mutual interest. Council Member Bagget and Council Member DaCorsi
would lead the discussion. Planning Services Manager Dixon spoke about the
Page 5 of 30
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2019
Page 4
informality of the Study Session meeting stating that the joint meeting would be early
on the agenda.
Commissioner Stephens confirmed he would not be able to attend due to an out of
town commitment.
Staff suggested subjects that are the purview of the Commission such as
development code changes and Comprehensive Plan updates could be a great topic
of discussion as well as sharing perspectives on the vision of future Auburn.
The Commission asked what is the ultimate goal of this meeting? Planning Services
Manager Dixon responded it was really a check in and sharing of information and a
great way to start a dialogue by each body on the future of Auburn.
Vice Chair Lee suggested that traffic be a key discussion and the parking , or lack
there-of, in the downtown core. The Commission agreed that traffic is a key topic.
The Commission asked about the rubber traffic count tubes that are strung across
roads around Auburn to count cars. Staff confirmed that the tubes may have been
placed either by the city to periodically count traffic volumes or by private contractors
in preparation of a traffic study and then the results are submitted back to the City.
The Commission remarked that it has observed more residential apartments being
built downtown and wanted to know more about that. Staff confirmed that more
residential apartments are being built in the downtown area. Staff reminded the
Commission that more multiple family residences is encouraged by the Downtown
Plan that the city developed and adopted a few years ago. Building new mixed-use
projects is consistent with the concept of transit-oriented development to encourage
more residences to utilize those services. The Commission asked what type of
apartments are proposed by the two new projects downtown and staff confirmed that
one project is senior and the other is not. The Commission asked about the exact
locations of the projects and if the projects included commercial spaces. Staff
confirmed that with more residences there will be more demand for businesses.
Chair Roland was hopeful and curious if the City was planning to bring in more
businesses downtown and Staff confirmed that the new buildings in downtown had
commercial space to support businesses.
The Commission suggested that Doug Lein, the city’s Economic Development
Manager come in and present to the Planning Commission on updates and initiatives
his staff is working on for business growth. They would like for him to attend a
meeting sooner rather than later as the commission is being asked often regarding
the business growth in the downtown corridor.
Topics have been noted and will be passed onto Council for the joint meeting
discussion
An email will be sent to Commissioner Moutzuori to confirm if he can make the
meeting.
Page 6 of 30
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2019
Page 5
IV. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
A Memorandum was presented to the Planning Commission from Senior Planner
Thaniel Gouk regarding the Shoreline Master Program – Periodic Update Status and
Schedule. Beginning in July of 2018 the Planning Commission began discussion on a
State-mandated periodic update to the City’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP). At that
time, Staff presented the Planning Commission with a schedule showing the completion
of this update by June 30, 2019. The City received a grant from the WA Dept. of Ecology
to complete these updates. A consultant did identify mostly minor changes that will need
to be changed to the SMP. However, updates are also needed for the City’s Critical
Areas Ordinance (CAO) that are also needed. The CAO is referenced within the SMP.
Based on these CAO changes that were not anticipated, Staff reached out to the WA
Dept. of Ecology for guidance on how the City should proceed given the target date of
completion is June 30, 2019. It was recommended to the City proceed with making
changes to the CAO even if that means pushing the target date out beyond the deadline.
Staff is currently working on drafting these updates and will work on presenting them to
the Commission in the coming months.
The Planning Commission asked what their role would be and staff responded that there
would likely be changes to City Codes, including the Critical Areas Regulations, to
address changes in wetland classifications, delineation methodology, etc. Staff
explained that the changes are not inconsistent with recommendations to other
jurisdictions. Chair Roland asked for a recap of the history once the times comes.
The Commission verified that the May 7, 2019 Planning Commission is still scheduled in
addition to the proposed joint meeting at the City Council Study Session meeting on May
13.
Staff presented Development Activity on the horizon in Auburn. Auburn Town Center,
Auburn Legacy Senior Housing, Tru by Hilton, Fieldhouse USA, Wyndam Hotel, ARCO
AM/PM, Auburn School District major school improvements, downtown façade
improvement grant projects as well as an update on the Heritage Building that was
affected by a fire.
V. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair Roland
adjourned the meeting at 8:35 P.M.
Page 7 of 30
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Shoreline Master Program and Critical Areas Ordinance
Updates
Date:
April 29, 2019
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Memorandum
Power Point Pres entation Notes
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For Discussion and Presentation
Background Summary:
Please see the attached Memorandum
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Dixon
Meeting Date:May 7, 2019 Item Number:
Page 8 of 30
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Roger Lee, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
FROM: Thaniel Gouk, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development
DATE: April 24, 2019
RE: Shoreline Master Program Periodic Update – Status and schedule
As you recall, at last month’s meeting, staff provided a memo dated April 2, 2019 saying that based on
additional study, provisions of the City’s critical areas regulations related to streams, wetlands, and aquifer
protection areas also warrant changes simultaneously with the SMP update and that the WA State Dept. of
Ecology would allow the SMP update work to extend beyond the previously communicated June 30th
completion date.
In follow up to the April 2, 2019 memo, staff has prepared some information to advance the discussion on the
State-mandated periodic update to the City’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The additional information
contained in this memo includes:
An updated schedule for Planning Commission (PC) review
Initial chapters of the SMP with proposed text changes showing
The scope of changes to the critical area regulations (ACC 16.10)
SCHEDULE UPDATE
Per the April 2nd memo to the PC, the due date for the SMP update will extend past the original June 30th
deadline to ensure the City can properly review and include the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). Staff is
proposing the following schedule for the PC:
May 7th – (this meeting) review Chapters 1-3 of the SMP, discuss wetland and stream buffers, and a
presentation from Rick Mraz (WA State Dept. of Ecology) on wetland buffers.
June 4th – PC review Chapters 4-6 of the SMP, review first portion of the CAO.
July 2nd (date may change due to the 4th of July) – review remaining SMP documents (e.g. maps,
etc.), review second portion of the CAO.
August 6th – PC public hearing for SMP and CAO.
A public open house may also be held at some time prior to August.
Page 9 of 30
SMP UPDATE: CHAPTERS 1-3
Attached (in strikeout- and underline format) as Exhibit 1 to this memo are Chapters 1 through 3 of the SMP.
Chapter 1 contains the Definitions section. There are no major changes to this section. The few definitions that
are modified include explanatory comments next to them. Chapter 2 contains the Goals and Elements of the
SMP and Chapter 3 contains the Shoreline Environment Designations (These are like the zoning districts of the
SMP). There are no changes to these sections.
CRITICAL AREAS CODE UPDATES
In short, the main subject areas of the critical area code changes include:
Critical areas code update (associated with Shoreline Management Program update)
o Streams/rivers
Classification system
Buffer standards
o Wetlands
delineation methodology
Buffer standards
o Aquifer Recharge/Well head protection
Address protection of private well sites
Since a common element of changes to both the critical areas of streams and wetland is buffers , some further
description of this term is appropriate.
“Buffer or buffer area” means a naturally vegetated, undisturbed, enhanced or revegetated zone
surrounding a critical area that protects the critical area from adverse impacts to its integrity and
value, and is an integral part of the resource’s ecosystem.
Buffers protect critical areas by providing a natural area between development and the particular critical area.
Buffers apply to not only streams and wetlands but may apply to other environmentally sensitive areas such as
steep slopes. Buffers are one of the most common elements of critical areas ordinances (CAO), and they are
consistently the part of a CAO of most interest and concern to the public.
Under the state Growth Management Act (GMA), local government s are required to use the best available
science in their policies and regulations (RCW 36.70A.172). To assist local jurisdictions with this requirement
and avoid the expense, the Dept. of Ecology (DOE) has developed guidance on the science currently available.
They requested the City to review and revise the CAO to take into consideration this current BAS. Most local
jurisdictions have already implemented these changes.
Page 10 of 30
Streams.
For streams, the buffers would be updated as well as the methodology for classifying them, consistent with
the “Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practices water typing system”. This
classification methodology is used by most jurisdictions so that a consistent approach can be used for review
by various agencies. The current and DOE recommended stream buffers are as follows:
Existing Stream Buffers Proposed Buffer Ranges (per current BAS)
Stream Class Buffer Width Stream Type (per WAC 222-16-030) Buffer Width
Class 1 (Green and White rivers)* 100-200’ Type S* 115-200’
Class 2 (fish bearing) 75’ Type F 100-165’
Class 3 (non-fish bearing) 25’ Type Np 50-65’
Class 4 (swales and small channels) 25’ Type Ns 50-65’
*Subject to the SMP
The buffers range in width depending on the target functions and buffer conditions . For example, fish bearing
stream buffers should be a minimum of 100 feet in width, although buffer averaging may be allowed to reduce
these buffers to as low as 75 feet.
Wetlands.
A wetland delineation establishes the existence (location) and physical limits (size) of a wetland for purposes
of federal, state, and local regulations. The city’s code requires changes to reflect the latest wetland
delineation methodology to remain consistent with what is required by the State (WAC 173-22-035). So staff
proposes a code change to reference the methodology that is used in the field to identify and locate the
wetland.
Also proposed is a change to the wetland rating system that is used to determine the appropriate wetland
buffer width. While the numeric classification range of 1 through 4 used by the City will remain, there will be
greater number of subcategories within each of these classifications to prescribe the appropriate buffer width
needed for wetland protection. The subcategories will be distinguished by a point scoring based on
cumulative point values for water quality, hydrologic function, and habitat functions. The current CAO refers
to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington (Dept. of Ecology, 2004). The
current BAS-based wetland rating system is the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington (Hruby, 2014).
In July 2018, Ecology again updated its guidance for wetland buffers based on continued evaluation of
wetlands that ultimately resulted in additional options for wetland buffers. The updated guidance provides
alternatives to buffer tables based solely on wetland category to provide a balance of predictability and
flexibility while being easy to use and protecting wetland functions and values. There would also be options
for buffer reductions based on a list of impact-minimization measures that could be utilized.
The following table shows the existing and proposed wetland buffer widths.
Existing Wetland Buffers Proposed per 2018 Dept. of Ecology Guidance
Category Min. Max.
Without Minimization Measures With Minimization Measures
Habitat Score Habitat Score
High Moderate Low High Moderate Low
1 100’ 200’ 300’ 150’ 100’ 225’ 110’ 75’
Page 11 of 30
2 50’ 100’ 300’ 150’ 100’ 225’ 110’ 75’
3 25’ 50’ 300’ 150’ 80’ 225’ 110’ 60’
4 25’ 30’ 50’ 40’
The following table shows the wetland buffer impact minimization measures, per Ecology’s most recent
guidance.
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights - Direct lights away from wetland.
Noise - Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland.
- If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to
noise source.
- For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as
certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10’ heavily vegetated buffer
strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer.
Toxic runoff - Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not
dewatered.
- Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 ft. of wetland.
- Apply integrated pest management.
Stormwater runoff - Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent
development.
- Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer.
- Use Low Intensity Development techniques (for more information refer to the
drainage ordinance and manual).
Change in water regime - Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious
surfaces and new lawns.
Pets and humans - Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to
discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion.
- Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation
easement.
Dust - Use best management practices to control dust
The scope of critical area code changes affecting wetland will become more clear after the presentation by
Rick Mraz, Professional Wetland Scientist, Dept. of Ecology.
Aquifer Recharge/Well head protection .
This topic will be explained at a future planning Commission meeting.
NEXT STEPS
At the June 4th PC meeting Staff will present the proposed changes to Chapters 4-6 of the SMP and the first
portion of the proposed changes to the CAO. Chapter 4 is the main body of the SMP containing policies and
will contain the more substantive topics.
Page 12 of 30
4/25/2019
1
Critical Areas Ordinance Workshop – City of Auburn
Rick Mraz, PWS
Wetlands and Shoreline Specialist
1
Goals of this presentation:
Wetlands: what are they, why do we care?
Overview of wetland functions, how they’re determined, and
how to protect them
Ecology guidance documents: what are they, when to use
them
2
Wetlands: What are they and why
are we here?
3
Page 13 of 30
4/25/2019
2
GMA Requirements – RCW 36.70A
All counties and cities are required to designate
and protect critical areas functions and values by
the Growth Management Act
4
SMA Requirements – RCW 90.58
(3) The legislature intends that critical areas within
the jurisdiction of the shoreline management act
shall be governed by the shoreline management
act…
5
RCW 36.70A.030
Definitions.
(5) "Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems: (a)
Wetlands;…
Fish & wildlife conservation areas (rivers, lakes, saltwater, etc.),
geologic hazards, aquifer recharge areas and frequently flooded
areas are also critical areas.
6
Page 14 of 30
4/25/2019
3
RCW 36.70A.030
Definitions.
(21) “Wetland” or “wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not
include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites,
including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined
swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds,
and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that
were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or
highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created
from non-wetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands.
7
In Other Words:
Wetlands are areas that are wet enough for a long enough period of time that
the soils become anaerobic (low oxygen), and only plants that can handle the
wetness and lack of oxygen can grow there.
8
RCW 36.70A.060
Natural resource lands and critical areas—Development regulations.
(2) Each county and city shall adopt development regulations that
protect critical areas that are required to be designated under RCW
36.70A.170.
9
Page 15 of 30
4/25/2019
4
RCW 36.70A.172
Critical areas—Designation and protection—Best available science to
be used.
(1) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter,
counties and cities shall include the best available science in
developing policies and development regulations to protect the
functions and values of critical areas
10
No Net Loss
WAC 365-196-830 (GMA) Protection of critical areas.
(4) ... Development regulations may not allow a net loss of the functions and
values of the ecosystem that includes the impacted or lost critical areas.
WAC 173-26-201 (SMA)
Master programs shall contain policies and regulations that assure, at
minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline
natural resources.
11
Wetlands: How to know one12
Page 16 of 30
4/25/2019
5
Current Delineation Manual
WAC 173-22-035 (Ecology rule)
Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries pursuant to this
chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland
delineation manual and applicable regional supplements.
13
Overview of Wetland Functions14
Store water during flood events and
recharge groundwater during low flows
15
Page 17 of 30
4/25/2019
6
Remove pollutants (sediments,
nutrients, toxics)
16
Provide habitat for a large number of plants
and animals
17
Wetlands exist in a landscape context
Position in the watershed
Connection to other surface waters
Connection to other habitats
18
Page 18 of 30
4/25/2019
7
Wetland values:
The importance humans place on them
For some jurisdictions, flood storage may be really important
For others, it’s all about water quality improvement
Some jurisdictions place high value on livability (green space,
wildlife viewing)
19
How do we
know what
functions
are
present?
20
So how are wetland functions
impacted?
Direct
Filling
Draining
Clearing
Indirect
Surface runoff
Noise
Light
Intrusion
Disconnecting from other habitats
21
Page 19 of 30
4/25/2019
8
How do we protect these functions?
Landowner incentives
Public restoration
Regulation/permitting
22
How much protection is enough?
There is no bright line
Science provides a range
How much risk is a jurisdiction willing to accept
The greater the reliance on site-specific regulations, the
more stringent the regulations need to be to overcome the
risk of wetland impacts.
23
A Brief History of Everything:
10+ years of Ecology’s wetland guidance
BAS Documents
24
Page 20 of 30
4/25/2019
9
25
26
Ecology’s
most current
wetland
guidance
27
Page 21 of 30
4/25/2019
10
Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
Things to take note of:
Buffer tables
Mitigation language
Stormwater/LID language
Small wetland exemption language
Ag language
28
Buffers 101
Scientific literature is clear that buffers are critical to
maintaining wetlands and their functions
Width is only one of several factors that affect buffer
effectiveness
Width depends on what function you’re protecting
Water quality 10-50 feet
Wildlife habitat 100-1200 feet
29
Buffers
necessary
to protect
different
functions
Courtesy of Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
30
Page 22 of 30
4/25/2019
11
Ecology’s buffer approach
Ecology’s guidance is a moderate-risk approach
Consider the cumulative effects of:
Exemptions
Exceptions
Averaging
Reduction
The bottom line: What buffer do you end up with and is it
wide enough to protect the function present? Does it
present a high risk that wetland functions will be
degraded?
31
Buffers need to be well-vegetated with
a native plant community
Not this
32
Why the different buffer strategies?
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 from Appendix 8-C
1: Category only
2: Category and adjacent land
use
3: Category and adjacent land
use and habitat score FlexibilityPredictability
33
Page 23 of 30
4/25/2019
12
Land Use Intensity
34
Example: Wetland Buffer Options
Category II
Moderate habitat function (habitat score of 6)
Adjacent land use is single-family residential
Alternative 1
300 feet
Alternative 2
225 feet
Alternative 3
110 feet
35
How can I reduce a buffer?
Reduction
Reduce the intensity of the impact (buffer doesn’t have to “work” as hard)
Averaging
Increase the width of the buffer in one area and decrease it in another
To improve wetland function
To allow reasonable use
36
Page 24 of 30
4/25/2019
13
Reducing Buffers
Alternative 3 buffers can be reduced by 25% if the
applicant:
Implements measures to minimize the impacts from adjacent land use
AND, if the wetland scores 6 or more habitat points
Provides an undisturbed vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide
between the wetland and another priority habitat
37
Table of
measures to
minimize the
impacts from
adjacent
land use
(Appendix 8C and Table
XX.2 in Wetland
Guidance)
38
Buffer Tables in Wetland Guidance Update
Use updated rating scores and category descriptions from
2014 rating system update
Re-emphasize the importance of a corridor in protecting
habitat function when the wetland scores 6 or more
habitat points
39
Page 25 of 30
4/25/2019
14
Buffers in Wetland Guidance Update
Table XX.1 has a built-in 25% reduction because both the
corridor and Table XX.2 (minimizing measures) are
required. Assumes land-use intensity is high.
Table XX.3 shows the “full-strength” buffers to be used if
the minimizing measures aren’t used OR if a corridor is
available but not protected
You can still use Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 from Volume 2
Appendix 8-C
40
Table XX.1 (built-in reduction)
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category 3-4 5 6-7 8-9
Category I: Based on
total score 75 105 165 225
Category I: Bogs and
Wetlands of High
Conservation Value
190 225
Category I: Coastal
Lagoons 150 165 225
Category I: Interdunal 225
Category I: Forested 75 105 165 225
Category I: Estuarine 150
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II: Based on
score 75 105 165 225
Category II: Interdunal
Wetlands 110 165 225
Category II: Estuarine 110
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category III (all) 60 105 165 225
Category IV (all) 40
Auburn Wetland Buffer table
41
Table XX.3 (full-strength)
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category 3-4 5 6-7 8-9
Category I: Based on
total score 100 140 220 300
Category I: Bogs and
Wetlands of High
Conservation Value
250 300
Category I: Coastal
Lagoons 200 220 300
Category I: Interdunal 300
Category I: Forested 100 140 220 300
Category I: Estuarine 200
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II: Based on
score 100 140 220 300
Category II: Interdunal
Wetlands 150 220 300
Category II: Estuarine 150
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category III (all) 80 140 220 300
Category IV (all)50
Auburn Wetland Buffer table42
Page 26 of 30
4/25/2019
15
Mitigation
43
Mitigation Sequencing
RCW 43-21C Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
Avoiding
Minimizing
Rectifying
Reducing
Compensating
Monitoring
44
Auburn mitigation tableEcology Guidance
Mitigation section45
Page 27 of 30
4/25/2019
16
Mitigation section
Reorganizes text for clarity and consistency with state and
federal guidance
References new mitigation guidance documents
Includes recommended language for mitigation banks
and in-lieu fee programs
46
Wetland Guidance Update
Stormwater/LID Language for Wetlands
Municipal stormwater permits require local governments to
make LID the preferred and commonly used approach
New recommended language to connect the dots
between the stormwater manual and the CAO
Criteria for allowing a wetland or buffer to be physically or
hydrologically altered to meet LID requirements
47
Wetland Guidance Update
Small wetland exemption language
Exempts certain Category IV wetlands from avoidance but
NOT from the need to mitigate for impacts (e.g., banks or
ILF program)
Exempts wetlands less than 1,000 square feet in area from
buffer requirements if they meet these same criteria
48
Page 28 of 30
4/25/2019
17
Thank you!
49
Mitigation Guidance50
More Mitigation Guidance51
Page 29 of 30
4/25/2019
18
Watershed Characterization
52
BAS Update53
Page 30 of 30