HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-04-2019 AgendaPlanning Commission Meeting
J une 4, 2019 - 7:00 P M
A GE NDA
I .C AL L T O O RD E R
A .RO L L C AL L/E S TAB L I S HM E NT O F Q UO RUM
B .P L E D G E O F AL L E G I ANC E
I I .P UB L I C HE ARI NG S
I I I .AP P RO VAL O F M INUT E S
A .May 7, 2019 Draft Minutes from the Planning Commission Regular Meeting
I V.O T HE R B US I NE S S
A .P roposed Zoning Code Amendment Application for Inland Constuction
P roposed changes to three sections of the zoning code; the chapter dealing with the
P lanned A ction (A C C 18.08)—this is provision that deals with the S E PA processing,
the development standards of the C-4, Mixed Use Commercial zoning district (A C C
18.23), and the chapter on performance standards associated with mixed use
development (A C C 18.57).
B .S horeline M aster Program and Critical Areas Ordinance Updates
Review proposed amendments to the S MP and City's critical area regulations.
V.C O M M UNIT Y D E V E L O P M E NT RE P O RT
Update on Community Development Services activities.
V I .AD J O URNM E NT
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 101
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
May 7, 2019 Draft Minutes from the Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Date:
May 22, 2019
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
May 7, 2019 Draft minutes from the Planning
Commis s ion Regular Meeting
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Planning Commission review and approve the May 7, 2019 regular meeting minutes.
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Dixon
Meeting Date:June 4, 2019 Item Number:
Page 2 of 101
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 7 , 2019
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 7:01 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 Moutzouris,
Commissioner Khanal, Commissioner Stephens was excused.
Staff present included: Planning Services Manager Jeff Dixon, Senior
Planner Thaniel Gouk, Senior Planner Dustin Lawrence and Community
Development Administrative Assistant Jennifer Oliver.
Members of the public present: John Fisher with Inland Construction, Scott
Morris with Inland Construction, Rick Mraz with WA State Dept. of Ecology,
Neil McLited with WA State Dept. of Ecology.
b.) PLEDGE OF ALLEGENCE
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. April 2, 2019
Administrative Assistant Jennifer Oliver informed the Commission that
In the April 2, 2019 minutes Under “Roll Call/Establishment of Quorum” it
stated that Commissioner Shin was present, when in fact he had resigned.
Commissioner Khanal was also added to the Roll Call. The minutes have
been adjusted accordingly.
Commissioner Khanal moved and Commissioner Lee seconded to approve
the minutes from the April 2, 2019 meeting as corrected.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0
III. PUBLIC HEARING
No items brought forward
Page 3 of 101
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2019
Page 2
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Inland Construction Introduction and Presentation
Inland Construction to inform Planning Commission of potential acquisition of
RPG property.
Planning Services Manager, Jeff Dixon provided background information that
would be useful for the Commission. Inland Construction is interested in
acquiring the Robertson Properties Group (RPG) property holdings, which is the
former Valley Six Drive-In site and a few adjacent parcels. The total site is
approximately 70 acres. The City has been looking forward to development of
this particular property for some time. A development agreement was approved
by Council in 2011. The agreement allowed flexibility for the developer as well as
some relief of City standards in exchange for the City to get higher quality
development. Discussions are in the early stages with Inland Construction. City
Staff has met with Inland on several occasions for multiple hours to discuss the
development, the vision and working towards additional approvals needed.
Zoning Code changes could come before the Planning Commission over the next
several meetings. Because of future actions, it was important for the Planning
Commission to meet and hear from Inland Construction. Staff showed the
Commission 2 maps and explained that complicating the development proposal
for the site is a future floodplain map change by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). The Commission asked staff to point out exactly
where the old theater was on the map to better understand the layout of the site.
Chair Roland asked if the name would continue to be “Auburn Gateway”. Staff
replied that has been the name used by RPG, so it has continued in use, it also
could be subject to change.
Staff noted that some of the approvals will require consideration and action on a
recommendation by the Planning Commission. So far staff has identified that
project changes will necessitate changes to three sections of the zoning code;
the chapter dealing with the Planned Action (ACC 18.08)—this is provision that
deals with the SEPA processing, the development standards of the C-4, Mixed
Use Commercial zoning district (ACC 18.23), and the chapter on performance
standards associated with mixed use development (ACC 18.57).
Scott Morris from Inland Construction gave a brief description of the company
Inland Construction and its types of developments. The company is from
Spokane. Inland has properties it has developed throughout the Western United
States and half of their properties are in Washington. Many of those properties
are along the I-5 Corridor. Mr. Morris indicated they will be long-term owners of
the property and are excited for the opportunity to work with the City of Auburn.
The site is the subject of a development agreement from 2011, it was discovered
that particular agreement from 2011 was meant to expedite development but has
not had that result. Inland is hoping to expedite the development process.
Page 4 of 101
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2019
Page 3
John Fisher from Inland Construction indicated that they have been working with
staff for several months and put together a good vision for the project: same
commercial and residential land use space but with horizontal mixed use.
Healthy life style is a focus and vision. The residential component will be to the
south, and commercial to north. This will be connected through the “heart” which
is a gathering open space area for the community. Their focus is amenity rich
living, which consist of trails, pools, garden space (See the Inland presentation)
Create activity space that will draw people to come to Auburn. Inland’s goal for
Commercial space would consist of community-based businesses such as
Gosankos, a brewery, and local businesses. There is also a summer outdoor
theater event space that consist of a grassy area that could hold summer
concerts, outdoor movies, food trucks and so on. It is a goal to create a
destination for businesses to thrive once they are there.
Residences: Copper Gate is the residential space for the Auburn Gateway
project. Larger apartments with 3 and 4 bedroom options is a priority. CPTED
Designs and landscape as well as interior and exterior energy efficient and
environmentally friendly residences. May have a place for animals such as an off
leash park integrated into the space based on feedback from Council. Feedback
from the Planning Commission as well as staff on any ideas for the new area is
also welcomed.
In order to achieve all of the ideas and plans, Inland Construction is asking for
some changes to the development agreement and text changes to the zoning
code. They are not trying to change the intent of the project, just want to make
minor changes and add more flexibility for both vertical and horizontal
configuration as a way to achieve what can be executed.
The Commission asked who would build the retail space that would be available
at the site. Inland stated that they have not actively marketed the retail portion yet
as it is still a little premature but they would build the residences and could
possibly build the commercial space, as they are also a general contractor.
However, there was not a decision on that at this time. It would depend on the
commercial companies coming in and what they are seeking. As the owner, they
are heavily involved with the asset management and the management in general
of their communities.
Chair Roland asked if a business were to come in can, they buy that part of the
property and Inland confirmed that they could.
Commissioner Khanal questioned if any of the housing being built will be
affordable housing. Inland confirmed yes, the project is receiving financial
incentives based on it being affordable housing.
Page 5 of 101
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2019
Page 4
The Commission also asked about the timeline and Inland stated the first part of
December 2019 the goal was to take over and purchase the site. Spring 2020 will
be full construction. First building turn over would be fall of 2020
Commissioner Mason stated that she feared local business’s would vacate or be
drawn away from the downtown core by this new Gateway site. Inland stated that
they also had concerns about that as well. They reassured that the downtown
Auburn area is attracting new development and working really well. Inland does
not want to take away businesses and the vitality of the downtown core. They
would like to see a horizontal component added to this new site to give a new
look and feel.
The Commission asked what is the comparison to the original footprint in the
RPG plan to Inland’s plan and how does this relate to the amount of resulting
traffic. Does it match or is it less or more, possibly the same? Mr. Fisher replied
that the development proposal is for less development overall. 500 dwelling units
allowable was previously studied. The amount of future retail space is depending
on the FEMA floodplain zone, 90,000 to 200,000 square feet of retail depending
on full build out is estimated. Traffic impact analysis is showing roughly a fifth of
the original anticipated full build out when it comes to peak PM traffic counts.
Vice Chair Lee asked would that change the infrastructure work that was planned
for the site in the RPG proposal compared to what Inland is proposing in terms of
the local area. Mr. Fisher replied that Inland understands the City’s desire for
improvements for the 49th Street and the I street NE connection. Completing
these is anticipating as part of our development. In areas outside of the focus of
development, downstream patterns were not impacted as much as the original
plan. The discussion of off-site improvements such as traffic signals and where
they are installed is something they are working on with the City staff, currently.
The Commission asked if there has been any discussion or meetings with the
Auburn School District. Mr. Fisher stated that planning and efforts to start
outreach will begin for those discussions with the district.
Commissioner Khanal inquired while building the infrastructure; will there be
energy efficient lights, off-site and on-site? Inland responded that yes, there are
illumination requirements for off-site and how the lights do not impact neighbors.
There will be energy efficient lights installed off-site and on-site.
Chair Roland stated that there is a tight time frame to be able to close on the
property in order for decision made by Council and Planning Commission. Inland
stated they are working with City Staff on scheduling meetings with Planning
Commission and Council next month.
Mr. Scott spoke on the state bond allocation that has to be used this year. If it not
used, it goes away. Large allocation for this project, which is causing the steps to
Page 6 of 101
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2019
Page 5
go at a quick pace. June 21st is City Council meeting for final decision on the
project. If final decision is met by Council that week, permit applications will be
submitted that same week.
The Commission stated they know the community has been waiting a long time
for redevelopment of the site. Chair Roland thanked them for coming in and
looked forward to meeting with them in the coming months.
B. 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 regulation.
Senior Planner, Thaniel Gouk explained the handouts that were provided at the
meeting for the Commission and their relationship to the Shoreline Master
Program Periodic Update. He said the commission knows that the first draft of
SMP was sent to WA State Dept. of Ecology (DOE) for initial review. In response,
DOE needed to look at our Critical Areas Ordinance, which is part of the SMP
adopted in 2009 and is now out of date. As a result, the City has had to also
consider changes its critical areas code. Both, the SMP and critical areas code
will go to DOE for the final approval prior to adoption. Without changes to the
critical areas code, there is greater likelihood it can be appealed. The due date
for the SMP update will now extend past the original June 30th deadline to endure
that staff can properly review and include the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance (
CAO). In the distributed memo, staff proposed a schedule for the Planning
Commission that would consist of review of chapters 1-2 of the SMP, discuss
wetland and stream buffers, and a presentation from Mr. Rick Mraz from the
Washington State Dept. of Ecology on wetland buffers.
The Planning Commission meetings in June, July, and August will include review
of Chapters in the SMP, review remaining SMP documents, and review the first
and second portion of the critical areas code. Staff also noted that a Public
Hearing for SMP and critical areas code will be held in August and possibly a
public open house prior to August.
Senior Planner Gouk explained the nature of changes that will be required to the
critical areas code. He indicated there is a common element of changes to both
the critical areas of streams and wetland, which is the buffers standards. Buffers
protect critical areas by providing a natural area between the development and
the particular critical area. The Commission asked staff if a proposed buffer
would consist of vegetation was already there or would more have to be added.
Staff explained that in many circumstances further enhancement for the wetland
buffer is required. Among other changes, staff has proposed 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
Page 7 of 101
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2019
Page 6
determine the classification of the wetland and thus the appropriate wetland
buffer width. A handout to the Commission shows the existing and proposed
wetland buffer widths. At the June 4th Planning Commission meeting Staff will
present the proposed changes to the Chapters 4-6 of the SMP and the first
portion of the proposed changes to the critical areas code.
The scope of critical area code changes affecting wetlands will become clearer
after the presentation by Rick Mraz from the Dept. of Ecology.
Mr. Mraz explained that wetland are areas that are wet enough for a long enough
period of time during the growing season that the soils are low in oxygen and
only plants that can handle the wetness and lack of oxygen can grow there. All
counties and cities are required to designate and protect critical areas functions
and values by the State Growth Management Act (GMA). SMA Requires that
critical areas within the jurisdiction of the SMA will be governed by the Shoreline
Management Act. Each county and city adopts development regulations that
protect critical areas that are required to be designated under state RCW code.
Wetland functions consist of storing water during flood events and recharge
groundwater during low flows. Wetlands remove pollutants, and provide habitat
for animals and plants. Landowner incentives, public restoration, regulation, and
permitting protects wetlands. Buffers are critical to maintaining wetlands and their
functions.
Chair Roland asked if the buffers are just applied to properties being developed.
Thaniel stated that yes, in the majority of instances buffer are identified as part of
development-related action but there is a small number of instances that come to
the city’s attention where a property owner is adversely affecting a critical areas
or buffer such as when homeowners contact the City when there are issues on
their property.
V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
Planning Services Manager, Jeff Dixon asked if the Commission has any
questions on any new projects they observed going on around the City.
Commissioner Joan Mason asked about the Hotel that will be built on the
Muckleshoot Indian tribe property.
Staff responded that the hotel would be built on tribal land. The City does not
have jurisdiction for properties in Tribal trust status however they requires city
utility services and often times the Tribe will come to the city voluntarily for
permits, and to make sure what they are building is built to code. The
commission noted that because of SR 164, there will be a need to look into traffic
impact. In the past, they have come to us but it is not certain at this time if they
will work with the City.
Page 8 of 101
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2019
Page 7
The Commission inquired about earthwork observed at the Shell Gas station.
Staff stated there is a project to rebrand the station as a 7-11 and to replace
underground fuel storage tanks.
Chair Roland inquired if there were proposals for the Eagles Lodge property (M
ST SE) and if so, what will be developed. Staff at this time, did not know of any
new plans for that site.
Planning Services Manager Jeff Dixon confirmed Monday, May 13th at 5:30 is
planned for the joint PC/City Council Study Session. He explained how the
meeting would proceed and handed out an agenda bill that was provided to City
Council and a listing of agenda topics items from past meetings of the Planning
Commission. He indicated topics of discussion could include the Comprehensive
Plan, issues that are commonly brought up by the public/neighbors, and any
shared interest between the two groups.
The Commission stated that many residents ask them what is happening around
town and at times the Commission doesn’t have knowledge on that particular
project happening. In addition, Staff suggested that in response to their previous
request for economic development information, Doug Lein from Economic
Development could present at one of the future Planning Commission meetings
to address some of those questions.
Staff mentioned to the Commission that the Inland Construction project is moving
fast and that a public hearing will need to be scheduled. It was certain what the
code changes were at this time, He inquired about the possibility to do have two
meetings in June. The Commission asked for an email to be sent out asking who
can attend the second meeting in June to determine if a quorum will be
established.
The July 2 Planning Commission will more than likely be changed due to the
holiday.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair
Roland adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m.
Page 9 of 101
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Proposed Zoning Code Amendment Application for Inland
Constuction
Date:
May 28, 2019
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Memorandum and Exhibits
Exhibit 1 - Combined ZOA Changes for PC
Exhibit 2 - Future Exhibit to Ordinance XX
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Please see attached Memorandum
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Dixon
Meeting Date:June 4, 2019 Item Number:
Page 10 of 101
Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Roger Lee, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Mgr., Dept. of Community Development.
DATE: May 23, 2019
RE: Introductory Discussion of Zoning Code Amendments for Inland Construction LLC
Development and the Auburn Gateway Project, City File No. REZ19-0002
ISSUE IDENTIFICATION
Inland Construction LLC (“Inland”), on May 17, 2019 filed an application (ZOA19-0002) for a
zoning code text amendment to affect changes to three provisions of the zoning code as part of
the various approvals needed for the proposed ‘Auburn Gateway Project’. This project was
previously proposed by Robertson Properties Group (RPG) for redevelopment of the former
Valley 6 Drive-In Theater site associated with the parcels that RPG had acquired in Northeast
Auburn and was the subject of a previously executed Development Agreement (DA) with the
City. The project site is approximately 70 acres.
In summary, the following zoning code changes have been identified as needed for the revised
proposal:
• ACC 18.08 Change to Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) This is a separate code chapter that is
specifically for this development proposal and is being modified for project changes. Such
changes include:
o Allowing horizontal integrated mixed use in addition to vertical integrated mixed
use.
o Recognizing the preparation of additional environmental review documents
o Any other project changes and associated mitigation measures (Amending Exhibit 1
to the original Ordinance No. 6382, Planned Action Ordinance)
• ACC 18.23 Commercial and industrial zones
o Unique zoning of C-4, Mixed Use Commercial to be changed to also allow horizontal
integrated mixed use in addition to vertical integrated mixed use.
o To allow an “outdoor recreation use for profit” as an allowed use subject to an
administrative use permit (land use approval).
o To allow density standard greater than 20 dwelling units/per acre.
Page 11 of 101
Page 2
• ACC 18.57.030 Mixed use development standard
o To allow mixed use commercial to be changed to allow horizontal mixed use as well
as vertical.
BACKGROUND / HISTORY
As you recall, at the Planning Commission’s May 7, 2019 regular meeting, John Fisher and Scott
Morris of Inland Construction LLC (Inland) introduced themselves, their company, the type of
projects their company constructs and described their proposal for the Auburn Gateway
Project. Inland is considering acquisition of the former Valley 6 Drive-In property from
Robertson Properties Group (RPG) properties. In anticipation of acquiring the property, Inland
has submitted an application to amend the City code and the existing Development Agreement
(DA) adopted under Resolution No. 4756 (2011) in order to allow horizontal mixed use (the
current DA allows only vertical mixed use in order to have residential).
DA’s are a development tool allowed under State law. The concept behind a DA is to allow a
municipality and a property owner to voluntarily agree to development terms for a specific
development outside of adopted city code requirements. Both parties may have interest in
entering into such an agreement because it allows a property owner greater flexibility in certain
specified city standards that are determined upfront in exchange for a higher quality of
development and greater benefits to the community than what the code requires. It is an
optional process because it is a voluntary negotiated agreement.
The main code change is to allow horizontal mixed-use in addition to the currently required
vertical mixed-use of the C-4, Mixed Use Commercial zoning district. Vertical mixed-use is
where the ground floor consists of commercial tenants while multi-family residential located
above. Such request would require a code amendment with a recommendation made by the
Planning Commission and final action by the City Council. Amending the DA is a City Council
decision.
Inland has indicated their desire to construct, as a first phase, a multi-family complex with 500
dwelling units. This number is consistent with the maximum number of multi-family units
considered and approved in the previously approved sub area plan of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s), and the DA. However, Inland has indicated
that there are a number of circumstances that preclude construction of the full amount of the
previously proposed 1.6 million square feet of professional office and/or 720,000 square feet of
retail commercial space. These circumstances include a changed economic environment for
retail storefronts and the anticipated changes in 2020 to the floodplain maps by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to increase the extent of floodplain in this vicinity.
Page 12 of 101
Page 3
Conceptual Site Plan
PROPOSED CHANGES
The code changes affect 3 different provisions (2 Chapters and 1 Section), but the changes are
relatively few and straightforward. Each is summarized in greater detail, as follows:
1. ACC 18.08 Text Change to Planned Action Ordinance (PAO)
First, an explanation of the term: “Planned Actions”. A planned action is a tool of the WA State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) that was added to the state laws in 1997. A planned action is a
designated development project whose impacts have been addressed by an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) associated with a plan for a specific geographic area before individual
development projects are proposed. A planned action involves detailed SEPA review and
preparation of EIS documents in conjunction with sub-area plans, consistent with RCW
43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164 through WAC 197-11-172. The tool provides for up-front
analysis of impacts and mitigation measures to facilitate expedited environmental review of
subsequent individual development projects, when determined consistent.
The City adopted Chapter 18.08, ‘Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan and Auburn Gateway
Planned Action’ in 2011 by Ordinance No. 6382 and has not been used, as no development has
taken place. In summary, the text changes are for the purpose of:
o To recognize the preparation of additional environmental review documents
(change text to recognize the November 2, 2011 EIS addendum and a future EIS
addendum that is currently being prepared).
Page 13 of 101
Page 4
o To allow horizontal integrated mixed-use in addition to vertical integrated mixed-use
that is currently required by the zoning classification (While this does not require any
text changes, the PAO refers to the zoning that applies to the site in subsection ACC
18.08.040, ‘Planned action thresholds’ and the C-4, Mixed Use Commercial is also
proposed to change). By reference, this is also a change.
o To recognize the change in City Department name.
o To recognize any other project changes and associated EIS identified mitigation
measures (Amending Exhibit 1 to the original Ordinance No. 6382, Planned Action
Ordinance).
Attached, as part of Attachment 1, is the full text of the chapter showing text additions and
deletions as underline and strikethrough, respectively.
Please note that in code subsection 18.08.080, ‘Planned action mitigation measures’ there is a
reference to a separate document (Exhibit 1) that is not codified in this chapter. This Exhibit 1
consists of the mitigation measures drawn from the EIS’s and due to their length are not made
part of the same document. While this Exhibit 1 is transmitted to the Planning Commission to
provide the fullest information, the contents of this Exhibit could require modifications since
the environmental review process is underway and has not yet been completed. Changes, if
needed, will be shared with the Planning Commission in the future.
2. ACC 18.23 Commercial and industrial zones
Chapter 18.23 ACC, ‘Commercial and industrial zones’ describes the purpose statement,
uses regulations, and zoning development standards of certain zoning classifications. The
text changes are related to modifying the C-4, Mixed use zoning classification. The project
site is the only mapped location of this zoning classification within the city. See the
following zoning map excerpt.
Page 14 of 101
Page 5
Zoning Map (excerpt)
The changes are for the purpose of:
o Changing the C-4, Mixed Use Commercial zoning classification to also allow
horizontal integrated mixed-use in addition to vertical integrated mixed-use.
o Change the set of uses to recognize the listed use of: “outdoor recreation use for
profit” in the zoning district subject to an administrative use permit (land use approval).
o To allow density standard greater than 20 dwelling units/per acre.
Attached, as part of Attachment 1, is the full text of the Chapter 18.23 showing text additions
and deletions as underline and strikethrough, respectively.
Page 15 of 101
Page 6
3. ACC 18.57.030 Mixed use development standard
Chapter 18.57 ACC, ‘Standards for specific land uses’ contains zoning development standards in
addition to those contained in the zoning district chapter. This chapter provides site planning,
development, and/or operating standards for certain land uses that are allowed by individual or
multiple zoning districts, and for activities that require special standards to mitigate their
potential adverse impacts. Section ACC 18.57.030, ‘Mixed use development’ contains
standards that apply when mixed-use development is proposed in the city. The term mixed-use
development is defined elsewhere in the city’s code as:
18.04.625 Mixed-use development.
““Mixed-use development” means a single unified development that incorporates the
planned integration of two or more different land uses consisting of some combination
of office, light industrial, hotel, retail, entertainment, public uses, along with residential
uses. Mixed-use development may be vertically oriented in one or more buildings, or
horizontally distributed on a development site. When horizontally distributed, the
different uses may be constructed concurrently and in separate phases, and should
incorporate common and/or complementary features and/or elements such as
pedestrian walkways, access driveways, parking areas, architectural themes, or other
techniques that provide integration between uses on the site.”
The text amendments to the mixed-use standards are proposed to accomplish the following:
o To allow mixed-use commercial to be changed to allow horizontal mixed-use as well
as vertical. It should be noted that vertical mixed-use is not actively being pursued for
this project.
Attached, as part of Attachment 1, Section 18.57.030 ACC is provided showing text additions
and deletions as underline and strikethrough, respectively.
NEXT STEPS
At the June 4th regular meeting, Staff would like to discuss the contents of this memo with the
Planning Commission. Then, based on the discussion, Staff would seek input on whether the
code changes could be scheduled for a future hearing to be conducted by the Planning
Commission.
Please note that since the environmental review process is simultaneously being prepared as
this is being introduced to the Planning Commission, there is the potential for additional
changes to code to be identified by staff. If any additional changes are necessary, it is expected
that these would most likely affect Chapter 18.08, ‘Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan and
Auburn Gateway Planned Action’ and its referenced list of mitigation measures.
Enc: Attachment 1 Strike through and underline mark ups of:
• ACC 18.08 Planned Action Ordinance (PAO)
o Exhibit 1 – to ACC 18.08 (Mitigation Measures)
• ACC 18.22 Commercial and industrial zones
• ACC 18.57.030 Mixed use standards
Page 16 of 101
Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 1 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
Chapter 18.08
NORTHEAST AUBURN SPECIAL AREA PLAN AND AUBURN GATEWAY
PLANNED ACTION
Sections:
18.08.010 Purpose of the planned action.
18.08.020 Findings related to the northeast Auburn special area plan.
18.08.030 Applicability of the planned action.
18.08.040 Planned action thresholds.
18.08.050 Review criteria for planned actions.
18.08.060 Effect of planned action designation.
18.08.070 Planned action permit process.
18.08.080 Planned action mitigation measures.
18.08.090 Amendments.
18.08.010 Purpose of the planned action.
The purpose of this chapter is to:
A. Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions within a specific subject site as “planned
actions” consistent with state law, RCW 43.21C.031; and
B. Provide the public with an understanding as to what constitutes a planned action and how land
use applications which qualify as planned actions will be processed by the city; and
C. Streamline and expedite the development review process for this designated planned action by
relying on completed and existing detailed environmental analysis for the subject site; and
D. Combine environmental analysis with land use planning; and
E. Apply the city’s development regulations together with the mitigation measures described in the
environmental impact statement (EIS) and EIS addenda and this chapter to address the impacts of
future development contemplated by the planned action. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
Page 17 of 101
Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 2 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
18.08.020 Findings related to the northeast Auburn special area plan.
After thorough review and consideration, the city council makes the following findings:
A. The Northeast Auburn special area plan (“subarea plan”) and its accompanying draft and final
environmental impact statement (“EIS”) and EIS addenda have analyzed and addressed all of the
probable significant environmental impacts associated with the land uses allowed by the city’s
development regulations and described in the subarea plan as to the Northeast Auburn special
planning area.
B. The analysis contained in the subarea plan and EIS and addenda is adequate to identify the
probable environmental impacts of developments allowed under the city’s development regulations
which were not previously analyzed in the comprehensive plan and its accompanying environmental
documents.
C. The mitigation measures identified in the environmental element of the subarea plan, EIS and EIS
addenda, together with the regulations in the city’s development code, are adequate to identify and
mitigate the probable significant environmental impacts of the land uses and developments
considered within the planned action and subarea plan and EIS documents.
D. The expedited development review procedure in this chapter is consistent with law, will be a
benefit to the public, will protect the environment, and will enhance the city’s economic
development.
E. The public interest will be served by implementing the expedited development review procedure
set forth in this chapter.
F. Public involvement and review of the subarea plan and EIS and EIS addenda have been extensive
and meet the requirements of law, and have been sufficient to ensure that the subarea plan and EIS
bear a substantial relationship to the public interest, health, safety, and welfare.
G. The land uses identified in the subarea plan for the Northeast Auburn special area are consistent
with and will implement the Ccomprehensive Pplan.
H. Northeast Auburn special area is hereby designated a planned action. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
Page 18 of 101
Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 3 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
18.08.030 Applicability of the planned action.
A. Planned Action Area. This chapter applies to approximately 70 acres included in the Auburn
Gateway project area as described in the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties special area plan
EIS, issued by the city on July 30, 2004 and EIS Addendum on November 2, 2011 (and any addenda
thereto) and the adoption of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties special area plan. Any
other planned action for which the impacts have been studied in an EIS shall also meet the
requirements of this chapter, be approved by the planning and Ccommunity Ddevelopment
Ddirector (Ddirector), and be designated as a planned action by resolution of the city council before
it shall be entitled to review and treatment as a planned action under this chapter.
B. Environmental Document. A planned action for a site-specific development shall be based on the
environmental analysis contained in the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties special area plan
EIS, issued by the city on July 30, 2004 and EIS Addendum on November 2, 2011 (and any addenda
thereto). The mitigation requirements in this chapter are based on the Northeast Auburn/Robertson
Properties special area plan EIS and addenda. These requirements, together with city codes,
ordinances, and standards provide the framework for the decision by the city to impose conditions
on a planned action project.
C. Planned Action Designated. Uses and activities described in the Northeast Auburn/Robertson
Properties special area plan EIS (and any addenda thereto), subject to thresholds (ACC 18.08.040)
and mitigation measures established by this chapter, are designated planned actions pursuant to
RCW 43.21C.031. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
18.08.040 Planned action thresholds.
Subject to the zoning regulations for the site and the mitigation measures described in this chapter,
the maximum levels of development described below have been evaluated in the Northeast
Auburn/Robertson Properties special area plan EIS, as described in the EIS (and any addenda
thereto), and are planned actions pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031. In order to qualify as a planned
action, total cumulative development within the Auburn Gateway project area that has been
permitted under this chapter shall meet all of the following criteria:
A. Land Use.
1. The following are the primary categories of uses authorized under this planned action:
Page 19 of 101
Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 4 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
a. Office.
b. Retail.
c. Multifamily residential.
2. Land Use Review Threshold. The planned action designation applies to future development
proposals within the Auburn Gateway project area which are within the range evaluated in the
Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties special area plan EIS and the EIS addenda as shown
below.
Use Maximum
Allowable
Maximum
Structure
Height
Multifamily
residences
500 dwelling units 75 feet
Retail uses 720,000 square
feet
75 feet
Office uses 1,600,000 square
feet
75 feet
B. Transportation.
1. Trip Ranges. Cumulative development within the Auburn Gateway project area that does not
exceed the following range of trip generation from all uses developed within the Auburn
Gateway project area shall qualify as a planned action:
Maximum Net New (Non-Pass-By) Trip Generation Allowable in the Auburn Gateway
Project Area
Time Range Net New Trips
AM peak hour (primary) 1,862
PM peak hour (primary) 2,419
Page 20 of 101
Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 5 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
Daily Total: 18,920 Non-Pass-by Trips (“Auburn Gateway Transportation Impact Analysis”
prepared by Transportation Solutions, Inc. in October 2011 for the Auburn Gateway
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addendum).
2. The net new (non-pass-by) trip generation within a single phase shall qualify as a planned
action that does not exceed the following:
Maximum Net New Trips Allowable within a Single Phase of the Auburn Gateway Project
Area
Time Range Net New Trips
AM Peak Hour (primary) 1,117
PM Peak Hour (primary) 1,451
C. Earthwork. The maximum amount of excavation and fill qualifying as a planned action shall be
250,000 cubic yards of excavation and 750,000 cubic yards of fill.
D. Air Quality. Modifications to regional arterials included in the planned action include potential
new signals on Auburn Way North at 45th Street NE and 49th Street NE, and at the driveway access
to Auburn Way North midpoint between the two intersections, if demonstrated by analysis of signal
warrants and on South 277th Street and 45th Street NE at a relocated I Street NE. A roundabout or
traffic signal would be provided at the intersection of 49th Street NE and I Street NE and a future
signal at 45th Street NE.
E. Water.
1. Floodplain Modifications. Up to 33.73 acre feet of floodplain storage volume may be filled
within the Auburn Gateway project area based on the 1995 FEMA floodplain. The actual amount
of floodplain modification and storage compensatory flood storage volume will depend on the
FEMA floodplain regulations in effect at the time of development. Since the extent of floodplain
and amount of fill may be subject to change it may be subject to further environmental review.
The amount of floodplain affected will require that compensatory volume is provided at the time
of fill.
2. Impervious Surfaces. Up to 90 percent of the Auburn Gateway site area may be covered with
impervious surfaces.
Page 21 of 101
Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 6 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
F. Plants and Animals. Up to 0.55 acres of wetland fill placed in accordance with local, state, and
federal regulations in the wetland ditches along South 277th Street (approximately 0.5 acres), and as
necessary to complete required improvements for I Street NE and 49th Street NE (up to 0.25 acres of
wetland fill within the Auburn Gateway project area), shall qualify as part of this planned action. The
wetland impacts to the yet undelineated Wetland F within the Gateway II project area will be in
accordance with local, state and federal regulations in effect.
G. Time of Submission. The application is submitted during the time that the development
agreement between the city of Auburn and Robertson Auburn Properties, entered into on November
21, 2011, is in effect. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
18.08.050 Review criteria for planned actions.
The director or director’s designee is hereby authorized to designate a project application as a
planned action if the project meets all of the following conditions:
A. The project is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.
B. The project is located on the subject site as described with the planned action ordinance.
C. The project’s significant environmental impacts have been adequately addressed in the EIS and
EIS addenda.
D. The project complies with the planned action thresholds.
E. The project’s significant impacts have been mitigated though application of the mitigation
measures identified in the EIS documents, EIS addenda, and other city requirements.
F. The project is not an essential public facility. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
18.08.060 Effect of planned action designation.
A. Upon designation by the planning Community Development Ddirector that the project qualifies
as a planned action, the project shall not be subject to a SEPA threshold determination, an
environmental impact statement (EIS), or any further review under SEPA.
Page 22 of 101
Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 7 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
B. Being designated a planned action means that a proposed project has been reviewed in
accordance with this chapter, and found to be consistent with the development parameters and
environmental analysis included in the EIS documents and EIS addenda.
C. Planned actions will not be subject to further procedural review under SEPA. However, projects
may be subject to conditions designed to mitigate any environmental impacts which may result from
the project proposal, and projects will be subject to whatever permit requirements are deemed
appropriate by the city under state and city laws and ordinances. The planned action designation
shall not excuse a project from meeting the city’s code and ordinance requirements apart from the
SEPA process. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
18.08.070 Planned action permit process.
The Ddirector shall establish a procedure to review projects and determine whether they meet the
planned action criteria, and establishing minimum application and notice requirements. The
procedure shall consist, at a minimum, of the following:
A. Developments shall meet the requirements of ACC Titles 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, except
as modified by a Development Agreement. Application shall be made on the forms provided by the
city and shall include a SEPA checklist (where approved through WAC 197-11-315(2)) or such other
environmental review forms provided by the city.
B. The Ddirector shall determine if the application is complete as provided in Chapter 14.06 ACC.
C. If the project is within the area designated as a planned action, the application shall be reviewed
to determine if it is consistent with all of the requirements in this chapter.
D. When a complete application for development has been determined by the city to qualify as a
planned action, the Ddirector shall notify the applicant and the project shall proceed in accordance
with the appropriate permit procedure, with the exception that no additional SEPA review, threshold
determination, or EIS shall be required.
E. Public notice for project qualifying as planned actions shall be tied to the underlying permit. If
notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has
qualified as a planned action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special
public notice is required.
Page 23 of 101
Ch. 18.08 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan | Auburn City Code Page 8 of 8
The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6708, passed December 17, 2018.
F. If a project is determined to not qualify as a planned action, the Ddirector shall so notify the
applicant and the SEPA responsible official, and shall prescribe a SEPA review procedure consistent
with the city’s SEPA regulations and the requirements of state law. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
18.08.080 Planned action mitigation measures.
The planned action mitigation measures set forth in the Exhibit 1 attached to the ordinance codified
in this chapter and incorporated herein by this reference shall apply to the project identified therein.
This Exhibit 1 shall not be codified with the provisions of this chapter, but shall be on file and
available for review in the office of the city clerk. (Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
18.08.090 Amendments.
Amendments to this chapter may be initiated by the city, the proponent, or the proponent’s
successor, and shall occur as follows:
A. The Community Development Director director of community development and public works
may interpret the words and meaning of certain conditions in order to resolve conflicts in
implementation. All words in the ordinance codified in this chapter shall carry their customary and
ordinary meaning.
B. If changes to the language of the ordinance codified in this chapter are required, such proposed
changes shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director director of community
development and public works. If, in the estimation of the Community Development Director director
of community development and public works, the proposed change is minor, then the proposed
change shall be forwarded directly to the city council for its consideration. If, in the estimation of the
Community Development Director director of community development and public works, the change
is major, the proposed change shall be referred to the planning commission which shall conduct a
public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council. (Ord. 6532 § 28, 2014; Ord. 6382 § 2, 2011.)
Page 24 of 101
Exhibit 1, page 10
Exh. D. Ord. XXXX
(Amending Exhibit 1 to Ordinance 6382, Planned Action Ordinance )
D. Prior to any Issuance of Permits for Vertical Construction
within Either the North or South Phases of the Project:
Storm Drainage
1. Prior to issuance of permit for vertical construction, the Applicant shall provide to
the City for review and approval a Storm Drainage Master Plan for the combined
North and South Phases of the Project. The plan shall include the approximate
location, elevation, and size of all major storm drainage conveyance, water quality,
and flow control facilities in conformance with the City's Engineering Design
Standards. The storm drainage master plan shall contain sufficient information,
including supporting storm drainage calculations, to demonstrate that the system
design and configuration is feasible and is capable of meeting city standards.
In addition, if the storm drainage discharge from the project is not as proposed in
previous drainage analysis prepared for the purposes of the EIS ("Hydraulic Model
Evaluation of Potential Drainage System Impacts Associated with the Auburn
Gateway Project", Herrera, 2003) and the discharge is all directed to either: South
277th Street (EIS Scenario 3a) or split evenly between South 277th Street and D
Street NE (EIS Scenario 3b), then additional downstream drainage analysis shall be
required as directed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a permit for vertical
construction.
If all the storm drainage discharge from the project is directed to South 277th Street
(EIS Scenario 3a) the applicant shall design the master plan to include the following
storm drainage improvements for any phase of development:
• Replace the existing storm drainage pipe located in D Street NE with a 36-
inch pipe in D Street NE from South 277m Street to Auburn Way North.
The master storm drainage plan shall also define which improvements are to be
constructed concurrent with each phase of the project (North Phase, South Phase, or
Combined North and South Phases),
Page 25 of 101
Exhibit 1, page 11
Exh. D. Ord. XXXX
Water
2. Prior to issuance of permit for vertical construction, the Applicant shall provide to
the City for review and approval a Water Master Plan -for the combined North and
South Phases of the Project. The plan shall include the approximate location and size
of all pipes, valves, and. fire hydrants in conformance with the City's.
Comprehensive Water
Plan and Engineering Design Standards. The Water Master plan shall contain
sufficient information, including hydraulic analysis if deemed necessary by the City
Engineer, to demonstrate that the system layout is feasible and provides adequate fire
flow and system reliability.
The master water plan shall also fine which improvements are to be constructed
concurrent with each. phase of the project (North Phase, South Phase, or Combined
North and South Phases) as follows: ·
North Phase
• Replace the existing 8-inch and 6-inch water pipes with 12-inch water pipe in
49 Street NE from Auburn Way North to I Street NE.
• Construct a new 12-inch water pipe along the extension of I Street NE
between 49th Street NE and South 277th Street.
South Phase
• Replace the existing 8-inch and 6-inch water pipes with 12-inch water pipe in
49 Street NE from Auburn Way North to I Street NE.
• Construct a new 12-inch water pipe along the extension of I Street NE
between 45th Street NE and 49th Street NE.
Combined North and South Phases
The combined water· system mitigation listed above for the North and South
Phases.
Sanitary Sewer
3. Prior to issuance of permit for vertical construction, the applicant shall provide to the City for review and approval a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan for the combined North and South Phases of the Project. The plan shall include the approximate location,
elevation, and size of all pipes and manholes in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Engineering Design Standards. The
sanitary sewer master plan shall contain sufficient information, including hydraulic
analysis if deemed necessary by the City Engineer, to demonstrate that the system
layout is feasible and is capable of meeting city standards.
The master sanitary sewer plan shall also define which improvements are to be
constructed concurrent with each phase of the project (North Phase, South Phase, or
Combined North and South Phases).
Page 26 of 101
Exh. D. Ord. XXXX
Page 3 of 7
Storm Drainage, Water, and Sanitary Sewer
4. Prior to issuance of permit for vertical construction, the Applicant shall submit
civil utilities construction plans, consistent with the approved combined North
and/or South Phases of the:
• master storm drainage plan,
• master water plan, and
• master sanitary sewer plan
to the City for review and approval in conformance with the City's Engineering
Design Standards
Transportation
5. Prior to issuance of permit for vertical construction, the Applicant shall provide a
master plan for pedestrian/non-motorized circulation to the City for review and
approval. The master plan for pedestrian/non-motorized circulation shall be in
conformance with the City's engineering design standards and provide an efficient
and safe pedestrian circulation system that provides appropriate crossing of I Street
NE, D Street NE, and 49th Street NE at places where pedestrian/non-motorized
crossings are likely to occur and where crossings can be safely accommodated with
necessary improvements to minimize travel distance. The master pedestrian
circulation plan shall specify the location and types of paths, the materials and
methods to be used to promote safety at street and driveway crossings, and the
framework of connections and amenities to be developed, as described in the
"Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards", BCRA Inc., October
2011.
The master plan for pedestrian/non-motorized circulation shall also define which
improvements are to be constructed concurrent with each phase of the project
(North Phase, South Phase, or Combined North and South Phases).
6. Prior to issuance of permit for vertical construction, the Applicant shall provide a
master transit plan to the City for review and approval. The plan shall be
coordinated with King County Metro Transit and shall include the approximate
locations of existing and proposed transit stops and associated facilities serving the
Auburn Gateway Project. The plan shall also address opportunities to provide
weekday park & ride spaces within the Auburn Gateway Project.
The master transit plan shall also define which transit improvements are to be
constructed concurrent with each phase of the project (North Phase, South Phase,
or Combined North and South Phases)
7. Prior to the action indicated in the heading above, the Applicant shall provide a
master access and onsite vehicular circulation plan to the City for review and
approval. The plan shall be in conformance with the City's Engineering Design
Standards and include locations and dimensions of access points expected for all
portions of the Auburn Gateway project area. The access and onsite vehicular
circulation plan must be accompanied with a traffic analysis that indicates Page 27 of 101
Exh. D. Ord. XXXX
Page 4 of 7
commercial/delivery vehicle turning templates, emergency access lanes, and the
volumes of traffic and levels of service expected at each access location.
The master access and onsite vehicular circulation plan shall also define which access
points are to be constructed concurrent with ach phase of the project (North Phase, South
Phase, or Combined North and South Phases).
Prior to issuance of permit for vertical construction, the Applicant shall provide a
master motorized public improvement plan to the City for review and approval. The
plan shall be in conformance with the City's Engineering Design Standards and include
streets, traffic signals, and intersection improvements for all portions of the Auburn
Gateway project area.
The master motorized improvement plan shall also define which street improvements
are to be constructed concurrent with each phase of the project (North Phase, South
Phase, or Combined North and South Phases) as follows:
North Phase First
• Widen South 277111 Street to include two westbound through lanes, three
eastbound through lanes, paved shoulder, drainage systems, planting strip arid
12-foot wide paved non-motorized trail between L St NE and Auburn Way
North.
• Complete a traffic signal at the intersection. of South 277th Street and I Street NE including two traffic monitoring cameras. The signalized intersection shall consists of two westbound through lanes, two westbound left turn pockets, three eastbound through lanes, one eastbound right_ turn pocket, and three northbound turning lanes.
• Complete one eastbound right turn pocket at the intersection of South 277th Street
and D Street NE.
• Complete one westbound right turn pocket at the intersection of Auburn Way North and South 277th Street.
• Complete I Street NE from 49th Street NE to South 277th Street. This roadway· shall
be designed to the city's minor arterial standard and include five travel lanes (two
lanes in each direction plus a raised landscape island with turn
pockets at intersections) and bicycle lanes. Auxiliary right-tum lanes may also
be required at driveways as identified in the master access and onsite vehicular
circulation plan.
• Complete a traffic signal at intersection of I Street NE and 49th Street NE
including one traffic monitoring camera when the north, south, and west legs
of the intersection are .each connected to through streets. The
signalized
intersection shall be widened to facilitate northbound and southbound u-turns and include a leg for the future eastward street extension of 49th St NE.
• Complete 49th Street NE between Auburn Way North and the eastern property line
of the Auburn Gateway project area. This street shall be designed as a
minor arterial with three lanes (one lane in each direction plus a center left-tum
lane) and bicycle lanes.
• Complete a traffic signal at the intersection of 49th Street NE and Auburn Way
North including one traffic monitoring camera. The signalized intersection shall
be widened to facilitate northbound and southbound u-turns. Page 28 of 101
Exh. D. Ord. XXXX
Page 5 of 7
• Complete a traffic signal at the intersection of 45th Street NE and Auburn Way
North including one traffic monitoring camera when any traffic signal warrant
is met at this intersection up to two years after issuance of final occupancy of
full project build-out or prior to constructing a signal at the south development
access drive at Auburn Way North.
• Construct a cul-de-sac at southern terminus of D Street NE at Auburn Way North and eliminate the vehicular connection to Auburn Way North.
South Phase First
• Widen the south side of South 277th Street to include two westbound through
lanes, two eastbound. through lanes, paved shoulder, drainage systems, planting
strip and 12 foot wide paved non-motorized trail between L St NE and Auburn
Way North.
• Complete one eastbound right tum pocket at the intersection of South 277th
Street and D Street NE.
• Complete I Street NE from 45th Street NE to 49th Street NE. This roadway
shall be designed to a minor arterial standard and include five travel lanes (two
lanes in each direction plus a raised landscape island with turn pockets at
intersections) and bicycle lanes. Auxiliary right-turn lanes may also be
required at driveways as identified in the master access and onsite vehicular
circulation plan.
• Complete a traffic signal at intersection of I Street NE and 49th Street NE
including one traffic monitoring camera when the north, south, and west legs
of the intersection are each connected to through streets. The signalized
intersection shall be widened to facilitate northbound and southbound u-turns
and include a leg for the future eastward street extension of 49th St NE.
• Complete 49th Street NE between Auburn Way North and the eastern property
line of the Auburn Gateway project area. This street shall be designed as a
minor arterial with three lanes (one lane in each direction plus a center left-tum
lane) and bicycle lanes,
• Complete a traffic signal at the intersection of49th Street NE and Auburn Way
North including one traffic monitoring camera. The signalized intersection shall be
widened to facilitate northbound and southbound u-tums.
• Complete a traffic signal at the intersection of 45th Street NE and Auburn Way .
North including one traffic monitoring camera when any traffic signal warrant is met at this intersection up to two years after issuance of final occupancy at full project build-out or prior to constructing a signal at the south development
access drive at Auburn Way North.
• Complete a traffic signal at the intersection of 45th Street NE and I Street
NE including one traffic monitoring camera when any traffic signal warrant
is met at this intersection up to two years after issuance of final occupancy
at full project build-out.
■ Construct a cul-de-sac at southern terminus of D Street NE at Auburn Way
North and eliminate the vehicular connection to Auburn Way North.
Combined North and South Phases
■ Complete the combined improvements listed above for the North and South
Phases. Page 29 of 101
Exh. D. Ord. XXXX
Page 6 of 7
8. Prior to issuance of permit for vertical construction, the Applicant shall submit civil
transportation construction plans, consistent with the approved combined North
and South Phases of the:
* master pedestrian/non-motorized circulation plan,
* master transit plan,
* master access and onsite vehicular circulation plan, and
* master motorized public improvement plan
to the City for review and approval in conformance with the City's Engineering
Design Standards.
Signage
9. Prior to issuance of permit for vertical construction, the Applicant shall submit a·
master signage plan to establish locations sizes and materials for all types of
signage to be used in subsequent phases (except traffic control signage). The master
signage plan shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of ACC
18.56.030.K, in effect as provided in the vesting provisions of the development
Agreement between the City and Developer. The plan shall include commercial and
directional signage as well as interpretive material such as information on wildlife
near wetlands or historical information about the area. The plan shall be coordinated
with the Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards document. The
master signage plan shall be recorded as required by ACC 18.56.030.M.
Project plans shall demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with
the approved master signage plan. Modifications to the master signage plan may be
allowed by the Director only after determining that the changes are consistent with the
"Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards," BCRA Inc.,
October 2011.
Visual/Aesthetics
10. Project construction plans shall adhere to the document: "Auburn
Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards", BCRA Inc.; October
2011.
11. Project plans shall incorporate principles of crime prevention through environmental
design (CPTED) in all project designs. These include but are not limited to the
measures discussed in the "Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design
Standards", BCRA Inc. October 2011.
Noise
12. Prior to the issuance of a permit for vertical construction, the Applicant shall prepare
and submit a noise control plan to be approved by the City of Auburn for areas in
which noise-generating equipment, such as mechanical equipment (i.e., heating,
ventilating, and air conditioning [HVAC] systems), loading docks, solid waste
removal areas, compactors, outdoor retail speakers, and backup power generators,
cannot be located away from noise-sensitive receivers. The City of Auburn may
require noise containment systems where necessary to meet the noise regulations. Page 30 of 101
Exh. D. Ord. XXXX
Page 7 of 7
Prior to the issuance of a· permit for vertical construction, the Applicant shall provide
a binding agreement to ensure that all .subsequent applications for City approval
shall meet parameters of the approved noise control plan.
13. Project plans shall include the use of buildings, fences, berms, or large landscape
buffers to shield noise-sensitive receivers from onsite traffic noise. ·
14. Automobile fuel stations shall be located as far as possible from residential uses. If
located within 100 feet of residential uses, the City of Auburn may require additional
design measures to limit noise, odor, and glare impacts.
15. Outdoor activity areas such as eating and drinking establishments shall be located
away from residential areas. If lo ted closer than 300 feet to a residential area the
City of Auburn may require design measures or operational. restrictions to limit
noise impacts from late evening use.
Page 31 of 101
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Shoreline Master Program and Critical Areas Ordinance
Updates
Date:
May 22, 2019
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - SMP Ch. 4 Pt. 1
Exhibit 2 - CAO Redlines
Exhibit 3 - Final Gap Analys is
Exhibit 4 - May 7 PC Memo
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Included in this memo for review by the Planning Commission (PC) is the first portion of
Chapter 4 of the SMP (the PC reviewed Chapters 1-3 at the May 7th meeting) and the
sections of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) pertaining to wetland and stream buffers and
wetland replacement ratios. Also included is the final Gap Analysis from the Watershed
Company (the PC has seen earlier draft versions of this) and the memo from the May 7th
meeting as it contains pertinent information (in lieu of repeating it again in this memo).
SM P UPDAT E: CHAPT ER 4 Part 1
Attached (in strikeout- and underline format) as Exhibit 1 to this memo is the first portion of
Chapter 4 of the SMP. The two major changes to this section are:
Adding a new subsection under where the SMP applies relating to developments that
are not subject to SMP review. It is unlikely any of these instances would come up in
Auburn, however, it is a required addition per WAC 173-27.
Removal of the Critical Areas regulations from the SMP. This will help reduce confusion
about if the SMP or the CAO applies, it will also reduce potential inconsistencies if one
of the documents is updated in the future.
CRIT ICAL AREAS ORDINANCE UPDAT E: SECT IONS ACC 16.10.080, .090, .110
Attached (in strikeout- and underline format) as Exhibit 2 to this memo are the portions of the
Page 32 of 101
CAO that apply to the methodology used to rate and classify wetlands and streams, updated
buffer widths for wetlands and streams, and updated wetland modification ratios. To further
expand on these topics:
The CAO would be updated to reflect the most recent wetland rating (or classifications)
methodology. Currently the CAO references an out of date 2004 document. The
language would be updated to reference the most current document and the description
of the types of wetlands would be updated as well.
The minimum buffers for wetlands will be updated to reflect current Ecology
recommendations. The proposed buffer table shows options for using mitigation
measures to have lower buffer widths and also what the widths would be if the mitigation
measures aren’t implemented. The PC could recommend to leave the table like this, or
could opt to require the mitigation measures and only have the smaller buffer widths in
the table.
Updating the ratios used for when wetlands are disturbed to the current Ecology
recommendations. The City’s existing table of replacement ratios is well below what
Best Available Science (BAS) recommends. The updated table would also be
simplified and not differentiate between the different types of wetlands for Categories II
and III (which are most of the wetlands the City sees during development proposals).
NEXT ST EPS
At the next meeting in July Staff will bring additional materials to the PC for review. Scheduled
to be included is the second part of Chapter 4 along with Chapters 5 and 6 and the other
changes proposed for the CAO.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Gouk
Meeting Date:June 4, 2019 Item Number:
Page 33 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
4-1 Draft
CHAPTER 4.0 Shoreline Master Program Policies, Development Standards and Use
Regulations
The purpose of this chapter is to:
A. Implement the goals of the Shoreline Master Program Elements and establish policies to be
integrated with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan; and
B. Allow for all reasonable and appropriate uses of the City of Auburn’s shorelines without
degradation of environmental quality or risk to public health or safety; and
C. Provide standards that will regulate and promote intensities and qualities of development
consistent with the protection of the shoreline environment and its related resources and the
Shoreline Management Act of 1971.
4.1 Scope.
No development, as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (3) (d) as a use which consists of construction or exterior
alteration of structures, dredging, drilling, dumping, filling, removal of any sand, gravel or minerals,
driving of piling, placing of obstructions, or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which
interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the
Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and this SMP, shall be undertaken except in compliance with the
provisions of this chapter and then only after securing all required permits.
A substantial development permit shall be required for any development of which the total cost or fair
market value exceeds five seven thousand seven hundred and eighteen forty-seven dollars
($57,718047), or the value as amended or adjusted for inflation per WAC 173-27-040(2)(a) / RCW
90.58.030 (3) (e), or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the
water of the sShorelines of the sState unless exempt under the Act.
4.2 Applicability.
A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all shorelines, shorelands and associated wetland
areas covered by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 as follows:
1. All rivers and streams and their associated wetlands downstream from a point where the mean
annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second or greater.
2. All lakes and their associated wetlands which are 20 surface acres in size or larger.
3. Shorelands and associated uplands extending 200 feet in all directions as measured on a
horizontal plane from the ordinary high water markOHWM; floodways and contiguous
floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river
deltas associated with their streams, lakes, and tidal waters subject to the provisions of Chapter
90.58 RCW.
B. All new development and uses occurring within shoreline jurisdiction must conform to Chapter
90.58 RCW, The Shoreline Management Act, Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 of the Washington
Administrative Code, and this sShoreline mMaster pProgram.
C. Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews.
Exhibit 1
Page 34 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
Draft 4-2
Requirements to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter
of exemption, or other review to implement the Shoreline Management Act do not apply to the
following:
1. Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial action at a
facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to Chapter 70.105D
RCW, or to the department of ecology when it conducts a remedial action under Chapter
70.105D RCW.
2. Boatyard improvements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any
person installing site improvements for storm water treatment in an existing boatyard facility to
meet requirements of a national pollutant discharge elimination system storm water general
permit.
3. WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.356, Washington
State Department of Transportation projects and activities meeting the conditions of RCW
90.58.356 are not required to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit,
variance, letter of exemption, or other local review.
4. Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant to RCW
90.58.045.
5. Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process, pursuant to
Chapter 80.50 RCW.
4.3 Interpretation.
A. General.
1. In interpreting and applying the provisions of this chapter, the provisions shall be held to be
minimum requirements, adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
2. When the provisions of this chapter impose greater restrictions than are imposed by other
applicable cityCity, county, regional, state, and federal regulations, the provisions of this chapter
shall control.
3. When a provision of this chapter conflicts with another provision in this chapter, the more
restrictive provision shall apply.
4. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense can include the future
tense, and words in the singular can include the plural, or vice versa.
5. The word “shall” is always mandatory. The word “should” means that the particular action is
required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason, based on policy of the Shoreline
Management Act, WAC 173-26, and this SMP, against taking the action. The word “may” means
the action is acceptable; provided it conforms to the provisions of WAC 173-26 and this SMP.
B. Interpretation by the Director.
The authority to administer the provisions of this chapter shall rest with the Director of Planning,
Building and Community or successor department or designee. The Director shall have the authority to
Page 35 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
4-3 Draft
determine that a proposed use is unclassified per the Master Program (neither prohibited nor included
in a particular shoreline environment). The Director’s determination in these instances may be appealed
according to ACC 18.70.050. Such unclassified uses would be treated as conditional uses and may be
allowed through the cConditional uUse pPermit (CUP) process described in WAC 173-27-160.
4.3.1 Adoption of additional regulations.
A. Applicable provisions of ACC Chapter 16.10 ACC (per Ordinance No. xxxx – 2019 adoption), Critical
Areas are herein incorporated into this mMaster pProgram and included in Appendix A.
B. The regulations of ACC Chapter 18.54 ACC, Nonconforming Structures, Land and Uses are herein
incorporated into this mMaster pProgram and included in Appendix B.
4.4 General Policies and Regulations
The following general policies and regulations apply to all sShorelines of the sState that are located in
Auburn, regardless of the specific shoreline environment designation in any one location.
4.4.1 Conservation and Restoration
Policies
1. Prioritize enhancement and restoration efforts at public parks and public open space lands
2. Work with owners of other publicly-owned land to encourage restoration and enhancement
projects.
3. Work with the public and other interested parties to prioritize restoration opportunities
identified in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report.
4. Promote vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds and nonnative species to
avoid adverse impacts to hydrology, and to reduce the hazard of slope failures or accelerated
erosion.
5. Integrate bioengineering and/or soft engineering approaches into local and regional flood
control measures, infrastructure, and related capital improvement projects.
6. Develop a program to implement restoration projects, including funding strategies.
7. Monitor and adaptively manage restoration projects.
8. 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 governments (with their assistance) can best
address the needs of preserving ecological processes and shoreline functions.
9. 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 strategies that protect existing development and restores floodplain and channel
migration functions.
10. Continue to work with the WRIA 9 and 10 Forums to restore shoreline habitats and seasonal
ranges that support listed endangered and threatened species, as well as other anadromous
fisheries.
Page 36 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
Draft 4-4
11. Create incentives that will make it economically or otherwise attractive to integrate shoreline
ecological restoration into development projects.
12. Encourage restoration or enhancement of native riparian vegetation through incentives and
non-regulatory programs.
13. Establish public education materials to provide shoreline landowners technical assistance about
the benefits of native vegetation plantings.
14. Explore opportunities with other educational organizations and agencies to develop an on-going
program of shoreline education for all ages.
15. Identify areas where kiosks and interpretive signs can enhance the educational experiences of
users of the shoreline.
16. Develop strategies to fund shoreline-related educational and interpretative projects.
4.4.2 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation
Policies
1. Developments and activities in the City’s shoreline should be planned and designed to retain
native vegetation or replace shoreline vegetation with native species to achieve no net loss of
the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes performed by vegetation.
2. Woody debris should be left in the river corridors to enhance wildlife habitat and shoreline
ecological 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.
Regulations
1. During any development activity within the shoreline jurisdiction, native plant communities
located within the shoreline buffer (minimum of 100-feet from OHWM for Shoreline Residential
and Urban Conservancy environments; 200-feet for Natural environment) shall be protected,
maintained, or enhanced per the regulations established in the Critical Areas Ordinance and the
Master Program. Pursuant to ACC 16.10.090, “Buffer Areas and Setbacks”, buffers that have
been previously disturbed shall be re-vegetated pursuant to an approved enhancement plan.
2. The following uses are allowed within the shoreline buffer only when also allowed within the
applicable shoreline environment designation:
a. Improvements that are part of an approved enhancement, restoration or mitigation plan
b. New public roads and bridges, where no feasible alternative location exists
c. Utilities and accessory structures, where no feasible alternative location exists
d. Foot trails constructed according to the following criteria:
i. Designed to minimize impact of permeable materials;
ii. Designed to minimize impact on the shoreline system;
iii. Of a maximum width of twelve (12) feet; and
Page 37 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
4-5 Draft
iv. Located within the outer half of the shoreline buffer, i.e. the portion of the
buffer that is farther away from the stream.
e. Footbridges
f. Education facilities, such as viewing platforms and informational signs
g. Water-oriented uses
h. Replacement or rehabilitation of existing levees
i. Under residential development regulations, approved docks, floats, buoys, bulkheads,
launching ramps and similar structures are exempt from the setback.
3. Pursuant to ACC 18.50.06045, “General landscape requirementsPreservation of significant
trees”, all significant trees shall be retained and made part of the landscape plan, as applicable.
Pursuant to ACC 18.50.03045, “Definitions”, significant trees are defined as a healthy evergreen
tree, six inches or more in diameter measured four feet above grade; or a healthy deciduous
tree four inches or more in diameter measured four feet above grade. The Director may
authorize the exclusion of any significant tree which for the reason of public health, safety or
reasonable site development is not desirable to maintain.
4. Any pruning of trees or shrubs shall be for the purpose of maintaining the tree or shrub in a
healthy growing condition and/or to enhance its natural growing form. Excessive pruning of
trees or shrubs that adversely affects the healthy living condition of the plant or excessively
damages the natural growing form of the plant shall be prohibited; unless such pruning is done
to alleviate documented public health and safety concerns.
5. A critical areas study shall be submitted for review for all proposed development activity within
the shoreline jurisdiction. The purpose of the report is to determine the extent, characteristics
and functions of critical areas located on or potentially affected by proposed activities on site.
See ACC Section 16.10.070 “Critical Area Review Process and Application Requirements” for
required report contents.
6. Shoreline buffers shall be protected during construction by placement of a temporary barricade,
notice of the presence of the critical area and implementation of appropriate erosion and
sedimentation controls as described in ACC 16.10.090, “Buffer Areas and Setbacks”.
7. As part of a development proposal, the Director may require the shoreline buffer to be placed in
a separate tract on which development is prohibited; protected by execution of an easement
dedicated to the City, a conservation organization, or land trust; or similarly preserved through a
permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City as described in ACC Section 16.10.090,
“Buffer Areas and Setbacks.”
8. Proposed development in the shoreline jurisdiction shall include provision of landscape
information appropriate to identify and remove nonnative and invasive species and replace with
native vegetation to maintain or enhance shoreline ecological functions on the property. When
required by the Director, landscape plans shall establish a staged vegetation removal and
replacement program that keeps the amount of exposed soil during and after clearing and
grading activities to a minimum. In drier months, temporary surface irrigation or temporary
installation of intermediate plantings may be required until weather or seasonal conditions
permit installation of the permanent plantings.
9. If the area of clearing or grading necessary to remove nonnative or invasive vegetation totals
one-acre or greater (43,560 square feet), located on site, in or outside of shoreline jurisdiction,
Page 38 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
Draft 4-6
then water quality and erosion control measures shall be established through the NPDES
Construction Stormwater General Permit and associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). If the area of clearing or grading is less than one-acre, but includes disturbance of
land in shoreline jurisdiction, a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan shall be
required. The TESC Plan shall employ best management practices (BMPs) consistent with
cityCity design and construction standards.
10. Should a development create unavoidable impacts adverse to shoreline vegetation located
within the shoreline jurisdiction, mitigation shall be required. Mitigation shall ensure that there
will be no net loss in the amount of vegetated area or the ecological functions performed by the
disturbed vegetation. The Director shall rely on the critical areas study required under
regulation #45 of this section to provide a site specific description of the ecological functions
while also relying on the Auburn Inventory and Characterization report as a general guide.
Pursuant to Section 4.4.3., “Environmental Impact Mitigation” of the Master Program and ACC
16.10.120, “Mitigation Standards, Criteria and Plan Requirements”, on-site and in-kind
mitigation is preferred. Mitigation plans shall be completed before initiation of other permitted
activities, unless a phased or concurrent schedule that assures completion prior to occupancy
has been approved by the Director.
11. Restoration of any shoreline that has been disturbed or degraded shall use native plant
materials with a diversity and type appropriate for the site. As described in ACC Section
16.10.120, “Performance Standards for Mitigation Planning”, plants native to the Puget
Lowlands or Pacific Northwest ecoregion should be used as well as plants that are adapted and
appropriate for the proposed habitats. Significant areas of the site should not be planted with
species that have questionable potential for successful establishment. The use of perennial
plants is preferred over annual species. Plant species high in food and cover value for native fish
and wildlife species that are known or likely to use the mitigation site should be used. Emulate
the plant species heterogeneity and structural diversity found in native plant communities, as
described in regionally recognized publications on native landscapes.
12. Aquatic weed control shall only occur when native plant communities and associated habitats
are threatened or when an existing water-dependent use is restricted by the presence of weeds.
13. For lawns and other vegetation maintained within shoreline jurisdiction, the use of chemical
fertilizers, pesticides or other similar chemical treatments shall be discouraged and alternative
practices shall be employed. Where chemical fertilizer, herbicide, or pesticide use is necessary
for protecting existing natural vegetation or establishing new vegetation in shoreline areas as
part of an erosion control or mitigation plan, the use of time release fertilizer and herbicides
shall be preferred over liquid or concentrate application. As described in ACC 16.10.120,
“Performance Standards for Mitigation Planning”, fertilizers must be applied per manufacturer
specifications to planting holes in organic or controlled release forms, and never broadcast on
the ground surface. If herbicides are used, only those approved for use in aquatic ecosystems by
the Washington Department of Ecology shall be used. Herbicides shall only be used in
conformance with all applicable laws and regulations and be applied per manufacturer
specifications by an applicator licensed in the state of Washington.
Page 39 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
4-7 Draft
4.4.3 Environmental Impact Mitigation
Policies
1. All shoreline use and development should be carried out in a manner that avoids and minimizes
adverse impacts so that the resulting ecological condition does not become worse than the
current condition. This means assuring no net loss of ecological functions and processes and
protecting critical areas designated in Auburn City Code Chapter 16.10 ACC 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.
Regulations
1. To the extent Washington's State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), cChapter 43.21C
RCW, is applicable, the analysis of environmental impacts from proposed shoreline uses or
developments shall be conducted consistent with the rules implementing SEPA (ACC Chapter
16.06 ACC and WAC 197-11).
2. Where required, mitigation measures shall be applied in the following sequence of steps listed
in order of priority.
a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or
reduce impacts;
c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;
d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations;
e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments; and
f. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective
measures.
3. In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to shoreline development, lower
priority measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined to be
infeasible or inapplicable.
4. Required mitigation shall not be in excess of that necessary to assure that proposed uses or
development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
5. Mitigation actions shall not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions
fostered by the policies of the Shoreline Management Act.
6. When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to the priority of mitigation
sequencing above, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the
impacted functions directly and in the immediate vicinity of the impact. However, alternative
compensatory mitigation within the watershed that addresses limiting factors or identified
critical needs for shoreline resource conservation based on watershed or comprehensive
Page 40 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
Draft 4-8
resource management plans applicable to the area of impact may be authorized. Authorization
of compensatory mitigation measures may require appropriate safeguards, terms or conditions
as necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. ACC Section 16.10.110, “Mitigation
Standards, Criteria And Plan Requirements,” establishes regulations on location and timing of
mitigation. On-site and in-kind mitigation are preferred.
7. A monitoring program shall be prepared and implemented by the applicant for mitigation
projects. The monitoring program shall include a contingency plan in the event that
implementation of the mitigation plan is inadequate or fails. A performance and maintenance
security is required in the amount of one hundred and twenty-five percent of the cost of the
mitigation project for the length of the monitoring period. This is to ensure the applicant
complies with the terms of the approved mitigation plan. See ACC 16.10.130, “Monitoring
Program and Contingency Plan”, for specific elements that need to be incorporated into the
monitoring program.
4.4.4 Critical Areas
Policies
1. 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 Comprehensive Plan. 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.
2. Allow activities in critical areas that protect and, where possible, restore the ecological functions
and ecosystem-wide processes of the City’s shorelines.
3. Preserve, protect, restore and/or mitigate wetlands critical areas within and associated with the
City’s shorelines to achieve no net loss of wetland area and wetlandshoreline ecological
functions.
4. Developments in shoreline areas that are identified as geologically hazardous areas, or pose a
foreseeable risk to people and improvements during the life of the development, should not be
allowed.
Regulations
1. Provisions of the City of Auburn Critical Areas Ordinance, as codified in Chapter 16.10 ACC (per
Ordinance No. xxxx—when we update in 2019) are herein incorporated into this master
program except as noted below:
a. If there are any conflicts or unclear distinctions between the Shoreline Master Program and
the Critical Areas standards as part of the Master Program, the requirements that are the
most consistent with the SMA or its WAC provisions shall apply, as determined by the City.
b. Provisions of the Critical Areas standards that are not consistent with the Shoreline
Management Act (Chapter, 90.858 RCW), and supporting Washington Administrative Code
chapters shall not apply in shoreline jurisdiction.
c. The provisions of Auburn’s Critical Areas standards do not extend shoreline jurisdiction
beyond the limits specified in this SMP. For regulations addressing critical area buffer areas
Page 41 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
4-9 Draft
that are outside shoreline jurisdiction, see Auburn’s Critical Areas OrdinanceChapter 16.10
ACC.
d. When definitions per ACC 16.10.020 “Definitions” conflict with SMP definitions per Chapter
1, SMP definitions shall apply.
e. ACC 16.10.030 “Applicability – Regulated activities” shall not apply. Determining which
activities are regulated shall be governed by this Master Program.
f. Activities that are exempt from the provisions of Auburn’s Critical Areas Ordinance per ACC
16.10.040 “Exemptions and nonconforming uses” shall be governed by this Master Program.
g. Provisions of Auburn’s Critical Area Ordinance that include a “reasonable use
determination” shall not apply within shoreline jurisdiction. Specifically,
i. References to reasonable use in Section ACC 16.10.100 “Alteration or
development of critical areas – Standards and criteria” shall not apply; and
ii. Section ACC 16.10.150 “Reasonable use provision” shall not apply.
In the event an applicant wishes to adjust standards and provisions for designated critical
areas per the Reasonable Use Exception under ACC 16.10.150, such application shall be
processed as a Shoreline Variance Permit process, per the provisions of this SMP and WAC
173-27, Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures.
h. Provisions of Auburn’s Critical Areas Ordinance relating to variance procedures and criteria
do not apply within the shoreline jurisdiction. Within the shoreline jurisdiction, the purpose
of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or
performance standards set forth in the applicable Shoreline mMaster pProgram where
there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of
property such that the strict implementation of the Shoreline mMaster pProgram will
impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW
90.58.020. Specifically,
i. References to variances in Section ACC 16.10.090 “Buffer areas and setbacks”
shall not apply; and
ii. ACC section 16.10.160 “Variances” shall not apply. Variance procedures and
criteria shall be established in this SMP, Chapter 6, and in WAC 173-27-170.
i. ACC 16.10.170 “Special exception for public agencies and utilities” shall not apply.
2. All shoreline uses and activities shall be located, designed, constructed and managed to protect
and/or enhance the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes provided by critical
areas including, but not limited to: Wetlands, Streams, Wildlife Habitat, Groundwater Protection
Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas, and Flood Hazard Areas as defined and designated by the
Critical Areas Ordinance; and Critical Freshwater Habitats as defined by the Shoreline Master
Program.
3. Proponents of development in shoreline areas that may impact Ggeologically Hhazardous areas,
as defined and designated in the Critical Areas Ordinance (Chapter 16.10 ACC), critical areas
must submit a gGeologictechnical hazard rReport that complies consistent with Chapter 16.10
ACC and the City of Auburn Engineering Design Standardsthe submittal requirements provided
in Appendix C.
Page 42 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
Draft 4-10
4.4.5 Critical Area Regulations Table
The following table provides a summary of standards and provisions per ACC “Critical Areas.” The table
is only meant to serve as a reference; applicable provisions ACC (included as Appendix A) should be
consulted directly to determine the full extent of the regulation. Per ACC , the Green River and White
River are considered Class I Streams. Other designated critical areas that may be located within
shoreline jurisdiction include wetlands, wildlife habitat areas, and geologic hazard areas.
Page 43 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
4-11 Draft
Table 1. Critical Area Regulations
Critical Area Minimum Buffer
Width
Maximum Buffer
Width
How to Measure Buffer
Width Buffer Composition
Buffer
Averaging/Width
Reduction
Class I Streams
100 feet (Urban
Conservancy and
Shoreline Residential)
200 feet (Natural)
Buffer width may be
increased by the
Director by up to a
maximum of 50%
pursuant to ACC
(E)(2)(b)
The buffer shall be
measured from the
ordinary high water
mark.
Buffers shall typically
consist of an
undisturbed area of
native vegetation
retained or established
to achieve the purpose
of the buffer. No
buildings or structures
shall be allowed within
the buffer unless as
otherwise permitted by
ACC or the Master
Program. If the site has
previously been
disturbed, the buffer
area shall be
revegetated pursuant
to an approved
enhancement plan.
Buffer averaging is not
permitted
Buffer widths may be
reduced by up to 35%
provided the applicant
demonstrates that a
reduction will not result
in any adverse impact
to the stream.
Enhancement of the
buffer may be required.
Buffer width reduction
must comply with ACC
(E)(1).
Wetlands The buffer shall be
measured perpendicular
from the wetland edge as
delineated and marked in
the field using the 1997
Washington State
Wetlands Identification
Manual.
Buffer width averaging
may be allowed
provided the total area
contained within the
buffer after averaging is
no less in area than
contained within the
standard buffer prior to
averaging, where such
reduction shall not
result in greater than a
Category I 100 feet 200 feet
Category II 50 feet 100 feet
Page 44 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
Draft 4-12
Critical Area Minimum Buffer
Width
Maximum Buffer
Width
How to Measure Buffer
Width Buffer Composition
Buffer
Averaging/Width
Reduction
Category III 25 feet 50 feet
35 percent reduction in
the buffer width and
the applicant
demonstrates
compliance with ACC
(E)(1) Buffer Areas and
Setbacks.
Buffer width can be
reduced by up to 35%
provided the applicant
enhances or restores
the buffer. The
restoration or
enhancement would
have to meet
requirements per ACC
(E)(1) Buffer Areas and
Setbacks.
Category IV 25 feet 30 feet
Page 45 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
4-13 Draft
Critical Area Minimum Buffer
Width
Maximum Buffer
Width
How to Measure Buffer
Width Buffer Composition
Buffer
Averaging/Width
Reduction
Wildlife Habitat
Areas
Buffer widths shall be
determined by the
director based on the
following factors:
• species
recommendations of
the Department of Fish
and Wildlife;
• recommendations
contained in the
wildlife report and the
nature and intensity of
land uses and activities
occurring on the site
and on adjacent sites.
N/A N/A
Buffers shall typically
consist of an
undisturbed area of
native vegetation
retained or established
to achieve the purpose
of the buffer. No
buildings or structures
shall be allowed within
the buffer unless as
otherwise permitted by
ACC or the Master
Program. If the site has
previously been
disturbed, the buffer
area shall be
revegetated pursuant
to an approved
enhancement plan.
Buffer widths for critical
habitat areas may be
modified by averaging
buffer widths or by
enhancing or restoring
buffer quality.
Geologic Hazard
Areas
Required buffers may
vary in width. The
widths of the buffer
shall reflect the
sensitivity of the
geologic hazard area in
question and the types
and density of uses
proposed on or
adjacent to the
geologic hazard.
N/A
Geologic hazard area
buffers shall be
measured from the top
and toe and along the
sides of the slope.
Not permitted
Page 46 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
Draft 4-14
Critical Area Minimum Buffer
Width
Maximum Buffer
Width
How to Measure Buffer
Width Buffer Composition
Buffer
Averaging/Width
Reduction
Buffers shall typically
consist of an
undisturbed area of
native vegetation
retained or established
to achieve the purpose
of the buffer. No
buildings or structures
shall be allowed within
the buffer unless as
otherwise permitted by
ACC 16.10 or the
Master Program. If the
site has previously
been disturbed, the
buffer area shall be
revegetated pursuant
to an approved
enhancement plan.
Buffers shall typically
consist of an
undisturbed area of
Page 47 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
4-15 Draft
Critical Area Minimum Buffer
Width
Maximum Buffer
Width
How to Measure Buffer
Width Buffer Composition
Buffer
Averaging/Width
Reduction
native vegetation
retained or established
to achieve the purpose
of the buffer. No
buildings or structures
shall be allowed within
the buffer unless as
otherwise permitted by
ACC 16.10 or the
Master Program. If the
site has previously
been disturbed, the
buffer area shall be
revegetated pursuant
to an approved
enhancement plan.
Page 48 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
Draft 4-16
4.4.64.4.5 Public Access (including views)
Policies
1. 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.
2. Protection and enhancement of the public’s physical and visual access to shorelines should be
encouraged.
3. The amount and diversity of public access to shorelines should be increased consistent with the
natural shoreline character, property rights, and public safety.
4. Publicly owned shorelines should be limited to water-dependent or public recreation uses,
otherwise such shorelines should remain protected, undeveloped open space.
5. Public access should be designed to provide for public safety. Public access facilities should
provide auxiliary facilities, such as parking and sanitation facilities, when appropriate, and
should be designed to be ADA accessible.
Regulations
1. All shoreline permits shall include provisions to provide public access where any of the following
conditions are present:
a. Where a development or use will create increased demand for public access to the
shoreline;
b. Where a development or use will interfere with an existing public access way;
c. Where a use is not a priority use under the Act;
d. Where a new multi-unit residential development or land subdivision for more than four
parcels is proposed
e. Where a non-water-dependent use (including water-enjoyment and water-related use) is
proposed or,
f. Where a use or development will interfere with the public use of the lands or waters subject
to the public trust doctrine.
2. An applicant need not provide public access where one or more of the following conditions
apply:
a. The City of Auburn provides more effective public access through preparation and adoption
of a public access planning process and plan as described in WAC 173-26-221(4)(c);
b. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exists which cannot be prevented by
practical means;
c. Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the application of
alternative design features or other solutions;
d. Environmental harm will result from the public access that cannot be mitigated; or,
Page 49 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
4-17 Draft
e. Adverse and unavoidable conflict between access requirements and the proposed use
cannot be mitigated.
3. Public access shall be designed to respect private properties.
4. Development uses and activities shall be designed and operated to avoid blocking, obstructing,
reducing or adversely interfering with the public’s physical and visual access to the water and
shorelines.
5. Development on the water shall be constructed of non-reflective materials that are compatible
in terms of color and texture with the surrounding area.
6. Public access locations shall be clearly marked with visible signage.
7. Public access provided by shoreline street ends, public utilities, and rights-of-way shall not be
diminished (RCW 36.87.130).
8. Shoreline development by any public entities, including the City of Auburn, port districts, state
agencies, and public utility districts, shall include public access measures as part of each
development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety,
security, impact to the shoreline environment or other provisions listed in WAC 173-26-
221(4)(d).
4.4.74.4.6 Flood Hazard Reduction
Policies
1. The City should manage flood protection through the City’s Comprehensive Drainage Plan,
Comprehensive Plan, stormwater regulations, and flood hazard areas regulations.
2. 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.
3. 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 that assures no net loss of ecological
functions and ecosystem-wide processes. Non-structural measures include setbacks, land use
controls prohibiting or limiting development in areas that are historically flooded, stormwater
management plans, or bioengineering measures.
4. Where possible, public access should be integrated into publicly financed flood control and
management facilities.
Regulations
1. No permanent non-water dependent structures or uses shall be placed in the floodway zone.
Bank protection associated with bridge construction and maintenance may be permitted and
shall conform to provisions of the State Hydraulics Code (RCW 77.55).
2. Normal maintenance and repair of existing flood control structures, such as levees and dikes, to
a state comparable to its original condition, shall be allowed per WAC 173-27-040(2) (b).
3. Rehabilitation or replacement of existing flood control structures, such as levees and dikes,
whose primary purpose is to contain the 1-percent annual chance flood event, shall be allowed
where it can be demonstrated by an engineering analysis that the existing structure:
Page 50 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
Draft 4-18
a. Does not provide an appropriate level of protection for surrounding lands; or
b. Does not meet appropriate engineering design standards for stability (e.g., oversteepened
side slopes for existing soil and/or flow conditions).
Rehabilitated or replaced structures shall maintain equal or lesser side slope angles to existing
conditions, and shall not extend the toe of slope laterally into the channel.
4. New structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be allowed only under the following
circumstances:
a. When it can be demonstrated by a scientific and engineering analysis that they are
necessary to protect existing development;
b. That non-structural measures are not feasible;
c. That impacts to ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully
mitigated so as to assure no net loss; and
d. That appropriate vegetation restoration and conservation actions are undertaken consistent
with regulations under Section 4.4.2 “Shoreline Vegetation Conservation” of the Master
Program and ACCChapter 16.10 ACC, “Critical Areas”.
5. Permanent structures placed within the 100-year floodplain shall be designed and constructed
in accordance with the requirements of ACC Chapter 15.68 ACC, “Flood Hazard Areas”.
6. New structural flood hazard reduction measures, such as dikes, levees, berms and similar flood
control structures shall be placed landward of the floodway as determined by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the State of Washington, Department of Ecology.
7. New structural flood hazard reduction measures, such as dikes, levees, berms shall be placed
landward of associated wetlands, and designated vegetation conservation areas, except when
the project includes increasing ecological functions as part of the design or as mitigation for
impacts.
8. Dikes, levees, berms and similar flood control structures shall be shaped and planted with
vegetation suitable for wildlife habitat.
9. New structural public flood hazard reduction measures, such as dikes and levees shall dedicate
and provide or improve public access unless public access improvements would cause
unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public, inherent and unavoidable security problems,
significant ecological impacts that cannot be mitigated, unavoidable conflict with the proposed
use, or a cost that is disproportionate and unreasonable to the total long-term cost of the
development.
10. Removal of gravel from the river channel for flood management purposes is prohibited.
4.4.84.4.7 Water Quality, Storm water and Non-Point Pollution
Policies
1. The City should prevent impacts to water quality and storm water quantity that would result in a
net loss of shoreline ecological functions, or a significant impact to aestheti c qualities, or
recreational opportunities.
Page 51 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
4-19 Draft
2. Storm water management treatment, conveyance, or discharge facilities should be discouraged
in the shoreline jurisdiction, unless no other feasible alternative is available.
3. 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.
4. Encourage conservation of existing shoreline vegetation which provides water quality protection
by slowing and filtering stormwater runoff.
Regulations
1. Shoreline development and use shall incorporate measures to protect and maintain surface and
ground water quantity and quality in accordance with all applicable laws. Appropriate
vegetation restoration and conservation actions shall be undertaken consistent with regulations
under Section 4.4.2, “Shoreline Vegetation Conservation” and ACCChapter 16.10 ACC, “Critical
Areas”.
2. Development within the City’s shoreline shall conform to all requirements in the City’s
Comprehensive Drainage Plan and stormwater standards, Comprehensive Plan, and Flood
Hazard Areas regulations.
3. The construction of new outfalls into water bodies and improvements to existing facilities shall
comply with all appropriate Federal, State, and City regulations for water quality.
4. Water discharged to rivers shall receive appropriate treatment as determined by the
Department of Ecology and shall not present a thermal or other barrier to fish migration.
5. Use of pesticides and fertilizers in or near shoreline jurisdiction shall conform to the following:
a. Pesticides applied using aerial spraying techniques within the shoreline jurisdiction,
including over water bodies or wetlands, shall be prohibited unless specifically permitted
under the Washington Departments of Agriculture or Ecology.
b. Pesticides, organic or mineral derived fertilizers, or other hazardous substances, if necessary
shall be restricted in accordance with: the state Depar tment of Fish and Wildlife
Management Recommendations; the regulations of the state Department of Ecology as the
Environmental Protection Agency’s delegated authority and permitting body for the
application of pesticides and herbicides to the waters of Washington State; and pesticide
labels as per the authority of the state Department of Agriculture.
c. Pesticides shall be used, handled, and be disposed of in accordance with provisions of the
Washington State Pesticide Application Act (RCW 17.21) and the Washington State Pesticide
Act (RCW 15.587) to prevent contamination and sanitation problems.
4.4.94.4.8 Educational and Archeological Areas and Historic Sites
Policies
1. Where possible, Educational and Archeological Areas and Historic sites in the shoreline should
be permanently preserved for scientific study, education, and public observation.
Page 52 of 101
Auburn Shoreline Master Program
Draft 4-20
2. Consideration should be given to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Chapter
43.51 RCW to provide for the protection, rehabilitation, 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.
3. Where feasible and appropriate, access trails to shorelines should incorporate access to or
educational signage acknowledging protected, historical, cultural and archeological sites or
areas in the shoreline.
Regulations
1. If any archeological artifacts are uncovered during excavations in the shoreline, work must stop
and the City of Auburn, the State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation and the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe must be notified.
2. Permits issued in areas known or highly suspected to contain archeological artifacts and data
shall have provisions providing for a site inspection and evaluation by an archeologist prior to
initiation of disturbance and for monitoring of potentially disruptive activities. Cost for
inspection and evaluation of the site will be the responsibility of the developer. This condition
shall require the approval by the Director before work can begin or resume on a project.
Significant archeological data or artifacts shall be recovered before work resumes or begins on a
project.
Page 53 of 101
Exhibit 2 – June 4, 2019 – Planning Commission – Proposed Changes to Portions of the SMP
16.10.080 Classification and rating of critical areas.
A. To promote consistent application of the standards and requirements of this chapter, critical areas within the city of
Auburn shall be rated or classified according to their characteristics, function and value, and/or their sensitivity to
disturbance.
B. Classification of critical areas shall be determined by the director based on consideration of the following factors and in
the following order:
1. Consideration of the technical reports submitted by qualified consultants in connection with applications subject to
these regulations;
2. Application of the criteria contained in these regulations; and
3. Critical areas maps maintained by the planning and department of community development department.
C. Wetland Classification. Wetlands shall be designated Category I, Category II, Category III, Category IV and as
artificially created according to the criteria in this section. Wetland classifications incorporate the current Washington State
Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington from the (Department of Ecology, 2004, Publication No. 04-06-025).
Wetland rating categories shall be applied as the wetland exists on the date of adoption of the rating system by the local
government, as the wetland naturally changes thereafter, or as the wetland changes in accordance with permitted
activities. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications.
1. “Category I wetlands” are those wetlands which meet any of the following criteria: (1) represent unique or rare
wetland types; (2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; (3) are relatively undisturbed and contain
ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of functions.
Such wetlands are:
a. Represent a unique or rare wetland type; or Relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre;
b. Are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; or Wetlands of high conservation value that are
identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR;
c. Are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human
lifetime; or Bogs;
d. Are providing a high level of functions, scoring 70 23 points or more out of 100 27 (DOE Wetlands Rating
System, 20104); or Mature and old-growth forested wetlands larger than 1 acre;
e. Are characterized as a national heritage wetland; or Wetlands in coastal lagoons;
f. Are characterized as a bog; or Interdunal wetlands that score 8 or 9 habitat points and are larger than 1 acre;
g. Are over one acre and characterized as a mature and old-growth forested wetland Wetlands that perform
many functions well (scoring 23 points or more).
2. “Category II wetlands” are: those wetlands which are not Category I wetlands and which meet any of the following
criteria:
a. Provide high levels of some functions, being difficult, though not impossible to replace; or Estuarine wetlands
smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre;
b. Perform most functions relatively well, scoring 51 20 – 6922 out of 10027 points (DOE Wetlands Rating
System, 20104). Interdunal wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands;
c. Wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 and 22 points).
3. “Category III wetlands”, which have a score between 16 and 19 points, generally have been disturbed in some
ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II
wetlands. Such wetlands are: are those wetlands that are not Category I or II wetlands, and which meet the following
criterion:
Page 54 of 101
a. Provide moderate levels of functions, scoring between 3016 – 5019 out of 10027 points (DOE Wetlands
Rating System, 20104). Wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points);
b. Can often be adequately replaced with a well-planned mitigation project;
c. Interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1 acre.
4. “Category IV wetlands” are those wetlands that meet the following criterion: have the lowest levels of functions
(scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that should be able to be replace,
or in some cases be improved. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any
specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions, and should be protected to some degree.
a. Provide low levels of functions, scoring less than 3016 out of 10027 points (DOE Wetlands Rating System,
20104).
5. “Artificially created wetlands” are purposefully created landscape features, ponds and storm water detention or
retention facilities. Artificially created wetlands do not include wetlands created as mitigation, and wetlands modified
for approved land use activities. Purposeful creation must be demonstrated to the director through documentation,
photographs, statements and/or other evidence. Artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites are
excluded from regulation under this section.
D. Stream Classification. Streams shall be classified according to the water typing system as provided in WAC 222-16-
030, as amended and designated as Class IType S, Class IIType F, Class IIIType Np, and Class IVType Ns according to
the criteria in this section:.
1. “Class I Type S streams” are those natural streams identified as “shorelines of the state” under Chapter 90.58
RCW and the city of Auburn shoreline master program.
2. “Class IIType F streams” are those natural streams that are not Class I streams and are either perennial or
intermittent and have one of the following characteristics:
a. Contain fish habitat; or
b. Has significant recreational value, as determined by the director.
3. “Class IIIType Np streams” are those natural streams with perennial (year-round) or intermittent flow and do not
contain fish habitat.
4. “Class IV Type Ns streams” are those natural streams and drainage swales with channel width less than two feet
taken at the ordinary high water mark, that do not contain fish habitat.
5. “Intentionally created streams” are those manmade streams defined as such in these regulations, and do not
include streams created as mitigation. Purposeful creation must be demonstrated through documentation,
photographs, statements and/or other evidence. Intentionally created streams may include irrigation and drainage
ditches, grass-lined swales and canals. Intentionally created streams are excluded from regulation under this section,
except manmade streams that provide “critical habitat,” as designated by federal or state agencies, for salmonids.
16.10.090 Buffer areas and setbacks.
A. General Provisions. The establishment of on-site buffers, buffer areas or setbacks shall be required for all development
proposals and activities in or adjacent to critical areas. The purpose of the buffer shall be to protect the integrity, function,
value, and resources of the subject critical area (in the case of wetlands, streams, and/or wildlife habitat areas), and/or to
protect life, property and resources from risks associated with development on unstable or critical lands (in the case of
geologically hazardous areas). Buffers shall typically consist of an undisturbed area of native vegetation retained or
established to achieve the purpose of the buffer. No buildings or structures shall be allowed within the buffer unless as
otherwise permitted by this section. If the site has previously been disturbed, the buffer area shall be revegetated
pursuant to an approved enhancement plan. Buffers shall be protected during construction by placement of a temporary
barricade, notice of the presence of the critical area and implementation of appropriate erosion and sedimentation
controls. Restrictive covenants or conservation easements may be required to provide long-term preserv ation and
protection of buffer areas.
Page 55 of 101
B. Required buffer widths shall reflect the sensitivity of the particular critical area and resource or the risks associated with
development and, in those circumstances permitted by these regulations, the type and intensity of human activity
proposed to be conducted on or near the critical area.
C. Buffers shall be measured as follows:
1. Wetland buffers – the buffer shall be measured perpendicular from the wetland edge as delineated and marked in
the field using the 1997 Washington State approved federal W wetlands Identification and Ddelineation Mm anual and
the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Regional supplement;
2. Stream buffers – the buffer shall be measured from the ordinary high water mark;
3. Geologically hazardous area buffers shall be required for critical landslide hazard areas and shall be measured
from the top and toe and along the sides of the slope.
D. Buffer Width Variances. A variance from buffer width requirements may be granted by the city subject to the variance
criteria set forth in ACC 16.10.160. Minor variances, defined as up to and including 10 percent of the requirement, shall be
considered by the director. Variance requests which exceed 10 percent shall be considered by the hearing examiner.
E. Buffer widths shall be established for specific critical areas according to the following standards and criteria:
1. Wetland buffers shall be established as follows: per the following table.
Wetland Category
Minimum Buffer Width (in
feet) with Minimization
Measures listed in ACC
16.10.090(E)(2)
Minaximum Buffer Width (in
feet) without Minimization
Measures listed in ACC
16.10.090(E)(2)
(see subsection (E)(1) (g) of this
section)
Habitat Score* Habitat Score*
Low Medium High Low Medium High
Category I 100
feet75 110 225 200
feet100 150 300
Category II 50 feet75 110 225 100
feet100 150 300
Category III 25 feet60 110 225 50 feet80 150 300
Category IV 25 feet40 40 40 30 feet50 50 50
*As determined per ACC 16.10.090(C)(1).
Page 56 of 101
2. Standard buffer widths as noted in subsection (E)(1) of this section may be reduced, as provided in that
subsection’s table, if all of the following minimization measures are implemented.
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 activity
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
Change in water
regime
- Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from
impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human
disturbance
- 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
Different buffer width requirements may apply to various portions of a site, without requiring averaging or variances,
based on the site plan, the intensity of land uses in various locations, and differences in the category of wetland.
a. Buffer width averaging to improve wetland protection may be permitted when all of may be allowed where the
applicant demonstrates to the director that the wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical
characteristics, that lower intensity land uses would be located adjacent to areas where buffer width is reduced,
that width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functional values and/or that the total area contained
within the buffer after averaging is no less in area than contained within the standard buffer prior to averaging.
Buffer width averaging may be allowed only where such reduction shall not result in greater than a 35 percent
reduction in the buffer width established in this section and the applicant demonstrates the following conditions
are met:
i. The proposed buffer area is extensively vegetated and has less than 25 percent slopes, and the reduction
will not result in adverse impacts to the wetland; or The wetland has significant differences in characteristics
that affect its habitat functions, such as a wetland with a forested component adjacent to a degraded
emergent component or a “dual-rated” wetland with a Category I area adjacent to a lower-rated area.
Page 57 of 101
ii. The project includes a buffer increased adjacent to the higher-functioning area of habitat or more-sensitive
portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower-functioning or less-sensitive portion as
demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified wetland professional. enhancement plan, as part of
the mitigation required by this chapter and has less than 25 percent slopes. The buffer enhancement plan
shall use plant species which are native to the project area, and shall substantiate that an enhanced buffer
will improve the functional attributes of the buffer to provide additional protection for wetland functional values;
or
iii. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging acreage
included in the buffer would substantially exceed the size of the wetland and the reduction will not result in
adverse impacts to the wetland and the project includes a buffer enhancement plan which ensures that the
reduction will not result in adverse impacts to the wetland.
iv. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either 75% of the required width or 75 feet f or Category
I and II, 50 feet for Category III, and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever buffer is greater.
b. Buffer width may be reduced by up to 35 percent if an applicant undertakes measures approved by the
director to enhance or restore the buffer. The restoration or enhancement may include, but is not limited to,
planting of native trees or shrubs, increasing the diversity of plant cover types or replacement of ex otic species
with native species which approximate in composition a naturally occurring plant community.
cb. Application of subsections (E)(1)(a) and (b) of this section shall not result in a buffer width less than 25 feet.
dc. Certain uses and activities which are consistent with the purpose and function of the wetland buffer and do
not detract from its integrity may be permitted by the director within the buffer depending on the sensitivity of the
wetland. Examples of uses and activities with minimal impacts which may be permitted in appropriate cases
include permeable pedestrian trails, viewing platforms, and utility easements; provided, that any impacts to the
buffer resulting from such permitted activities shall be mitigated. Uses permitted within the buffer shall generally
be located as far from the wetland as possible. Walkways and trails should be limited to minor crossings having
no adverse impact on water quality. They should be generally parallel to the perimeter of the wetland, located
only in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the wetland buffer area, and located to avoid removal of significant
trees. They should be limited to pervious surfaces no more than five (5) feet in width for pedestrian use only.
Raised boardwalks utilizing non-treated pilings may be acceptable.
ed. Where existing buffers are degraded, the director may allow limited filling within the buffer when the applicant
demonstrates that the buffer will be enhanced according to standards of this chapter, including appropriate soil
preparation, will not result in slopes exceeding 25 percent, and there will be no net loss of wetland or buffer
functions and values.
f e. Long-term protection of a regulated wetland and its associated buffer shall be provided by one of the following
methods. It shall be placed in a separate tract on which development is prohibited, protected by execution of an
easement dedicated to the city, a conservation organization or land trust, or similarly preserved through a
permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the city. The location and limitations associated with the wetland
and its buffer shall be shown on the face of the deed or plat applicable to the property and shall be recorded with
the King or Pierce County recording department.
g. The director may require increased buffer widths up to the amount in this column when a larger buff er is
deemed necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site conditions, site design, intensity and
operational characteristics of the development/land use. Examples where increased buffers may be required
include, but are not limited to, where a larger buffer is necessary to maintain viable populations of species listed
as endangered, threatened or sensitive, or when land adjacent to the buffer is susceptible to severe erosion and
erosion control measures are inadequate to effectiv ely prevent adverse wetland impacts.
g. The following wetlands may be exempt from the requirement to avoid impacts and they may be filled if the
impacts are fully mitigated based on the remaining actions. If available, impacts should be mitigated through the
purchase of credits from an in-lieu fee program or mitigation bank, consistent with the terms and conditions of the
program or bank. In order to verify the following conditions, a critical area report for wetlands meeting the
requirements in ACC 16.10.060 must be submitted.
i. All isolated Category IV wetlands less than 4,000 square feet that:
(A) Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers
(B) Are not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated buffers
Page 58 of 101
(C) Are not part of a wetland mosaic
(D) Do not score 5 or more points for habitat function based on the 2014 update to the Washington
State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14- 06-029,
or as revised and approved by Ecology)
(E) Do not contain a Priority Habitat or a Priority Area for a Priority Species identified by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, do not contain federally listed species or their critical
habitat, or species of local importance identified in ACC 16.10.080(E).
ii. Wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that meet the above criteria and do not contain federally listed
species or their critical habitat are exempt from the buffer provisions contained in this Chapter.
2. Stream buffers shall be established as follows:
Stream ClassType
Minimum Buffer
Width (in feet)
Class I
(see subsection (E)(2)(b) of this
section)Type S
100 feetPer SMP
Class II Type F 75 feet100-165
Class IIIType Np 25 feet
50-65
Class IVType Ns 25 feet
50-65
a. The applicable minimum buffer for Class IType S streams shall be the larger of the buffer established by these
regulations or that established byis listed in the city’s shoreline master program.
b. The buffer widths required in this section may be increased by the director up to a maximum of 50 percent for
Class I, II and IVType F, and Ns streams and up to 100 percent for Class III Type Np streams in response to site-
specific conditions and based on the report information submitted to characterize the functions and values of the
stream. This includes, but is not limited to, situations where the critical area serves as habitat for threatened,
endangered or sensitive species. The applicant may propose to implement one or more enhancement measures,
listed in order of preference below, which will be considered in establishing buffer requirements:
i. Removal of fish barriers to restore accessibility to anadromous fish.
ii. Enhancement of fish habitat using log structures incorporated as part of a fish habitat enhancement plan.
iii. Enhancement of wildlife habitat by adding structures that are likely to be used by wildlife, including wood
duck houses, bat boxes, nesting platforms, snags, root wads/stumps, birdhouses, and heron nesting areas.
iv. Additional mitigating measures may include but are not limited to:
(A) Landscaping outside the buffer area with native vegetation or a reduction in the amount of clearing outside
the buffer area;
(B) Planting native vegetation within the buffer area, especially vegetation that would increase value for fish
and wildlife, increase stream bank or slope stability, improve water quality, or provide aesthetic/recreational
value;
(C) Creating a surface channel where a stream was previously culverted or piped;
(D) Removing or modifying existing stream culverts (such as at road crossings) to improve fish passage and
flow capabilities which are not detrimental to fish;
(E) Upgrading retention/detention facilities or other drainage facilities beyond required levels; or
Page 59 of 101
(F) Similar measures determined applicable by the director.
c. No structures or improvements shall be permitted within the stream buffer area, including buildings, decks,
docks, except as otherwise permitted or required under the city’s adopted shoreline master program, or under
one of the following circumstances:
i. When the improvements are part of an approved enhancement, restoration or mitigation plan; or
ii. For construction of new public roads and utilities, and accessory structures, when no feasible alternative
location exists; or
iii. Construction of foot trails, according to the following criteria:
(A) Designed to minimize impact of permeable materials;
(B) Designed to minimize impact on the stream system;
(C) Of a maximum width of 12 feet;
(D) Located within the outer half of the buffer, i.e., the portion of the buffer that is farther away from the
stream; or
iv. Construction of footbridges; or
v. Construction of educational facilities, such as viewing platforms and informational signs.
d. Buffer width averaging may be allowed for Class IIType F and Class III Type Np streams only; provided, that
all of the following are demonstrated by the applicant:
i. One or more of the enhancement measures identified in subsection (E)(2)(b)(i) through (iv) of this section is
implemented;
ii. The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less in area than contained within the
standard buffer prior to averaging;
iii. The buffer width averaging will result in stream functions and values equal or greater than before
averaging; and
iv. The buffer width is not reduced by more than 35 25 percent in any location than the buffer widths
established by this chapter.
e. Stream buffer widths may be reduced by the director on a case-by-case basis by up to 35 25 percent if an
applicant demonstrates that a reduction will not result in any adverse impact to the stream. Further, if an existing
buffer is vegetated, a buffer enhancement plan may be required to demonstrate how the function and values of
the buffer and stream will be improved. If the existing buffer has been disturbed and/or is not vegetated, an
enhancement plan shall be required that identifies measures to enhance the buffer functions and values and
provide additional protection for the stream function and values. Enhancement plans are subject to approval by
the planning director.
f. Long-term protection of a regulated stream and its associated buffer shall be provided by one of the following
methods, except for the portion of Class IType S streams which are owned by the State Department of Natural
Resources. The stream and buffer shall be placed in a separate tract on which development is prohibited,
protected by execution of an easement dedicated to the city, a conservation organization, land trust, or similarly
preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the city. The location and limitations
associated with the stream and its buffer shall be shown on the face of the deed or plat applicable to the property
and shall be recorded with the King or Pierce County recording department.
Page 60 of 101
16.10.110 Mitigation standards, criteria and plan requirements.
A. Mitigation Standards. Adverse impacts to critical area functions and values shall be mitigated. Mitigation actions shall
generally be implemented in the preferred sequence identified in this chapter. Proposals which include less preferred
and/or compensatory mitigation shall demonstrate that:
1. All feasible and reasonable measures as determined by the department have been taken to reduce impacts and
losses to the critical area, or to avoid impacts where avoidance is required by these regulations;
2. The restored, created or enhanced critical area or buffer will be as viable and enduring as the critical area or buffer
area it replaces; and
3. No overall net loss will occur in wetland or stream functions and values. The mitigation shall be functionally
equivalent to or greater than the altered wetland or stream in terms of hydrological, biological, physical, and chemical
functions.
B. Location and Timing of Mitigation.
1. The preferred location of mitigation is on site when ecologically preferable to other identified alternatives. Mitigation
may be allowed off site when it is determined by the department that on-site mitigation is not ecologically preferable
to other identified alternatives, or, in the case of wetlands, where the affected site is identified as appropriate for off-
site mitigation in the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), April 2000. The burden of proof shall be on
the applicant to demonstrate that mitigation cannot be provided on site or is consistent with the SAMP. If it is
determined that on-site mitigation is not ecologically preferable to other identified alternatives, mitigation shall be
provided in the same drainage basin as the permitted activity on property owned, secured, or controlled by the
applicant, or provided by the applicant using alternative mitigation options such as mitigation banking or in-lieu fee
programs. The mitigation should result in no net loss to the critical area functions impacted and associated
watershed. Where mitigation is authorized to be located outside the city limits, the applicant shall assure to the
satisfaction of the department that other requirements of this chapter will be met, including but not limited to,
monitoring and maintenance.
2. In-kind mitigation shall be provided except when the applicant demonstrates, and the department concurs, that
greater functional and habitat value can be achieved through out-of-kind mitigation.
3. When wetland, stream or habitat mitigation is permitted by these regulations, the mitigation project shall occur near
an adequate water supply (river, stream, ground water) with a hydrologic connection to the critical area to ensure a
successful mitigation or restoration. A natural hydrologic connection is preferential as compared to one which relies
upon manmade or constructed features requiring routine maintenance.
4. Any mitigation plan shall be completed before initiation of other permitted activities, unless a phased or concurrent
schedule that assures completion prior to occupancy has been approved by the department.
C. Wetland Replacement Ratios.
1. Where wetland alterations are permitted by the director, the applicant shall enhance or create areas of wetlands in
order to compensate for wetland losses. The compensation shall be determined according to acreage, function, type,
location, timing factors and projected success of enhancement or creation.
2. The following acreage replacement and enhancement ratios shall be implemented; however, the departm ent may
vary these standards if the applicant can demonstrate and the director agrees that the variation will provide adequate
compensation for lost wetland area, functions and v alues, or if other circumstances as determined by the director
justify the variation. Except as provided for Category IV wetlands in subsection (C)(3) of this section, in no case shall
the amount of mitigation be less than the area of affected wetland. The director may at his discretion increase these
standards where mitigation is to occur off-site or in other appropriate circumstances.
3. Category IV wetlands can be mitigated by either: (a) meeting one of the replacement ratios (*see following table);
or (b) implementing mitigation which ensures no net loss of values and functions of the larger ecosystem in which the
critical area is located.
Page 61 of 101
Wetland
Category
and type
of Wetland
Wetland Creation
Ratio (Acres)or Re-
establishment
Rehabilitation
Wetland
Enhancement Ratio
(Acres)
(Acres Created or Enhanced: Acres Impacted)
Category I:
Bog,
Natural
Heritage
Site
6:1 Not considered
possible
Case by case 12:1Case by case
Category I:
Mature
Forested
6:1 12:1 24:1
Category I:
Based on
functions
4:1 8:1 16:1
Category II Forested
3:1
6:1 612:1
Scrub/Shrub 2:1 4:1
Emergent 2:1 4:1
Category
III
Forested
23:1
4:1 68:1
Scrub/Shrub 2:1 4:1
Emergent 2:1 4:1
Category
IV*
1.25:1* 3:1 2.56:1*
Page 62 of 101
Gap Analysis Report
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Update
City of Auburn
Revised April 2019
Prepared on behalf of:
Community Development
25 W Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001
Exhibit 3
Page 63 of 101
Page 64 of 101
i
Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s
1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
2. Consistency with Legislative Amendments ...................................................... 3
3. Consistency with Critical Areas Ordinance .................................................... 14
4. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Other Development
Regulations. .......................................................................................................... 26
5. Staff Recommendations & Other Issues for Consideration ............................ 28
L i st o f Ta b l e s
Table 1. Abbreviations used in this document. ..................................................................2
Table 2. Summary of gaps in consistency with legislative amendments sorted by year,
and associated mandatory and recommended SMP revisions.............................3
Table 3. Issues to be resolved to integrate the City’s CAO into the updated SMP ............14
Table 4. Number of sampled wetlands in each category based on their score for
functions. ...............................................................................................................22
Table 5. Wetland buffer widths (in feet) under Chapter 16 ACC/SMP Appendix A and
Ecology’s most recent guidance ............................................................................24
Table 6. Wetland buffer impact minimization measures, per Ecology’s most recent
guidance ................................................................................................................24
24
Table 7. Stream buffer provisions under Chapter 16 ACC/SMP Appendix A, SMP, and
BAS, including an updated water typing system ..................................................25
Table 8. Summary of recommended SMP, ACC, and Comprehensive Plan revisions to
improve consistency. ............................................................................................26
Table 9. Staff recommended changes to SMP ....................................................................28
Page 65 of 101
1
1. Introduction
In accordance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), local jurisdictions
with shorelines of the state are required to conduct a periodic review of their Shoreline Master
Programs (SMPs) (WAC 173-26-090). This review is intended to keep SMPs current with
amendments to state laws or rules, changes to local plans and regulations, changes in local
circumstances, and new or improved data and information.
The City of Auburn (City) adopted its current SMP in 2009 (Ordinance No. 6235). In Auburn,
the Green River and the White River are the only Shorelines of the State, and both are also
designated Shorelines of Statewide Significance. The City’s SMP includes goals and policies,
shoreline environment designations, and development regulations that guide the development
and protection of these shorelines.
As a first step in the periodic review process, The Watershed Company (Watershed) reviewed
the current SMP for consistency with legislative amendments made since its adoption.
Watershed staff also reviewed the current SMP for consistency with the policies in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, adopted in December 2015 (Ordinance No. 6584), and with the
implementing development regulations in the Auburn Municipal Code (ACC). Finally, as the
periodic review process represents an opportunity to revise and improve the SMP, both City
and Watershed staff reviewed the current SMP for overall usability.
The purpose of this gap analysis report is to provide a summary of the review and inform
updates to the SMP. The report is organized into the following sections according to the content
of the review:
Section 2 identifies gaps in the SMP’s consistency with legislative amendments. This
analysis is based on a list of amendments between 2007 and 2017, as summarized by the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and provided to the City as a
Periodic Review Checklist.
Section 3 identifies gaps in consistency of the SMP with the City’s Critical Areas
Ordinance (CAO) (ACC Chapter 16.10). The CAO was most recently updated in 2010,
and applies to critical areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
Section 4 identifies gaps in consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and with
implementing sections of the City’s development regulations other than the CAO.
Section 5 identifies issues of usability noted by both City staff and residents.
Page 66 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
2
For each section, the report presents the topic, relevant section(s) in the SMP, a summary of the
analysis (consistency or usability), and a recommendation for revisions to the SMP.
This report includes several tables that identify potential revision actions. Where potential
revision actions are identified, they are classified as follows:
“Mandatory” indicates revisions that are required for consistency with state laws.
“Recommended” indicates revisions that would improve consistency with state laws,
but are not strictly required.
“Optional” indicates revisions that represent ways in which the City could elect to
amend its SMP in accordance with state laws, but that are not required or recommended
for consistency with state laws.
This document attempts to minimize the use of abbreviations; however, a select few are used to
keep the document concise. These abbreviations are compiled below in Table 1.
Table 1. Abbreviations used in this document.
Abbreviation Meaning
BAS Best available science
CARs Critical areas regulations
City City of Auburn
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
RCW Revised Code of Washington
SMP Shoreline Master Program
SMA Shoreline Management Act
WAC Washington Administrative Code
ACC Auburn City/Municipal Code
Page 67 of 101
3
2. Consistency with Legislative Amendments
Table 2 summarizes mandatory and recommended revisions to the Auburn SMP based on the
review of consistency with legislative amendments made since SMP adoption. Topics are
organized in reverse chronological order of legislative amendments addressed. In general,
mandatory changes to the SMP are minor in nature. The majority of them address revised rules
with regard to SMP applicability, including updated exemption thresholds and definitions.
Ecology has also developed new guidance on regulating nonconforming uses, structures, and
development that could be of use to the City in clarifying the nonconformance regulations in its
SMP.
Table 2. Summary of gaps in consistency with legislative amendments sorted by year, and associated
mandatory and recommended SMP revisions.
Row Summary of change Review Action
2017
a. The Washington State Office
of Financial Management
(OFM) adjusted the cost
threshold for substantial
development to $7,047.
SMP Section 4.1 and
definition for “Substantial
Development” (Section 1.2)
cite a cost threshold of
$5,718.
Relevant Sections:
Definition of “Substantial
Development” (Section 1.2,
Page 1-13) & Section 4.1
(Page 4-1)
Mandatory: The cost
threshold should be
updated to reflect the
current cost threshold of
$7,047 for substantial
development.
b. Ecology amended rules to
clarify that the definition of
“development” does not
include dismantling or
removing structures.
The SMP does not clarify
that removing structures
does not constitute
development.
Relevant Section:
Definition for
“Development” (Section
1.2).
Mandatory: Revise
definition of
“development” to include
Ecology’s suggested
language: “Development”
does not include dismantling
or removing structures if there
is no other associated
Page 68 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
4
Row Summary of change Review Action
development or re-
development.
c. Ecology adopted rules that
clarify exceptions to local
review under the SMA.
The SMP (Chapter 6,
Section 16.08.015) adopts
exemptions under WAC
173-27-040 by reference, but
does not refer to exceptions
under WAC 173-27-044 or -
045.
Relevant Sections: Chapter
6, Section 16.08 & Section
4.1.
Mandatory: Add reference
to statutory exceptions via
reference to WAC 173-27-
044 and -045.
d. Ecology amended rules that
clarify permit filing
procedures consistent with a
2011 statute.
The SMP (Chapter 6,
Section 16.08.015) adopts
provisions of WAC 173-27-
130 by reference. Chapter 6,
Section 16.08.190 references
RCW 90.58.140.
Relevant Sections: SMP
Chapter 6, Sections
16.08.015 & 16.08.190
No change needed.
e.
Ecology amended forestry use
regulations to clarify that
forest practices that only
involves timber cutting are not
SMA “developments” and do
not require Substantial
Development Permits.
Forest practices are
prohibited in Auburn’s
SMP for all Shoreline
Environment Designations
(Section 4.7.1) although the
definition for “Forest
Practices” (Section 1.2) does
not clarify that timber
cutting practices are not
SMA developments and
Recommended: Consider
updating definition of
“Forest Practices” for
consistency with Ecology’s
recommended language: A
forest practice that only
involves timber cutting is not
a development under the act
and does not require a
shoreline substantial
development permit or a
Page 69 of 101
5
Row Summary of change Review Action
could potentially be
allowed.
Relevant Section:
Definition of “Forest
Practices” (Section 1.2)
shoreline exemption. A forest
practice that includes activities
other than timber cutting may
be a development under the act
and may require a substantial
development permit, as
required by WAC 222-50-020.
f. Ecology clarified the SMA
does not apply to lands under
exclusive federal jurisdiction
Auburn has no lands under
exclusive federal
jurisdiction (ie, National
Parks, permanent military
installations, etc) within
shoreline jurisdiction.
No change needed.
g.
Ecology clarified “default”
provisions for nonconforming
uses and development.
The SMP establishes its
own standards for
nonconforming use and
development in Section
4.4.10, Appendix B, and
ACC 18.54.
Relevant Sections: Section
4.4.10, SMP Appendix B
(ACC 18.54), and definition
for “Nonconforming Use
and Development” (Section
1.2).
Recommended: Update
definitions to define
nonconforming structures,
uses, and lots for
consistency with the
defintions in WAC 173-27-
080(1).
h. Ecology adopted rule
amendments to clarify the
scope and process for
conducting periodic reviews.
The SMP does not include a
discussion of periodic
reviews.
No change needed.
Page 70 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
6
Row Summary of change Review Action
i. Ecology adopted a new rule
creating an optional SMP
amendment process that
allows for a shared local/state
public comment period.
Section 5 of the SMP
establishes amendment
procedure, and includes
reference WAC 173-26.
Relevant Section: SMP
Section 5
No changed needed.
j. Submittal to Ecology of
proposed SMP amendments.
SMP Section 5.1.10
discusses transmittal of
SMP amendments to
Ecology.
Relevant Section: Section
5.1.10
Recommended: Consider
updating language in
Section 5.1.10 to clarify that
SMP amendments take
effect 14 days after Ecology
approval, or directly
reference WAC 173-26-110.
2016
a.
The Legislature created a new
shoreline permit exemption
for retrofitting existing
structures to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Chapter 6, Section 16.08.015
adopts exemptions by
reference to WAC 173-27-
040.
Relevant Section: Chapter
6, Section 16.08.015.
No change needed.
b. Ecology updated wetlands
critical areas guidance
including implementation
guidance for the 2014
wetlands rating system.
Chapter 16 ACC & SMP
Appendix A both reference
the 2004 wetlands rating
system.
Relevant Section: Chapter
16.10.080(C), 16.10.090(E)(1)
ACC & Appendix A
8.1.6(C), 8.1.7(E)(1)
Mandatory: Revise
shoreline critical areas
regulations to reference
2014 wetlands rating
system. This includes
updating the referenced
manual for wetland rating
to the 2014 publication, as
well as updating the scoring
system in accordance with
the 2014 system. See
Page 71 of 101
7
Row Summary of change Review Action
section 3 for further
discussion on integration of
critical areas regulations.
2015
a. The Legislature adopted a 90-
day target for local review of
Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT)
projects.
The SMP does not address
this.
Optional: Consider
amending SMP to define
special procedures for
WSDOT projects per WAC
173-27-125.
2014
a. The Legislature raised the cost
threshold for requiring a
Substantial Development
Permit (SDP) for replacement
docks on lakes and rivers to
$20,000 (from $10,000).
Piers and docks are
prohibited in Auburn’s
SMP for all Shoreline
Environment Designations
(Section 4.5 & 4.6.1),
although the definition of
“Substantial Development”
does reference the $10,000
threshold for exemption.
Chapter 16.08.015 adopts
exemptions by reference to
WAC 173-27-040.
Relevant Sections: Section
4.5, Section 4.6.1, and the
definition for “Substantial
Development” (Section 1.2).
Recommended: Amend
definition of “Substantial
Development” to remove
discussion of exemptions
for docks, as it is not
relevant in Auburn.
b. The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for
floating on-water residences
legally established before
7/1/2014.
SMP Section 4.7.8(1)
prohibits new floating on-
water residences.
Relevant Section: Section
4.7.8(1)
No change needed. There
are no existing FOWRs in
Auburn that were legally
established before 7/1/2014.
Page 72 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
8
Row Summary of change Review Action
2012
a. The Legislature amended the
SMA to clarify SMP appeal
procedures.
Auburn’s SMP does not
outline the SMP appeal
process.
No change needed.
2011
a. Ecology adopted a rule
requiring that wetlands be
delineated in accordance with
the approved federal wetland
delineation manual.
The current SMP CARs and
Chapter 16 ACC reference
the Washington state
wetland delineation
manual, rather than the
approved federal
delineation manual.
Relevant Sections: Chapter
6, Sections 16.10.020,
16.10.090 ACC & Appendix
A 8.1.2, 8.1.7(C)(1)
Mandatory: Amend
language of shoreline
critical areas regulations to
reference the approved
federal wetland delineation
manual. Use Ecology’s
suggested language:
Identification of wetlands and
delineation of their boundaries
shall be done in accordance
with the approved federal
wetland delineation manual
and applicable regional
supplements. See section 3
for further discussion on
integration of critical areas
regulations.
b. Ecology adopted rules for new
commercial geoduck
aquaculture.
Not applicable: Auburn has
no saltwater shorelines.
Not applicable.
c. The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for
floating homes permitted or
legally established prior to
January 1, 2011.
SMP Section 4.7.8(1)
prohibits new floating on-
water residences.
Relevant Section: Section
4.7.8(1)
No change needed. There
are no existing FOWRs in
Auburn that were legally
established before 1/1/2011.
Page 73 of 101
9
Row Summary of change Review Action
d. The Legislature authorized a
new option to classify
existing structures as
conforming.
Section 4.4.10 of the SMP
establishes that existing
structures may be
maintained and repaired
and may be enlarged or
expanded.
Relevant Section: Section
4.4.10 – Regulations (1).
Recommended: Consider
updating language to
clearly identify legally
established existing
residential structures as
conforming. If done,
consider updating
definition of
“Nonconforming Use and
Development” to clarify
that existing residential
structures may be classified
as conforming.
See further discussion
regarding non-conforming
lots and structures in
Section 5 of this report.
2010
a. The Legislature adopted
Growth Management Act –
Shoreline Management Act
clarifications.
The City has already
previously updated its
CAO and the SMP and
therefore addressed the
issue of overlapping critical
area regulations. Shoreline
critical areas are addressed
in Appendix A. The City’s
SMP also includes no net
loss provisions.
However, the SMP does not
indicate the 14-day rule for
Ecology approval.
Recommended Action:
Update SMP to indicate that
it is effective 14 days after
Ecology’s approval letter.
Page 74 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
10
Row Summary of change Review Action
Relevant Sections: SMP
Appendix A.
2009
a.
The Legislature created new
“relief” procedures for
instances in which a shoreline
restoration project within a
UGA creates a shift in
Ordinary High Water Mark.
The SMP does not address
this.
Recommended: Reference
relief procedure for
shoreline restoration project
within a UGA (WAC 173-
27-215) in Section 4.6.7,
Shoreline Habitat and
Natural Systems
Enhancement Projects.
b. Ecology adopted a rule for
certifying wetland mitigation
banks.
The current SMP CARs
allow for off-site mitigation
only when on-site
mitigation is not
scientifically feasible or
practical. Chapter 16 ACC
is more amenable to off-site
mitigation, if it is the
ecologically preferable
alternative, and references
potential use of mitigation
banks or in-lieu fee
mitigation programs. SMP
Appendix A is more limited
in regards to off-site
mitigation options than
Chapter 16 ACC.
Relevant Section: Chapter
16.10.110 ACC & Appendix
A 8.1.9
Recommended: Per City
preference, remove
Appendix A from the SMP
and rely solely on reference
to ACC 16.10 for critical
areas regulations in
shoreline jurisdiction. This
would make the wetland
mitigation bank allowances
in ACC 16.10 applicable in
shoreline jurisdiction. See
section 3 for further
discussion on integration of
critical areas regulations.
Page 75 of 101
11
Row Summary of change Review Action
c. The Legislature added
moratoria authority and
procedures to the SMA.
The SMP does not address
this.
Optional: Consider
addressing moratoria
authority. See below for
Ecology’s suggested code
language.
2007
a.
The Legislature clarified
options for defining
"floodway" as either the area
that has been established in
FEMA maps, or the floodway
criteria set in the SMA.
The SMP definition of
“Floodway” (Section 1.2)
appears to be a combination
of the FEMA mapped
definition of floodway and
the SMA floodway
definition. Both
components are consistent
with the two options
provided by Ecology.
Relevant Section:
Definition of “Floodway”
(Section 1.2)
Optional: Consider
updating definition of
“Floodway” to be wholly
consistent with one of
Ecology’s options for
definition. See below for
Ecology’s suggested
language.
b. Ecology amended rules to
clarify that comprehensively
updated SMPs shall include a
list and map of streams and
lakes that are in shoreline
jurisdiction.
Section 3.5 addresses
jurisdictional waterbodies
and mapping.
No change needed. Update
maps as necessary.
c. Ecology’s rule listing statutory
exemptions from the
requirement for an SDP was
amended to include fish
habitat enhancement projects
that conform to the provisions
of RCW 77.55.181.
Chapter 6, Section 16.08.015
of the SMP references WAC
173-27-040 for exemptions.
Relevant Section: Chapter
6, Section 16.08.015
No change needed.
Page 76 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
12
Example Code Language
2009.c – Moratoria Authorit y
(X) Moratoria authority and requirements
(1) The City has authority to adopting a moratorium control or other interim control on
development under RCW 90.58.590.
(2) Before adopting the moratorium must:
(i) Hold a public hearing on the moratorium or control;
(ii) Adopt detailed findings of fact that include, but are not limited to justifications for
the proposed or adopted actions and explanations of the desired and likely outcomes;
(iii) Notify the department of Ecology of the moratorium or control immediately after its
adoption. The notification must specify the time, place, and date of any public hearing.
(b) The public hearing must be held within sixty days of the adoption of the
moratorium or control.
(3) A moratorium or control adopted under this section may be effective for up to six months if a
detailed work plan for remedying the issues and circumstances necessitating the moratorium or
control is developed and made available for public review.
(4) A moratorium or control may be renewed for one or more six-month period if the City
complies with the requirements in subsection (2) above before each renewal.
2007.a – Options for Defining Floodway
Option 1. If a local government elects to use FEMA maps to define the floodway,
Ecology recommends the SMP include the following definition:
"Floodway" means the area that has been established in effective federal emergency management
agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps. The floodway does not include lands that can
reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or
maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the
state.
Option 2. If the SMA floodway is used, the definition in the SMP should be consistent
with RCW 90.58.030(2)(b)(ii).
Page 77 of 101
13
The SMA floodway “…consists of those portions of a river valley lying streamward from the
outer limits of a watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that
occur with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being
identified, under normal condition, by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or
quality of vegetative ground cover condition, topography, or other indicators of flooding that
occurs with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually.”
Page 78 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
14
3. Consistency with Critical Areas Ordinance
The City’s SMP alone provides protection for critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction, and the
current SMP regulates critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction through a blanket reference to ACC
16.10 and the adoption of shoreline critical areas regulations in Appendix A. Elsewhere
throughout the City, critical areas are regulated solely by the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance
(CAO), codified in Chapter 16 ACC in 2005 and last updated in 2010. The critical areas
regulations in Appendix A are a subset of the applicable sections from Chapter 16 ACC that
were in place at the time of SMP adoption in 2009. The minimal time between when both sets of
critical areas regulations were last updated has resulted in little inconsistency between the way
critical areas are regulated inside and outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
The City has decided to remove Appendix A from the SMP and rely solely on a reference to
ACC 16.10 to regulate critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction. This entails updating the reference
in the SMP to cite a specific, dated CAO, as well as clarifying exclusions for sections of the CAO
that are inconsistent with the SMA or out-of-date with respect to current SMA requirements
and shall not apply in shoreline jurisdiction. However, both sets of regulations are currently
outdated in several areas relative to the best available science and current guidance.
Inconsistencies between critical areas regulations in Appendix A of the SMP, Chapter 16 ACC,
and current guidance include wetland rating systems, wetland delineation methods, stream
typing, and wetland buffers.
Table 3 below summarizes issues to be resolved in order to incorporate the City’s CAO into the
updated SMP. The table is organized by critical areas regulations subject area. A more detailed
discussion follows Table 3.
Table 3. Issues to be resolved to integrate the City’s CAO into the updated SMP
# Issue Review & Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Action
Applicability
1 Incorporating ACC 16.10
(CAO) by Reference
Review:
Section 4.4.4 Critical Areas adopts the
provisions of ACC 16.10 by reference
as shoreline critical areas regulations.
The current reference to ACC 16.10
does not cite a specific, dated Critical
Areas Ordinance, but rather includes
a blanket reference. The SMP also
establishes that “Provisions of the
Critical Areas standards that are not
consistent with the Shoreline
Recommended: In the updated
SMP, reference a specific,
dated Critical Areas Ordinance.
Ensure its clear which sections
of the CAO shall not apply in
shoreline jurisdiction. See
additional discussion below for
examples on effectively
incorporating a CAO into an
SMP.
Page 79 of 101
15
# Issue Review & Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Action
Management Act Chapter, 90.58
RCW, and supporting Washington
Administrative Code chapters shall
not apply in shoreline jurisdiction.”
The City has expressed an interest in
removing Appendix A from the SMP
and relying solely on reference to ACC
16.10 for shoreline CARs. The
Shoreline CARs in Appendix A do not
include sections from Chapter 16 ACC
on applicability, reasonable use
provisions, variances, and special
exemptions for public agencies and
utilities. In removing Appendix A, the
language in the SMP could more
explicitly define what sections of the
CARs are not applicable in shoreline
jurisdiction.
Current SMP:
Section 4.4.4(page 4-9)
Appendix A
Auburn Municipal Code:
16.10
2 Amendments to the Growth
Management Act and
Shoreline Management Act
clarified that critical areas in
shorelines must be regulated
to “assure no net loss of
shoreline ecological function”
as provided in
Ecology’s SMP Guidelines.
Review:
In the context of critical areas, Section
4.4.3 Environmental Impacts
Mitigation states that “All shoreline
use and development should be
carried out in a manner that avoids
and minimizes adverse impacts so
that the resulting ecological condition
does 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.” Section 4.4.4. Critical
Areas establishes a policy of no net
loss of wetland area and functions,
but this could be broadened to state
that the critical areas policy is to
Optional: Revise language in
Section 4.4.4 to clarify that
critical areas in shorelines are
regulated to assure no net loss
of “shoreline ecological
functions” rather than
“wetland area and functions.”
Replace policy 3 with the
following language: Preserve,
protect, restore, and/or
mitigate critical areas within
and associated with the City’s
shorelines to achieve no net
loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
Page 80 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
16
# Issue Review & Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Action
assure no net loss of any shoreline
ecological function.
Current SMP:
Section 4.4.3 (page 4-7) and 4.4.4
(page 4-8)
Wetlands
3 Ecology modified its wetland
buffer guidance in 2014 and
again in 2018.
Review:
The current SMP CARs specify
minimum and maximum wetland
buffers based on wetland category as
determined by the 2004 Ecology
wetland rating system. The resulting
buffer widths identified in the current
SMP are not consistent with recent
Ecology guidance published in 2018.
See discussion and Table 4 below for
additional details.
Current SMP:
Section 4.4.5
Current SMP CARs (SMP Appendix A
& Chapter 16.10 ACC):
SMP Appendix A 8.1.6(C) &
8.1.7(E)(1)
ACC 16.10.080(C) & 16.10.090(E)(1)
Mandatory: Revise SMP
Appendix A to reference 2014
wetland rating system.
Recommended: Revise wetland
buffer provisions in the SMP
CARs to be consistent with
current Ecology guidance
related to habitat scores and
wetland buffers. Update SMP
Section 4.4.5 to reflect updated
buffer widths.
4 Approved wetland
delineation method.
Review:
The current SMP CARs and Chapter 16
ACC reference the Washington state
wetland delineation manual, rather
than the approved federal delineation
manual.
Current SMP CARs (SMP Appendix A
& Chapter 16.10 ACC):
SMP Appendix A 8.1.2 & 8.1.7(C)(1)
ACC 16.10.020 & 16.10.090(C)(1)
Mandatory: Update shoreline
critical areas regulations to
reference the approved federal
delineation manual and
applicable regional
supplement.
5 Variation of wetland buffer
widths
Review:
The current SMP CARs include allow
for reduction of wetland buffer
widths up to 35% if the applicant
proposes to enhance a degraded
buffer. However, per Ecology
guidance, the BAS-based buffer
Recommended: To align with
BAS and Ecology guidance,
revise SMP Appendix A, Section
16.10.090(E)(1)(b), to allow
buffer averaging rather than
buffer reduction, and limit that
averaging to 75% of the
Page 81 of 101
17
# Issue Review & Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Action
widths proposed in this report
assume that the buffer is vegetated
with native plants, and if not, the
buffer should either be planted or
widened to ensure that adequate
buffer function is provided. That is,
the buffer widths proposed in this
report represent the minimum
necessary, per BAS, to protect
wetland functions. As a result,
Ecology guidance recommends buffer
averaging, with up to a 25% reduction
of buffer width and no reduction of
total buffer area, rather than buffer
reduction to provide flexibility and
accommodate site constraints. The
current SMP CARs allow for buffer
averaging including up to a 35%
reduction in buffer width.
Current SMP:
Section 4.4.5
Current SMP CARs (SMP Appendix A
& Chapter 16.10 ACC):
SMP Appendix A 8.1.7(E)(1)(b)
ACC 16.10.080(E)(1)(b)
standard buffer width. Update
SMP Section 4.4.5 to reflect
updated buffer variation
provisions.
Water Typing and Stream Buffers
6 Updated water typing
system.
Review:
SMP Appendix A and Chapter 16 ACC
both establish a stream classification
system to rate streams from Class I to
Class IV.
Current SMP CARs (SMP Appendix A
& Chapter 16.10 ACC):
SMP Appendix A 8.1.6(D)
ACC 16.10.080(D)
Recommended: Update SMP
Appendix A to reflect updated
water typing system as defined
in WAC 222-16-030.
Future recommendation:
Update Chapter 16 ACC to
reflect updated water typing
system as defined in WAC 222-
16-030.
7 Stream buffers Review:
The SMP, Appendix A, and Chapter 16
ACC are all consistent with each other
in regards to stream buffer provisions.
The CARs in Appendix A and Chapter
16 ACC establish a buffer width of 100
feet for shorelines of the state, while
the SMP establishes a 100 foot buffer
in the Shoreline Residential and
Recommended: Update stream
buffer provisions in the SMP
and Appendix A for consistency
with current best available
science. A wide range of
stream buffer widths are
recommended by BAS,
depending on the target
functions and buffer condition.
Page 82 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
18
# Issue Review & Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Action
Urban Conservancy environments,
but a 200 foot buffer in the Natural
environment. However, SMP
Appendix A, Section establishes that
either the SMP buffer or the CAR
buffer, whichever is larger, shall
apply, eliminating potential
inconsistencies between the two
provisions. While stream buffer
provisions are consistent across these
documents, they are outdated in
regards to the best available science.
Current buffer provisions can be
found in Table 7 below, alongside a
range of sample buffer widths based
on BAS and provisions from other
jurisdictions.
Current SMP:
Section 4.4.2 & 4.4.5
Current SMP CARs (SMP Appendix A
& Chapter 16.10 ACC):
SMP Appendix A 8.1.7(E)(2)
ACC 16.10.090(E)(2)
A range of buffer widths based
on BAS and the provisions in
place in other jurisdictions is
shown in Table 7.
Future recommendation:
Update stream buffer
provisions in Chapter 16 ACC
for consistency with current
best available science.
8 Variation of stream buffer
widths
Review:
The current SMP CARs include allow
for reduction of wetland buffer
widths up to 35% if the applicant
proposes to enhance a degraded
buffer. Based on the functions that
different widths of buffers provide,
fish bearing streams should remain as
close to 100 feet as possible.
Reductions of up to 25% are likely to
provide adequate protection for most
small stream channels.
Current SMP:
Section 4.4.5
Current SMP CARs (SMP Appendix A
& Chapter 16.10 ACC):
SMP Appendix A 8.1.7(E)(2)(e)
ACC 16.10.080(E)(2)(e)
Recommended: To align with
BAS and Ecology guidance,
revise SMP Appendix A, Section
16.10.090(E)(2)(e), to allow
buffer averaging limited to a
25% reduction of the standard
buffer width, in conjunction
with adoption of updated
stream buffer widths per the
recommendations in this
report. Update SMP Section
4.4.5 to reflect updated buffer
variation provisions.
Page 83 of 101
19
# Issue Review & Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Action
Flood Hazard Areas
9 Reference to Chapter 15 ACC
on Flood Hazard Areas
Review:
SMP Appendix A 8.1.1(B)(6)
references the “Draft Mill Creek Flood
Control Plan” while Chapter 16 ACC
references Chapter 15 ACC for
policies related to Flood Hazard
Areas.
Current SMP CARs (SMP Appendix A
& Chapter 16.10 ACC):
SMP Appendix A 8.1.1(B)(6)
ACC 16.10.010(B)(6)
Recommended: Remove
Appendix A from the SMP and
adopt ACC 16.10 by reference.
See discussion below for
additional information.
Definitions
10
Updates to definitions in
Critical Areas Regulations.
Review:
The definitions in both Chapter 16
ACC and SMP Appendix A have out-of-
date definitions, or are lacking
definitions, for the following terms:
Wetland
Geologic Hazard Areas/Geologically
Hazardous Areas
Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas
Delineation Manual
Current SMP CARs (SMP Appendix A
& Chapter 16.10 ACC):
SMP Appendix A 8.1.2
ACC 16.10.020
Recommended: Revise the
definition for “Delineation
Manual” to reference the
approved federal delineation
manual. Revise the definitions
for “Wetland”, “Geologic
Hazard Areas”, and “Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas” for consistency with
definitions in RCW 36.70A.030.
1 This column attempts to capture the primary relevant location(s) of content related to the item described in
the Summary of Change column; however, due to length of the SMP, all relevant locations may not be listed.
2 Locations in italics indicate that the location does not actually address the specific content described in the
Summary of Change column; these locations are listed to indicate where generally related content is found.
Adopting the City ’s C ritical Areas Ordinance (ACC 16.10 ) by Reference
The current SMP both references ACC 16.10 for Critical Areas Regulations and includes
portions of ACC 16.10 as Appendix A in the SMP. The City has expressed an interest in
removing Appendix A from the SMP and relying solely on reference to ACC 16.10 to regulate
critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. However, CAOs typically include regulations that
are inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act, including reasonable use exceptions,
Page 84 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
20
administrative exemptions, and waivers. Other administrative provisions which are authorized
by the Growth Management Act, including appeals, permits, penalties, and enforcement, are
also not applicable in shoreline jurisdiction. As a result, the City does not have the option of
referencing its entire CAO in the SMP.
In order for the City to adopt ACC 16.10 by reference in the SMP, the reference must be to a
specific, dated version of the CAO and must exclude sections of the CAO that do not apply in
shoreline jurisdiction. The SMP currently includes a blanket reference to ACC 16.10 and does
not cite a specific, dated CAO. Additionally, the current SMP includes general exclusionary
statements in regards to ACC 16.10. The City may wish to more explicitly cite exclusions from
the referenced CAO to improve clarity and usability in shoreline jurisdiction.
Below are examples of how other the City of Marysville, Whatcom County, and the City of
Redmond have effectively incorporated a CAO into their SMPs.
City of Marysville
The Marysville Critical Areas Regulations, as codified in Chapter 19.24 MMC (dated May 2nd,
2005, Ordinance #2571), are herein incorporated into this master program, except as noted
below.
Exceptions to the applicability of Marysville Critical Areas Regulations in Shoreline Jurisdiction
in the instances specified below.
1. If provisions of the Critical Areas Regulations and other parts of the master program conflict,
the provisions most protective of the ecological resource shall apply, as determined by the City.
2. Provisions of the Critical Areas Regulations that are not consistent with the Shoreline
Management Act Chapter, 90.85 RCW, and supporting Washington Administrative Code
chapters shall not apply in Shoreline jurisdiction.
3. The provisions of Marysville Critical Areas Regulations do not extend Shoreline Jurisdiction
beyond the limits specified in this SMP. For regulations addressing critical area buffer areas that
are outside Shoreline Jurisdiction, see Marysville Critical Areas Regulations.
4. Provisions of Marysville Critical Area Regulations that include a “reasonable use
determination” shall not apply within Shoreline Jurisdiction. Specifically,
• The sentence in MMC 19.24.020 referring to reasonable use determination does not
apply.
Page 85 of 101
21
• MMC Section 19.24.420 does not apply.
5. Provisions of Marysville Critical Areas Regulations relating to variance procedures and
criteria do not apply in Shoreline Jurisdiction. Within Shoreline Jurisdiction, the purpose of a
variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or
performance standards set forth in the applicable master program where there are extraordinary
circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict
implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or
thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Specifically,
• MMC section 19.24.320(2) shall not apply.
Variance procedures and criteria shall be established in this SMP, Chapter 8 Section B and in
Washington Administrative Code WAC 173-27-170.4. Environmental Impacts.
6. Criteria (b) and (c) describing exceptions for approved plats and legally created lots in MMC
section 19.24.330(7) shall not apply, except where adjacent to the QWULOOLT Restoration
Project.
Whatcom County
A. The Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance, WCC 16.16 (Ordinance No. 2005- 00068,
dated Sept 30, 2005, and as amended on February 27, 2007) is hereby adopted in whole as a part
of this Program, except that the permit, non-conforming use, appeal and enforcement provisions
of the Critical Areas Ordinance (WCC 16.16.270-285) shall not apply within shoreline
jurisdiction. All references to the Critical Area Ordinance WCC 16.16 (CAO) are for this specific
version
City of Redmond
(1) Shoreline Master Program Regulations. The following regulations shall constitute the
Redmond Shoreline Master Program development regulations
(a) RCDG 20D.150, Shoreline Regulations
(b) RCDG 20D.140, Critical Areas (Ord. 2259, dated May 28, 2005), with the exception
of the following subsections:
(i) 20D.140.10-030, Exemptions
(ii) 20D.140.10-060, Permit Process and Application Requirements
(iii) 20D.140.10-170, Buffer Width Variances
(iv) 20D.140.10-190, Reasonable Use Provision
(v) 20D.140.10-200, Public Project Reasonable Use Provision
(vi) 20D.140.20-020(6), (7), Stream Buffer Width Averaging
Page 86 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
22
(vii) 20D.140.20-020(8), Clearing and Grading in Outer Buffer
(viii) 20D.140.20-020(10), Expansion of Nonconformity in Stream Buffer
(ix) 20D.140.20-030, Alteration of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
(x) 20D.140.60-030, Alteration of Geologically Hazardous Areas – Generally
(xi) 20D.140.60-040, Alteration of Geologically Hazardous Areas
(xii) 20D.140.70, Procedures
(2) In the event of any conflict between these regulations and any other regulations of the City,
the regulations that provide greater protection of the shoreline natural environment and aquatic
habitat shall prevail.
In order to adopt ACC 16.10 by reference, the City will also need to ensure that required
updates shoreline crticial areas regulations, in particular adopting the 2014 wetlands rating
system and the approved federal wetland delineation manual, are applied to the updated SMP.
This would be most simply and efficiently accomplished by excluding those out-of-date sections
of the CAO in the SMP, and then including updated regulations to apply only in shoreline
jurisdiction within the body of the SMP itself.
Wetlands
SMP Appendix A and Chapter 16.10 ACC both refer to the “Washington State Wetlands Rating
System for Western Washington, (Washington State Department of Ecology, August 2004,
Publication #04-06-025).” Ecology updated this rating system in June of 2014. The current BAS-
based wetland rating system is the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington (Hruby 2014, Ecology publication No. 14-06-029). Using reference wetlands, Ecology
calibrated the updated 2014 wetland rating system to maintain roughly the same distribution of
wetland categories that were present under the prior 2004 rating system. A comparison sample
of the distribution of wetland categories under the old and new rating systems is provided in
Table 4 below (Hruby 2014).
Table 4. Number of sampled wetlands in each category based on their score for functions.
Category 2004 Rating System 2014 Rating System
I 13 11
II 52 44
III 39 49
Page 87 of 101
23
IV 7 7
The substantive changes to the wetland rating system are: 1) a High, Medium, or Low ranking
for each function instead of numeric scores; and 2) the opportunity section was replaced with
two new sections: landscape potential and value. The shift to a High, Medium, Low ranking
scheme was prompted by a statistical analysis of wetland rating data, which indicated that the
rapid-assessment wetland rating tool is not scientifically accurate beyond a qualitative ranking.
As a result of this change, the total point range changed from 0-100 to 9-27 (Hruby 2014), with
nine possible points each for water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions.
In July 2018, Ecology again updated its guidance for wetland buffers. The change in guidance is
the result of Ecology’s continued evaluation of the 2014 wetland rating system as it relates to the
2004 wetland rating system. The wetland buffers referenced in the SMP and in Chapter 16 ACC
are consistent with each other, but both are outdated related to the best available science and
Ecology’s most recent guidance.
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. The preferred alternative includes variable buffer widths based
on wetland category and habitat score, according to the updated rating system, as shown in
Table 5 below. While the updated guidance does allow for continuing the practice of applying
wetland buffers based solely on wetland category, this option provides the least flexibility, as
buffers must be large enough for each category to protect the most sensitive wetlands from the
most damaging impacts. Likewise, the updated guidance includes alternatives for variable
buffer widths based on the intensity of adjacent land use, although this is not widely
recommended for cities as most urban land uses are likely to be moderate or high intensity.
Under the preferred alternative of variable buffer widths based on wetland category and habitat
score, projects that can mitigate the impacts and disturbances associated with surrounding land
use may be eligible for reductions in required buffer widths. Table 6 lists impact-minimization
measures which, when implemented in combination with a wildlife corridor to adjacent priority
habitats where applicable, allow an applicant to reduce the standard buffer widths by up to 25
percent (Ecology 2016). The resulting standard buffer widths range according to habitat score
from 75 to 225 feet for Category I and II wetlands and from 60 to 225 feet for Category III
wetlands, and are 40 feet for Category IV wetlands.
To align the SMP guidance with the updated guidance, we recommend updating the Shoreline
Critical Areas Regulations to reference the 2014 wetland rating system and to follow Ecology’s
new guidance for wetland buffer widths. There are several discrepancies between the buffer
widths currently in SMP Appendix A and the updated guidance. This comparison is shown in
Page 88 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
24
Table 5 below. The City should also consider updating Chapter 16 ACC at the next CAO update
to avoid buffers being applied inconsistently throughout Auburn based on project location.
Table 5 shows the different buffer widths under SMP Appendix A, Chapter 16 ACC, and
Ecology’s most recent guidance.
Table 5. Wetland buffer widths (in feet) under Chapter 16 ACC/SMP Appendix A and Ecology’s most
recent guidance
Table 6. Wetland buffer impact minimization measures, per Ecology’s most recent guidance
High Moderate Low High Moderate Low
1 100 200 300 150 100 225 110 75
2 50 100 300 150 100 225 110 75
3 25 50 300 150 80 225 110 60
4 25 30 50 40
Without minimization measures With minimization measures
Category Min Max
Chapter 16 ACC & SMP Appendix A
Habitat Score Habitat Score
Proposed Per 2018 Ecology Guidance
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights *Direct lights aways from wetland
*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*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
*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
*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
Stormwater
runoff
Noise
Toxic runoff
Pets and
human
disturbance
Page 89 of 101
25
Streams
SMP Appendix A and Chapter 16 ACC both establish a water typing system that classifies
stream from Class I to Class 4. This classification system and criteria are inconsistent with
current BAS, and we recommend that the City adopt the Washington State Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practices water typing system, as established in WAC 222-
16-030. The WDNR system is widely accepted across most jurisdictions in Washington.
A wide range of stream buffer widths are recommended by BAS, depending on the target
functions and buffer conditions. Buffer continuity and vegetative quality are important factors
in determining buffer widths. Current stream buffer requirements under SMP Appendix A and
Chapter 16 ACC are consistently below the ranges recommended by BAS. Based on the
functions that different widths of buffers provide, fish bearing stream buffers should be a
minimum of 100 feet, although buffer averaging may be allowed to reduce these buffers to as
low as 75 feet.
Table 7 below provides a comparison of current water typing and buffer widths alongside the
proposed WDNR water typing system and a summary of buffer width ranges derived from
BAS and other local jurisdictions.
Table 7. Stream buffer provisions under Chapter 16 ACC/SMP Appendix A, SMP, and BAS,
including an updated water typing system
1 (Shorelines)100*Type S 115-165
2 (Fish bearing)75 Type F 100-165
3 (Non-fish bearing)25 Type Np 50-65
4 (Swales and small channels)25 Type Ns 50-65
*Buffers are 200 feet under the Natural Shoreline Environment Designation
Chapter 16 ACC & SMP Appendix A
Stream Class Buffer
Width Stream Type Buffer
Width
Sample Buffer Ranges and Updated Water
Typing
Page 90 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
26
4. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Other
Development Regulations.
Table 4 summarizes recommended revisions to the Auburn SMP, Auburn Municipal Code, and
the Auburn Comprehensive Plan based on a review of consistency between the three
documents. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan does not contain a specific Shoreline Element and
does not establish policies related to shorelines. There are very few references to shorelines or
the SMP, with the only references of note occurring in Appendix H, the Auburn Community
Vision document. The lack of reference to shoreline policies, the SMP, and critical areas policies
in the Comprehensive Plan results in very little opportunity for inconsistency between the
documents, and no changes to the SMP are recommended to ensure consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan at this time.
Important sections of the Auburn Municipal Code, particularly those pertaining to Land
Clearing, Filling, and Grading, and Environmental Review, directly reference shoreline
management jurisdiction or adopt provisions of the SMP by reference, which is a useful
measure to strengthen application of the SMP and improve clarity in regards to the applicability
of shoreline regulations. Title 18 of ACC, the Auburn Zoning Code, may be a section that could
benefit from a direct reference to the SMP. While the SMP clearly states that in the case of any
discrepancies between the City’s zoning code and the SMP, the provisions of the SMP and SMA
shall prevail, there is no such language in Title 18 of the ACC.
Table 8. Summary of recommended SMP, ACC, and Comprehensive Plan revisions to improve
consistency.
# Issue Review & Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Recommended Action
1 Consistency between Auburn
Zoning Code and the SMP
Section 4.7.8 of the SMP states that
“In the case of discrepancy between
the requirements of this Master
Program and the City’s Zoning Code,
or other regulations, consistency with
the SMP, the SMA, and its provisions
shall prevail.” Title 18 of the ACC does
not contain similar language. In the
north end of the City, along the Green
River, there are some instances of
land zoned R-1, R-5, and R-7 lying
within the Urban Conservancy
shoreline jurisdiction, rather than the
Shoreline Residential shoreline
jurisdiction.
Consider incorporating
reference to the SMP or the
SMA into Title 18 during the
next CAO update to further
clarify the applicability of SMP
regulations in cases of
inconsistency between the
SMP and the City’s zoning
code.
Additional discussion and
collaboration with City of
Auburn staff is necessary to
identify options for addressing
issues of residential zoning in
the Urban Conservancy
shoreline jurisdiction. This can
Page 91 of 101
27
# Issue Review & Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Recommended Action
Current SMP
Section 4.7.8
Auburn Municipal Code
Title 18
include possible text
amendments to avoid a
complete re-designation
process.
1 This column attempts to capture the primary relevant location(s) of content related to the item described in
the Summary of Change column; however, due to length of the SMP, all relevant locations may not be listed.
2 Locations in italics indicate that the location does not actually address the specific content described in the
Summary of Change column; these locations are listed to indicate where generally related content is found.
Page 92 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
28
5. Staff Recommendations & Other Issues for
Conside ration
City of Auburn Planning staff have also proposed modifications to the SMP, Appendix A, and
Chapter 16 ACC. The proposed changes, rationale, and input from The Watershed Company
are included in Table 5.
Table 9. Staff recommended changes to SMP
# Issue Review & Relevant Location(s) Action
1 Fences in the Floodway in
Shoreline Jurisdiction
Review:
City planning staff expressed
interest in addressing the issue of
fencing proposals within the
floodway. The current SMP
establishes that no fence shall
extend waterward of the OHWM
and that fences waterward of
houses shall be limited to four feet
in height or less, but does not
address issues of fence building
within the floodway.
Current SMP:
Section 4.7.8(10)
Recommended: Consider updating
language such that newly
proposed fences shall be
prohibited in the floodway.
Additionally, for instances where
floodway boundaries change,
legally permitted fence structures
can be maintained and repaired in
place, while replacement fences
should be required to conform to
the provisions of the SMP and be
relocated outside of the floodway.
2 Nonconforming provisions of
the SMP
Review:
City planning staff have identified
nonconforming residential lots,
including 8 vacant lots, which are
currently very difficult to build
upon based on the current
nonconforming provisions of the
SMP. The SMP does currently
allow for some expansion of
single-family residential structures
and appurtenances, but
nonconforming undeveloped lots
may only be developed if they
conform to current SMP
provisions. No provisions for
‘breaking’ the shoreline buffer at a
road or levee exist in the SMP. As
discussed in the legislative
amendments in Section 2 above,
there is an option to legally classify
Additional coordination with City
of Auburn staff and Ecology is
required to further develop
recommendations for easing the
burden of the nonconforming
provisions of the SMP on the
parcels in question. See the
Technical Memo regarding
Potential Amendments to
Nonconforming Lot and Structure
Provisions (January 2019) for
additional information.
Page 93 of 101
29
# Issue Review & Relevant Location(s) Action
existing residential structures as
conforming.
Current SMP
Section 4.4.10
Auburn Municipal Code
ACC 18.54
Outdated References Review:
City staff have noted several
outdated references throughtout
the SMP document. These include
references to the following:
ACC 18.50.030
RCW 43.51
RCW 15.57
WAC 232-12-297
RCW 75.20
Current SMP:
1.2 (Definitions)
4.4.2
4.4.8
4.4.9
Recommended: Update references
as shown below:
ACC 18.50.030: Update to
reference ACC 18.50.045
RCW 43.51: Remove reference
RCW 15.57: Update to
reference RCW 15.58
WAC 232-12-297: Update to
reference WAC 173-26-
221(2)(iv)
RCW 75.20: Update to
reference RCW 77.55
Removal of Chapter 6 –
Shoreline Management
Administrative and
Permitting Procedures
Review:
City staff have expressed an
interest in removing the text from
Chapter 6, and relying solely on a
reference to ACC 16.08 for
Shoreline Management
Administrative and Permitting
Procedures.
Current SMP:
Chapter 6
Auburn Municipal Code:
16.08
Recommended: Per City
preference, remove text from
Chapter 6 and include only a
reference to ACC 16.08 for
Shoreline Management
Administrative Permitting
Procedures.
Removal of Appendix B – ACC
18.54 Nonconforming
Structures, Land, and Use
Review:
The SMP both references ACC
18.54 for regulations related to
nonconforming structures, land,
and use, and contains the text of
ACC 18.54 in Appendix B. The SMP
also contains some shoreline
Recommended: Per City
preference, remove Appendix B
and rely only on Section 4.4.10
and reference to ACC 18.54 for
policies and regulations related to
nonconforming structures, land,
and use in shoreline jurisdiction.
Page 94 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
30
# Issue Review & Relevant Location(s) Action
specific policies and regulations
related to nonconformity in
Section 4.4.10. The City has
expressed an interest in removing
Appendix B from the SMP and
relying solely on a reference to
ACC 18.54 and the provisions in
Section 4.4.10 to provide policies
and regulations related to
nonconforming structures, land,
and use in shoreline jurisdiction.
Current SMP:
4.4.10
Appendix B
Removal of Appendix C –
Geologic Hazard Report
Submittal Requirements
Review:
The current SMP includes Geologic
Hazard Report Submittals
Requirements as Appendix C. City
have expressed an interest in
removing this as an Appendix and
instead referencing the
appropriate sections of the Public
Works Engineering Design
Standards to satisfy submittal
requirements.
Current SMP:
4.4.4
Appendix C
Recommended: Per City
preference, remove Appendix C
from the SMP. Modify language in
Section 4.4.4 to reference the
Public Works Engineering Design
Standards rather than Appendix C.
Removal of Appendix D –
Permit Data Sheet
Review:
The SMP currently includes a
Permit Data Sheet as Appendix D.
ACC 16.08 also references the
Shoreline Management Act –
Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal
Letter in WAC 173-27-990. City
staff have expressed an interest in
removing the Permit Data Sheet
from Appendix D and relying solely
on the reference to the WAC.
Current SMP:
Appendix D
Recommended: Per City
preference, remove Appendix D
from the SMP.
Page 95 of 101
31
# Issue Review & Relevant Location(s) Action
Auburn Municipal Code:
16.08.040(B)
Page 96 of 101
The Watershed Company
Revised April 2019
City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
32
Re fe r e n c e s
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014
Update. Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029. Washington State Department of Ecology,
Olympia, WA.
Washington Administrative Code. 2018. Washington State Legislature. Available online:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx.
Page 97 of 101
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.
Exhibit 4
Page 98 of 101
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 governments 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 99 of 101
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 wit h 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 100 of 101
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 101 of 101