The URL can be used to link to this page

07122016 Part 2To: From: Date: Proceeding Type: Subject: • First Presentation: • Second presentation: • Action: Staff Report Summary CITY OF MOSES LAKE CITY OF MOSES LAKE STAFF REPORT John Williams, City Manager Gilbert Alvarado, Community Dev Dir I Deputy City Manager July 12, 2016 Motion Shoreline Master Program Update -Conditional Approval Legislative History: June 28, 2016 July 12, 2016 Motion At the last regular City Council meeting, staff provided the Council with a letter from the Washington State Department of Ecology {DOE}, giving the City of Moses Lake notice of their intent to conditionally adopt the Moses Lake Shoreline Master Program {SMP}. See attached letter and Attachments. This letter does not mean that the SMP is adopted. It is part of the statutory process of an SMP adoption. The Council discussed the two options available which are: 1} agree to the DOE changes as drafted or; 2) submit and alternate proposal. The City Council asked staff for a comparison of the City of Moses Lake Shoreline Master Program {SMP} and the Grant County SMP. Attached are Tables from the Grant County SMP which detail the Buffer Width standards and Shoreline Development Standards. Background: The City of Moses Lake is obligated under State statute to adopt a SMP that is compliant with amended Shoreline Management Act. The City Council has reviewed the Draft SMP and made Page 1of2 recommendation to DOE. The DOE did not fully accept the recommendations as presented and offered changes that they felt are compliant with the Shoreline Management Act. Fiscal and Policy Implications If the City Council is to consider an alternate SMP proposal as provided by the process of SMP adoption, the Council will need to consider an outside source for assistance. Staff is not in a position to address DOE's concerns given the complexity of the issues. Historically, the City has hired a consulting firm to assist with development of the Cumulative Impact Analysis {CIA) as required. It was the CIA work that used to develop the wetlands buffer language that DOE has taken exception to in terms of compliance with the Shoreline Management Act. Options • • Option Accept the DOE proposed changes to the Moses Lake SMP Provide DOE with alternate SMP proposal for their review Staff Recommendation I Results Adoption of the SMP moves forward to DOE for signature and codification. Continued SMP adoption and fiscal impacts to the General Fund Staff would recommend that the City Council consider adoption of the DOE proposed changes as presented. The Council should consider the DOE proposed changes and provide staff direction on how to proceed. Attachments A. DOE Findings of Fact B. Attachments c. Anne Henning Memo D. Legal Review The following documents are attached and subject to legal review: Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel N/A Page 2 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 2 June 28, 2016 Industrial Waste Discharge Permit No. 10 -Moses Lake Industries. Inc.: Authorization was requested for the City Manager to sign an industrial waste discharge permit for Moses Lake Industries, Inc. Six Year Street Transportation Improvement Program -Set Date for Public Hearing: A public hearing was set for July 12 to consider the Six Year Street Transportation Improvement Program. Action Taken: Mrs. Leonard moved that the Consent Agenda be approved, seconded by Mr. Norman, and passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS ORDINANCE-VACATE RIGHT-OF-WAY -BLANCHET AVENUE An ordinance was presented which vacates a portion of Blanchet Avenue adjacent to Lot 1, Block 1, HLH Plat. The ordinance vacating a portion of right-of-way was read by title only. The ordinance vacating a portion of Blanchet Avenue was read by title only. Action Taken: Mrs. Leonard moved that the ordinance be adopted, seconded by Mrs. Liebrecht, and passed unanimously. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Gilbert Alvarado, Community Development Director, gave the history of the updates to the Shoreline Master Program and mentioned that the Washington State Department of Ecology submitted a letter giving the City notice of their intent to conditionally adopt the Shoreline Master Program. In order for the Shoreline Master Program to become finally adopted by the DOE, the City can agree to the changes as drafted by DOE or submit an alternate proposal. If the Council considers an alternate Shoreline Master Program proposal, the City will need to consider an outside source for assistance as staff is not in a position to address DOE's concerns given the complexity of the issues. Gary Mann, 2405 Lakeside Drive, stated that the Shoreline Master Program is confusing and burdensome but he was mainly concerned about the required width of the buffers. There was considerable discussion and staff was requested to provide a comparison of the City's Shoreline Master Program to Grant County's Shoreline Master Program. NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTION -NUISANCE ABATEMENT -9972 SUNNY A resolution was presented which provides for the abatement of nuisances at 9972 Sunny, owned by Roland and Anastacia Huff. Rick Rodriguez, Code Enforcement Officer, was sworn in and provided testimony concerning the nuisance violations. There was no other testimony. The hearing was closed. The resolution determining that Roland C. And Anastacia Huff are the owners of certain real property within the City; that a nuisance requiring abatement by City forces or forces contracted by the City exists on such property; and directing the use of such forces to abate the nuisance found was read by title only. Action Taken: Mr. Ecret moved that the resolution be adopted, seconded by Mr. Norman, and passed unanimously. 1 2 3 4 5 September 2014 (d) of a substantial number ofresidences on areas adjoining such shorelines, except for High Intensity -Public Facility environment designation areas, or where the SMP does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. Shoreline development standards table: 6 Table 24.12.210 (d). Shoreline Development Standards 7 8 9 10 Abbreviations £ "' A =Allowed c ...... Q,l -with Substantial u & c c -Development <'I ·;; ~ > ... <'I Q Permit; C = Q,l ~ ~ "' c .~ I Conditional Q ::c ] -; Use; ...... u = ~ :c u c ~ = = P =Prohibited; = .~ Q,l Q,l <'I I "O "O > -£ ·~ ·;; NIA= Not ... <'I Q,l Q,l Q,l Q,l "' ... "' ~ c::i:: Applicable; = u c c Q Q,l .~ Q,l <II Q,l c::i:: -·= .5 .~ ~ u -= -u <'I ... Q; Cl ... ~ Q,l Use/ <'I = :::l ""' .c ""' ""' = -... .Q u l:>l> Q Q C' <'I = = Q,l = .c .c Modification < z c::i:: j:I.; c::i:: rl.l 00 Building Height: Height necessary maximum in 15 35 for primary and 35 feet ancillary fa cilities Building Line NA 15 Setback in feet 5% unless Impervious otherwise 10% for lots greater than 10% for lots approved by greater than Surface NA the 5 acres, 15% for lots 5 acres NA 5 acres, 15% for Cover(%) Administrativ or less lots 5 acres or less e Official Manage Riparian Buffer entire SMP Width in feet NA area for 754 75 50 25 s 50 75 1,2,3 vegetation conservation Trail width in Trails on private properties and not open for public use shall be up to 5 feet wide or as required feet by Americans for Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations 1 Measured from the OHWM or top of bank, as applicable 2 Accompanied by stormwater management measures, as applicable 3 In parallel environment designations, the most restrictive buffer requirement applies 4 130 feet for new agricultural development on slopes 15 percent or greater within shoreline jurisdiction s 75 for area south ofWanapum Dam lower boat launch, where riparian vegetation begins on Columbia River Archaeological and Historic Resources 24.12.220 (a) In all developments, whenever an archaeological area or historic site is discovered by a development in the shoreline area, the developer shall comply with GCC 24.12.570, Cultural Resource Areas. Grant County Shoreline Master Program Anchor QEA/Oneza & Associates Final 39 2 3 September 2014 Table 24.12.520 (f)(l)(D)-1. Land Use Intensity Table Level of Impact from Proposed Change i~ Land Use Types of Land Use Based on Common Zoning Designations • Commercial •Urban • Industrial High • Institutional • Retail sales •Residential (more than 1 unit/acre) •High-intensity recreation (golf courses, ball fields, etc.) •Residential (1 unit/acre or less) • Moderate-intensity open space (parks with biking, jogging, etc.) Moderate • Paved driveways and gravel driveways serving 3 or more residences • Paved trails • Low-intensity open space (hiking, bird-watching, preservation of natural resources, etc.) •Timber management Low • Gravel driveways serving 2 or fewer residences • Unpaved trails • Utility corridor without a maintenance road and little or no vegetation management. Table 24.12.520 (f)(l)(D)-2. Buffer Widths Other Measures Buffer Width by Impact of Recommended for Wetland Characteristics Proposed Land Use Protection Category IV Wetlands (For wetlands scoring less than 15 points or more for all functions) Score for all 3 basic functions is Jess Low -25 ft No recommendations at this Moderate -40 ft than 30 points High -50 ft time Category III Wetlands (For wetlands scoring 16-18 points or more for all functions) Moderate level of function for habitat Low-75 ft No recommendations at this Moderate -110 ft (score for habitat 20-28 points) High -150 ft time Low-40 ft No recommendations at this Not meeting above characteristic Moderate -60 ft High-80 ft time Category II Wetlands (For wetlands that score 19-21 points or more for all functions or having the "Special Characteristics" identified in the rating system) High level of function for habitat Low -100 ft Moderate -150 ft (score for habitat 29-36 points) High -200 ft2 Moderate level of function for habitat Low-75 ft Grant County Shoreline Master Program Anchor QEA/Oneza & Associates Maintain connections to other habitat areas. No recommendations at this Final 102 STATE O F WAS HINGTON DEPA RTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000 711 for Washington Relay Service e Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 June 7, 2016 The Honorable Todd Voth City of Moses Lake 401 South Balsam Street PO Box 1579 Moses Lake, WA 98837 RECE!\/ED COMMU NITY DEVELOPMEl\JT pLfi,~~N!f\IG AND BU!\_ DING C!l"'f OF MOSF:S LAr\E Re: City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Shoreline Master Program Update - Conditional Approval, Ordinance Number 2732 Dear Mayor Voth: I would like to take this opportunity to commend the City of Moses Lake (City) for its efforts in developing the proposed comprehensive Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. The SMP will provide a framework to guide development and habitat restoration along the City's shorelines. As we have already discussed with. your staff and the city council, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has identified specific changes necessary to make the proposal approvable. These changes, along with recommended changes and detailed rationale for each change are detailed in Attachment B. The findings and conclusions that support Ecology's decision are contained in Attachment A. Attachment C constitutes Ecology's response to public comments received during the state comment period, as well as a discussion of outstanding issues from the City comment period. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.090 (2)(e), at this point, the City may: • Agree to the proposed changes (required and/or recommended changes), or • Subinit an alternative proposal. Ecology will then review the altemative(s) submitted for consiste.z:icy with the purpose and intent of the changes originally developed by Ecology and with the Shoreline Management Act. Final Ecology approval will occur when the City and Ecology agree on language that meets statutory and Guideline requirements. The Honorable Todd Voth June 7, 2016 Page 2 Please provide your written response within 30 days to the Director's Office at the following address: WA State Department of Ecology Attention: Director's Office PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-6700 Ecology appreciates the dedicated work that the City Council, City staff (Rob White), the Planning Commission and the community have put into the Shoreline Master Program update. We look forward to concluding the SMP update process in the near future. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the changes identified by Ecology, please contact our Regional Planner, Jeremy Sikes, at Jeremy.Sikes@ecy.wa.gov/(509) 329-3426. Sincerely, Maia D. Bellon Director Enclosures By Certified Mail [7012 1010 0003 3028 4406] cc: Gil Alvarado, City of Moses Lake Sara Hunt, Ecology Jeremy Sikes, Ecology To: From: Subject: Date: Community Development Director for Council Consideration Senior Planner-Henning ~ Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Ecology Approval/Comments June 21 , 2016 The City has received the conditional approval of our SMP from Ecology. The City Council's draft of the SMP has been approved but with certain recommended and required changes. The City has 30 days to agree to the changes or propose alternate language that achieves the same end result as the changes from Ecology. Many of the changes are simple and non-controversial; however, a few require some additional explanation. These include wetland buffers, wetland mitigation ratios, joint use docks, public access, and trail setbacks. Wetland Buffers Jurisdictions are required to base their minimum wetland buffers on science; if the city cannot provide more specific science then the buffers default to the State's extensive guidance on wetland buffers. The City had only a brief analysis by their consultant, who tried to make a case for generalizing existing conditions to all wetlands. This analysis is not as comprehensive as the State's work on the science of wetlands and buffers so does not constitute better information. Therefore, we must use the State's buffers for wetlands. Category Ill and IV were the only categories that must be changed. Wetland Buffers Wetland Standard Buffer Additional buffer Additional buffer Additional buffer Category Width width if wetland width if wetland width if wetland sores 5 habitat sores 5 habitat sores 5 habitat points points points Category Jll r&60' NA Add 15' NA Add 45' NA Add 75' Category IV 25' 40' NA NA NA Wetland Mitigation Ratios By state and federal law, when impacts to wetlands are allowed, those impacts must be mitigated. The City's proposed ratio was 1: 1; however, as Ecology points out, this does not reflect the most current science, and the Cumulative Impacts Analysis prepared by the City's consultant could not find that this proposal would not lead to net loss of functions. Mitigation is not always successful, so the required mitigation must include a larger area than is being impacted. The City must propose ratios that will lead to no net loss of ecological function. There are two methods of calculating the appropriate mitigation ratio that Ecology will accept: 1) The crediUdebit method which is the most accurate but requires more information specific to the project, and 2) Standard ratios developed by the State and the Corps of Engineers as shown in the following table. Ecology is requiring that we allow both methods to provide more flexibility to the applicants. W I d M'f f R . etan 11qa ion at1os Category & Type of Creation or Re-Rehabilitation Enhancement Wetland establishment Category I: Bog or Not considered Case by case Case by case Natural Heritage Site possible Category I: Mature 6:1 12:1 24:1 Forested Category I: Based on 4:1 8:1 16: 1 functions Category II 3:1 6:1 12:1 Category Ill 2:1 4:1 8:1 Cateaorv IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1 Joint Use Docks The Shoreline Management Act requires property owners to share the use of docks "when feasible". Ecology has provided language (developed for Grant County's SMP) that will meet this requirement but in a way that shouldn't be burdensome to property owners or the City. New subdivisions will be required to provide joint use docks rather than individual docks; however, there is not much vacant shoreline property left for development so implementation of this provision will be very limited. Public Access While not identified by Ecology as a major issue, staff believes the requirement for public access in new subdivisions may be an issue of concern to the City Council. WAC 173-26- 241 (3)(j) requires "community and/or public access", however the language from Ecology only addresses public access. If the City would like to allow community access (limited to the residents of the development) instead of full public access, we would need to propose alternate language in 7-100-030 Regulation 2. Inserting "community or" in front of "public access" would be staff's suggestion. Again, there are few vacant shoreline parcels that this would apply to, so implementation would be limited. Trail Setbacks The draft SMP proposed a 1 O' trail setback for all designations except Natural, where it was proposed at 25'. Ecology's required change is to increase the trail buffer to 25' in the Shoreline Residential Resource and Special Resource designations. 2! o~ w.....1 .......... w /> ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS :-__ tlJ FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE ~ ~ SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM W f- z SMP Submittal accepted December 15, 2014, Ordinance Number 2732 Prepared by Jeremy Sikes on XX.XX Brief Description of Proposed Amendment: [.( ::J ~ ~ 0 (_) The City of Moses Lake (City) has submitted to Ecology for approval, a comprehensive update to their Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to comply with Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and SMP Guidelines requirements. The updated master program submittal contains locally tailored shoreline management policies, regulations, environment designation maps, administrative provisions as well as local municipal code 18.53 Flood Hazard. No parts of the local ordinances are adopted by reference as part of the SMP, as the City has elected to incorporate Critical Areas language into the updated Master Program. The critical areas provisions provide a level of protection that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological function pursuant to RCW 36. 70A.480(4). Additional reports and supporting information and analyses noted below, are included in the submittal. FINDINGS OF FACT Need for amendment. The proposed amendment is needed to comply with the statutory deadline for a comprehensive update of the City's local Shoreline Master Program pursuant to RCW 90.58.080 and 100. This amendment is also needed for compliance with the planning and procedural requirements of the SMP Guidelines contained in WAC 173-26 and 27. This SMP update is needed to address land use changes that have occurred along the City's shorelines since 1988 when the City reviewed the SMP, adopted in 1975. This update also provides consistency between the updated SMP Guidelines, current science regarding protection of shoreline resources, the City's Comprehensive and Flood Management Plans, and the shoreline protection provisions of neighboring jurisdictions. SMP provisions to be changed by the amendment as proposed: This comprehensive SMP update is intended to entirely replace the City's existing SMP which was last reviewed on 1988. This updated SMP does not increase the linear extent of shorelines to be covered and regulated by the City. The City did not elect to extend shoreline jurisdiction to include critical area buffers as allowed under RCW 90.58.020(2)(d)(ii). Amendment H istory, Review Process: The City's efforts to update the SMP originally began in 1998. The City formed a Citizen Advisory Committee of volunteers to review draft language for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. The draft language was based on a model SMP developed by the Department of Ecology. The Committee met monthly starting through 2001 , when it was determined that a shoreline inventory was needed before further work on the SMP update. Minutes of the Committee meetings and the draft language discussed by the Committee formed a basis for the goals, policies, and regulations that eventually lead to the locally adopted SMP. The city revived the local planning process again in 2004 with help from a·Department of Ecology grant. 1 Part of the grant money was used for a shoreline inventory by Geo-Ecology Research Group of Central Washington University. The inventory consisted of compiling, mapping, and analyzing information including zoning, land use, docks, bulkheads, wetlands, soil permeability, etc. The remainder of the grant money was used for Highlands Associates of Okanogan to take the shoreline inventory and analysis, state Shoreline Master Program guidelines, work by Moses Lake's Shoreline Citizen Advisory Committee, and Planning Commission input to create drafts of the regulatory chapters of the SMP update. At the end of that process, the draft SMP was not yet acceptable to either the state or the local citizens and Planning Commission, so staff continued to refine the draft SMP as workload allowed. The City has engaged extensively with the public throughout the lengthy update process. Through more than 50 public sessions (hearings, open houses, work sessions, open regular meetings, and comment periods) the citizens of Moses Lake have had many opportunities to provide input on the draft SMP. In its latest iteration, the SMP was intensively reviewed by the Planning Commission through twenty-three study sessions, and two open houses, before the GMA 60-day comment period. The 60-day review garnered several substantive comments from state agencies, including Ecology. With passage of Resolution #2732, on October 24, 2014, the City authorized staff to forward the proposed amendments, including responses to comments received, to Ecology for approval. The proposed SMP amendments were received by Ecology for state review and verified as complete on December 15, 2014. Notice of the state comment period was distributed to interested parties identified by the City on January 15, 2015, in compliance with the requirements of WAC 173-26-120, and as follows: The state comment period began on February 2, 2015 and continued through March 4, 2015. Ecology also issued a news release and internet notices to encourage public participation and comment. Ecology received five written comments, focused primarily on buffers established in the locally adopted SMP draft, and cultural resources.issues. Ecology prepared a summary of public comments and sent this to the City of Moses Lake on March 23, 2015. Due to extenuating circumstances with City staff, the City requested, and was granted, two subsequent 45-day extensions to their required response timeline. Extensions were requested in writing on April 22 and June 19, 2015. On July 29 2015, the City submitted to Ecology its responses to issues raised during the state comment period. Ecology found that the locally adopted draft, while complete, contained some outdated references, and contained provisions that Ecology had previously indicated were not compliant with applicable laws and rules. With these required and recommended changes, Ecology proposes replacement language to ensure compliance with applicable statutes, and provides detailed rationale for each required and recommended change. Among other smaller edits, required changes include deletion of one environment designation that would be inappropriate based on the Cumulative Impacts Analysis and underlying Grant County designation, and clarification of a provision addressing buffers established during preliminary platting to ensure consistency with state subdivision laws. Ecology also incorporated text edits the City 2 proposed to address comments received during the state public comment period, as presented in the responses received July 2015 (Attachment C). Consistency with Chapter 90.58 RCW: The proposed amendment has been reviewed for consistency with the policy ofRCW 90.58.020 and the approval criteria of RCW 90.58.090(3), (4) and (5). The City has also provided evidence of its compliance ~ith SMA procedural requirements for amending their SMP contained in RCW 90.58.090(1) and (2). Consistency with "applicable guidelines" (Chapter 173-26 WAC,. Part III): The proposed amendment has been reviewed for compliance with the requirements of the applicable Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-171through251and173-26-020 definitions). This included review of a SMP Submittal Checklist, which was completed by the City. Consistency with SEPA Requirements: The City submitted evidence of SEP A compliance in the form of a SEP A checklist and issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposed SMP amendments on April 28, 2014. Notice of the SEPA determination was published in the Columbia Basin Herald on May 1, 2014. Ecology did not comment on the DNS. Other Studies or Analyses supporting the SMP update: Ecology also reviewed the following reports, studies, map portfolios and data prepared for the City in support of the SMP amendment: These supporting documents include: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization dated June, 2005 • Moses Lake Cumulative Impacts Analysis (MLCIA) dated July 8, 2013 • *Technical Memo; Recommendations to Meet No Net Loss of Ecological Function in the City's Shoreline Master Program dated July 8, 2013 • *Technical Memo (edited by City of Moses Lake); Recommendations to Meet No Net Loss of Ecological Function in the City's Shoreline Master Program dated October 15, 2013 • Shoreline Restoration Plan (Moses Lake SMP Chapter 11) • MLMC 18.53 Flood Hazard Code • MLMC Chapter 18. 67 Planned Development District Zone Code • City of Moses Lake SMP City Council Public Hearing and Comments Responsiveness Summary (undated) • Shoreline Jurisdiction Map Portfolio dated January, 2014 • Shoreline Master Plan Comment Submittal dated December, 2014 • City of Moses Lake Response Matrix for State Public Comment Period, and City proposed text edits; July 20, 2015 · *Both the original and edited versions of this document were submitted by the City of Moses Lake as a part of the formal submittal package. Summary of Issues Raised During The Public Review Process: Issues raised during the public comment period were substantive and wide ranging. Some of the issues raised were similar to those raised during the many City-sponsored public comment periods, while 3 others were raised for the first time during the state comment period. Ecology commented extensively on the GMA 60-day review draft prior to final adoption. The City elected not to address several of those comments in the locally adopted draft. Ecology included these unaddressed comments in the response matrix (Attachment C -Combined State_Local Comment Responses) developed for the state comment period for clarity. The City of Moses Lake SMP update process was unique and lengthy. The update process began in 1998, and proceeded in bursts of activity and periods of dormancy until roughly 2013. Both the City and Ecology had staff tum-over during the nearly twelve years update process. As a result, the locally adopted draft was authored and revised by different planning staff, planning commission members, and City councils. Ecology had a more limited role in reviewing draft products than with other comprehensive updates, and provided feedback primarily during the many formal public comment periods held by the City. As noted, some of Ecology's earlier comments, including many direct requirements of either the SMA or Ecology rules, were not incorporated into the locally adopted draft. Issues raised previously by Ecology dealt primarily with wetland buffers and mitigation ratios, joint use docks, and trail setbacks. Wetlands buffers Ecology found the city did not provide adequate rationale for proposed wetland buffers for Category 3 and 4 wetlands. Ecology's science-based recommended Category 3 and 4 wetlands buffers are 60 feet and 40 feet respectively, with additional buffers of 301 and 601 for wetlands with high quality habitat.1 The City's proposed buffers are 25 feet for both categories with no additional area for higher functioning scores. The city based its buffers in part on a Cumulative Impacts Recommendations report prepared by Watershed Co., which recommended that Category 3 wetlands should be provided a 25-foot buffer. The report held that " ... proposed buffers should either be: 1) consistent with existing conditions, or 2) consistent with recommendations of the "most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern" (WAC 173-26-201 (2)(a)). ". This is an incorrect interpretation of the WAC, which does not indicate that wetland buffers should be consistent with existing conditions where they would conflict with science-based recommended buffers. While Ecology agrees an analysis of existing conditions is informative and should be considered, those conditions must be analyzed consistent with the requirement under WAC 173-26-201(2)(a). The analysis performed regarding category 3 wetland buffers presented does not meet the definition of "most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information. " The analysis included only one unverified category 3 wetland, along with subjective conclusions about function based on aerial photo interpretation. In addition, the proposed buffer regulations the proposed buffers do not reflect the totality of the recommendation in the MLCIA because they do not require additional buffer width for higher habitat scores or for non SR-R designations.2 Ecology's required changes include amendments to buffer provisions that align with current scientifically supported guidance. 1 Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Eastern Washington Version, Pub #10-06-001; Wetlands in Washington State -Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands, Pub 05-06-008. 2 ibid 4 Wetland mitigation ratios The proposed SMP sets wetland mitigation ratios at 1: 1 for unavoidable wetland losses. A 1: 1 replacement ratio for lost wetlands does not reflect thy most current science on wetland mitigation and, per the Cumulative Impacts Analysis (Watershed Co., 2013), will result in net loss ofecological function. Ratios should be similar to those found in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State (Publication #06-06-01 lb) or Ecology's Small Cities Guidance (Publication #10-06-001) which was the source for many of the wetland provisions in this SMP. Wetland impacts from fill also require authorization from Ecology and possibly from the US Anny Corps of Engineers. Mitigation ratios presented in the documents cited above were co-developed by Ecology and the Corps, and would be required for an applicant to obtain the needed permits. Ecology's required changes include amendments to mitigation ratios that align with current scientifically supported guidance, and the requirements in WAC 173-26-221(c)(i)(F). Other wetland provisions Other sections of the wetland regulations have been updated to correct references to Ecology guidance documents, wetland rating metrics, and to include optional newly developed wetland mitigation approaches. Joint use docks Ecology previously noted that proposed SMP drafts did not include a provision that requires joint use docks, if feasible, for new developments of 2 or more dwelling units. The City elected not to include that provision. Per RCW 173-26-231(3)(b), Ecology is providing text that requires joint use docks when feasible, using language developed during the recent Grant County SMP update that is being used for the entirety of Moses Lake outside of City limits (Attachment B). Using this previously approved language ensures consistency for all residents on the lake, and complies with the provisions under RCW 90.58.lOO(l)(c) and WAC 173-26-100(3) to coordinate and consult with adjacent jurisdictions. Specific environment designation standards The Washington Department offish and Wildlife commented on the inadequacy of buffers and allowed uses for several different environment designations. In some cases WDFW recommended specific alternative buffers for the SR-Rand SR-S, but did not provide a rationale for increasing the proposed buffers from 50 feet to 65 feet. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis properly considered the effects of the originally proposed buffer widths for these environments. Ecology concurs with those findings, and agrees with the City's decision not to change those buffers. On the other hand, Ecology does not concur with a decision by the City to reduce trail setbacks from 25 feet in earlier drafts (and as assessed in the CIA), to 10 feet in the SR-Sand SR-R environments. Ecology shares WDFW's concerns about the potential adverse impact of trails within 10 feet of the ordinary high water mark in the SR-Sand SR-R environments, and includes the original 25-foot setback as recouunended by WDFW and the "Recommendations to Meet No Net Loss" technical memo. Archaeology Both the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) submitted comments seeking changes to the Archaeological and Cultural Resources regulations of the SMP found in Section 6-20. Many of the proposed text changes were subsequently adopted by the City in their response to comments, which were included as proposed edits. Those are included in Attachment B Required and Recommended Changes as recommended changes for the City to formally accept. Other changes were not accepted, primarily 5 relating to timing of consultation with the DAHP and Tribes on the presence of potential cultural resources, data sharing, and other smaller details of the Archaeological and Cultural Resources regulations (see Attachment C for further details and the City's responses). DAHP provided detailed model ordinance language for consideration. While Ecology appreciates the thoughtful comments, and agrees that many of the proposed revisions would be sensible, the locally adopted draft SMP, along with the proposed additions, is compliant with WAC 173-26-221 (1 ). Summary of Issues Identified by Ecology as Relevant To Its Decision: The City and Ecology found that many of the substantive comments presented improvements to the SMP, and the City drafted text edits specific to Chapters 6 and 7. Those edits are incorporated here as either required or recommended changes (Attachment B). In addition to those topics brought to light during the state comment period (discussed in detail above and summarized in Attachment C), Ecology identified several other issues that necessitate required changes as detailed in Attachment B. Of those, two elements in the SMP require further discussion here. Vesting The locally-adopted SMP includes a clause that allows buffers established at preliminary plat phase of developments to apply indefinitely. Section 7·100-030(11) states: · For lots in plats with preliminary plat approval before the adoption of this Master Program, and which had wetland or shoreline buffers set during the platting process, the buffer shall be as set during the platting process. This provision appears to conflict with Washington State's subdivision law (RCW 58.17). Local governments are charged with processing subdivision proposals and must adopt associated ordinances and procedures in conformity with state requirements. Local governments are allowed to extend the period of time for filing a final plat once a subdivision has received preliminary approval from the local government. RCW 58.17.140 allows local government to extend the time period for filing a final plat if they adopt ordinances with procedures to do so. The proposed language does neither. RCW 58.17.170 establishes the time period after final plat approval under which the plat approval is "vested." Approved final plats can be developed according to "the terms of approval of the final plat, and the statutes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of approval." (RCW 58.17. l 70(3)(a)). The vesting period is ten years, if the date of final plat approval was prior to January 1, 2008 and the plat is not subject to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Plats that are subject to the SMA are vested for seven years. Once a plat has been finalized, that plat is vested for a period of time as determined by RCW 58 .17.170. There is no enabling legislation that specifically allows the local government to extend the time a final plat is vested. Ecology's understanding is that local governments are effectively preempted by state statute from extending final plat vesting timelines; that authority is reserved e.xclusively for the state. After the final plat vesting period has expired, lots become "divested" -development of the plat would be subject to all applicable statutes, ordinances, and regulations that had been enacted or amended 6 since final plat approval. It appears the proposed SMP amendment would create an exception to this statutory scheme that exceeds the City's authority. Ecology is including a required change that simply subjects the provision to the controlling RCW regarding vesting timelines for platting. SR-D Environment Designation Another important issue was the inclusion of a specific environment designation for a sensitive area of dunes (SR-D; Reach 25), but that deferred nearly all standards for development to a Planned Unit Developed code (Moses Lake Development Code 18.67.050(B)) that contains no specific limitations on how the area could be developed (SMP Chapter 9). Without providing specific development standards for the SR-D designation, as called for in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Recommendations (MLCIA) to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological function, this area inside the City UGA is more appropriately designated SR-S based on its physical ecological characteristics, underlying zoning, and the areas' current designation as Natural in the Grant County SMP.3 The MLCIA states the following: And "Given the limited standards guiding the Planned Development (PD), which is allowed in the Shoreline Residential -Dunes Area designation, it is not possible to determine whether, how, and to what extent the sensitive shoreline dunes will be protected." (MLCIA Section 5.1.2) "A buffer is not specified in the Shoreline Residential -Dunes Area environment, where only planned developments are allowed. The City's Zoning Code (MLMC 18.67.050(8)) states that the planned development district shall be compatible with adjacent land uses and shall not adversely affect the character of the area in which it is located. This could be interpreted to mean that sensitive ecological functions at the site would need to be maintained, but it does not provide sufficient specificity to ensure that the development would not result in a net loss of functions." (MLCIA Section 6.1.1) The MLCIA concludes with the following recommendation to achieve No Net Loss: "In order to minimize adverse effects of future residential development on the unique habitat in the Shoreline Residential -Dunes Area environment designation, we recommend establishing a suite of performance standards that would accomplish the following: 1. limit the density of any new residential development (establish large minimum lot sizes and large minimum waterfront lot frontages), 2. limit site impervious surface coverage, 3. require placement of the residence in that portion of the site that has the greatest level of current alteration or has the least ecological impact, 4. prohibit clearing of all on-site native vegetation other than what may be required for construction of the residence and necessary appurtenances, · 5. require native landscaping, and 6. prohibit creation of formal lawn areas." (MLCIA, Recommendations Page 10) 3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis of City of Moses Lake's SMP and Recommendations to Meet No Net Loss. Watershed Company, October 31 2013 7 The locally adopted draft did not address the recommendations provided above. Rather than attempting to craft new regulations specific to this unique environment, Ecology's Required Changes re-designate Reach 25 as Shoreline Residential -Special Resource (SR-S). As described in the Inventory and Characterization report, the area meets the SR-S designation criteria, including relatively intact condition, presence of extensive native vegetation, and overall ecological function.4 (Of particular note, the Inventory and Characterization Report recommends a "Natural" Environment Designation (page 129), in part because the reach provides habitat for the highest diversity of fish species (13) of any reach inventoried. The required change to SR-S reflects the conditions of the reach, while aclmowledging the likelihood of planned development. Other required changes Other required changes are detailed in Attachment B, along with specific rationale for each. Many of the required changes are simple formatting changes that support other substantive changes, such as the addition of a wetland mitigation ratio table in Chapter 6. Other changes provide new text that was omitted from the earlier draft of the SMP, but that was required to be compliant with the SMA. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After review by Ecology of the complete record submitted and all comments received, Ecology concludes that the City's proposed comprehensive SMP update, subject to and including Ecology's required changes (itemized in Attachment B), is consistent with the policy and standards ofRCW 90.58.020 and RCW 90.58.090 and the applicable SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through 251 and .020 definitions). This includes a conclusion that approval of the proposed SMP, subject to required changes, contains sufficient policies and regulations to assure that no net loss of shoreline ecological functions will result from implementation of the new updated master program (WAC 173-26- 201(2)(c)). Ecology also concl~des that a separate set of recommended changes to the submittal (identified during the review process and also itemized in Attachment B) would be consistent with SMA policy and the guidelines and would be beneficial to SMP implementation. These changes consist primarily of language the City crafted in response to comments received after local adoption, and some clarifying language with respect to the permitting process. Ecology concludes that those SMP segments relating to shorelines of statewide significance provide for the optimum implementation of Shoreline Management Act policy [RCW 90.58.090(5)]. Ecology c'oncludes that the City has complied with the requirements of RCW 90.58.100 regarding the SMP amendment process and contents. Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the requirements ofRCW 90.58.130 and WAC 173-26-090 regarding public and agency involvement in the SMP update and amendment process. Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the purpose and intent of the local amendment process requirements contained in WAC 173-26-100, including conducting open houses and public hearings, notice, consultation with parties of interest and solicitation of comments from tribes, government agencies and Ecology. 4 City of Moses Lake Shoreline Inventory and Characterization, CWU 2005; page 129. 8 Ecology concludes that the City has complied with requirements of Chapter 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act. Ecology concludes that the City's comprehensive SMP update submittal to Ecology was complete pursuant to the requirements of WAC 173-26-110 and WAC 173-26-201(3)(a) and (h) requiring a SMP Submittal Checklist. Ecology concludes that it has complied with the procedural requirements for state review and approval of shoreline master program amendments as set forth in RCW 90.58.090 and WAC 173-26-120. Ecology concludes that the City has chosen to exercise its option pursuant to RCW 90.58.030(2)( d)(ii) not to increase shoreline jurisdiction to include buffer areas of critical areas within shorelines of the state. As required by RCW 36.70A.480(6), effective upon approval of the SMP, Critical Areas within shorelines are regulated solely by the updated SMP. DECISION AND EFFECTIVE DATE Based on the preceding, Ecology has determined the proposed amendments comprehensively updating the SMP, are consistent with Shoreline Management Act policy, the applicable guidelines and implementing rules, once required changes set forth in Attachment B are approved by the City. Ecology approval of the proposed amendments with required changes is effective 14 days from Ecology's final action approving the amendment. As provided in RCW 90.58.090(2)(e)(ii) the City may choose to submit an alternative to the changes required by Ecology. If Ecology determines that the alternative proposal is consistent with the purpose and intent of Ecology's original changes and with RCW 90.58, then the department shall approve the alternative proposal and that action shall be the final. Approval of the updated SMP and proposed alternative/sis effective 14 days from Ecology's final action approving the alternative/s. 9 City of Moses Lake SMP Comprehensive Update Attachment B Required and Recommended Changes (by chapter) Chapter 6 General Policies and Regulations 6-20. Archaeological and Historic Resources RECEfVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTt- PLANNING AND BUILDING C ITY OF MOSES LAKE 6-20-01 o. The following policies and regulations apply to µ11 •Histelisal/AFGMelegy t'.Feas• ieleAlifies 1A tl:le SheFeliRe lrweRlal)' aRd CllaraGlerizalioo~ all sites. buildings. structures. districts and objects within shoreline junsdic!ion that are identified in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization: ~ arsllaeelegisal er llisteris resei,irses that are recorded at the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP)~ and/or within local jurisdictions, including the City of Moses lake, Grant County, and affected Indian tribes; or that have been inadvertently i,1Rs0·10reel discovered L _ _ _ _ _ _ __ --commented (SJ(l]: Recoounended changes from Moses 6-20-020. Policies Lake staff based on public comment 4. ~"/llere JlFa&lisal, assess le ieleRlilieel l:iistens er arel=taeelegieal sites sloiei,ilel ea maele a'la1laele le tl:ie Jli,i91is at 13i,191ie el<JleRse. Si,isl:i Jli,itllis assess slleYIEI ee EleSi!JAeel aREI maAa§eel ta 13retest tl:ie Fe60i,!F60S. [ ________________ --_ -------------- --- ----------------Commented (SJ(2]: Recommended changes from Moses Lake staff based on public comment 6-20-030. Regulations 2. An evaluation and a report meeting the minimal reporting standards of DAHP, prepared by a cultural resource management professional who meets the qualification standards promulgated by the National Park Service and published in 36 CFR Part 61, shall be required before the start of any ground disturbance work in any area known to contain archaeological or historic resources. The City may require such an evaluation prior to the issuance of any shoreline permit or shoreline exemption. t!J:!g com le e r h e I i I lua ion ha I b b ltt o DAHP and th in eres e Tribe f evie rior to Issuance of an shoreline ermits 6-30-070. Critical Areas: Wetlands 6-30-070-C. Regulations 4. Wetland ratings -Commented (SJ(3]: Recommended changes from Moses Lake staff based on public comment a. Classification. Wetlands in the City of Moses lake and its UGA shall be classified into the following categories according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Eastern Washington (Washington Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-030~,_ 9r_ ~s __ -Commented [SJ(4J: Required change. Corrected reference amended): to current wetland rating system manual c. Criteria for wetland analysis reports ii. The written report and the accompanying scaled plan sheets shall contain the following information, at a minimum: 1. Written report: I. Evaluation of functions of the wetland and adjacent buffer using a functions assess.men! method recognized by local or state agency staff and including the reference for the method used and all data sheets. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington State Department of Ecology wetland rating system. as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington (Ecology Publication #14-06-030 or as amended and approved by Ecology). The preferred methods are as fellows: ler Category I wetlands, use (eetailed) Melheds ferAssessiRfJ We!!and ,cEJns~'ens (Wasi=lingten IJ epartrnent el Eselogy Puelisation QQ Qe 47); fer Category II, Ill, anEl IV wetlanEls use (generis) Washington Stale Wet.'and6 Rating S:)lstem for Eastern V.tashingten ('Nashingten Department of Eeele!:Jy Puelieatien Q4 96 l1el). ___________________ _ d. Criteria for compensatory mitigation reports 3. The compensatory mitigation report must include a written report and scaled plan sheets containing, at a minimum, the following elements. Full guidance can be found in the Wetland Mitigation in Washington State: Part 2 -Developing Mitigation Plans, March 2006 (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10; Ecology Publication #06-06-011b) or as revised.!!r~ Selecting Wetland Mjtiqation Sites Usmq a Watershed Approach (Eastern Washington) (Publication #10-06-07. November 2010). I _______________________ . ___________________ _ e. Compensatory mitigation standards v j he size of a compensatory mitigation proiect shall be greater than the size of the affected wetland per Table 6 1 SL_ When impacts to wetlanEls anEI wetland critical area buffers are proposed they must be mitigated using a 1. 1 ratio based on area of wetland buffer impacted. b To more fully protect funcuons and values, and as an alternative to the m1hgat1on ratios 1n Table 6 1, the SMP Administrator may allow m1t1gation based on the "crediUdeb1t' method developed by the Department of Ecology In "Calculating Credits and Debits for Comoensatorv M1t1gatlon jn Wetlands of Eastern Washington Final Report' IEcology Publ1cat1on #11-06-015. August 2012. or as amended) considere Case b case Case by d ossible case 6:1 12:1 24:1 4:1 8:1 16:1 3:1 6:1 12:1 Commented [SJ(S): Reqwred change to correct reference 10 curr~nl wetland raung system and remove reference to the ourdaied detailed funct10nal asses&ment me1hod no longet m use Commented [SJ(6): Required change to mclude recent alternative methods for developing wetland mtll~atIOn plans !hat were not available at the tl!lle tlus secnon was 101t1ally drafted Commented [SJ(7): Required change per WAC l 73- 26-221 (c)(1), or 173-26-201(2)(aXi)(E) and (F), and pre,·tous Ecology commen!l> Whtie lhe provlSlons generally are well wnrten and thorough. !ht& compensatory mitigation standard does not reflect the most current science on wetland mitigation and, per the Cumulattve Impacts Analys1& (Watershed Co., 2013), will result m net loss of ecological function RatJos should be surular to those found m Wetlands m Washutgton State Volume 2 (Pubhcauon #06-06-0llb) or Ecology's Smdll Cittes Guidance (Publication# 10-06--00 I) which was the source for many of lhe wetland prov15ions m thi& SMP Wetland l!llpacts from fill also require authonzatton from Ecology and possibly from the US Anny Corps o! Engineers. Mmgahon rat10s presented tn the documents cited above were co-developed by Bcolog} and the Corps, and would be required for an applicant to obtain the needed permits Revi,mg the SMP to ahgn vmh federal aud state requirements v.tll ensu1e Iha! applicants ha\e a pred1clable process to follow when the) wish to do a project that will impact wetlands from •wetlands and CAO Updates-Guidance for Small Cities Eastern Washington Version• October 2012 Revision· Ecology publicatlOn # 1 O.Q6-001. h. Wetland buffers i. Buffer widths: wetland buffers must be maintained in accordance with the following tables: Table 6.g~ -~e_!l~'!d_ ~u_ff_¥~ ~Ld!h_s ________________________________________ ,' Wetland Category Standard Buffer i'\dditional buffer Additional buffer Additional buffer Width width if wetland width if wetland width if wetland scores ~Q scores~ scores ~~ habitat points habitat points habitat point __ Category I or II. 75' Add 15' Add 45' Add 75' Based on total score Category I or 11: 75' Add 15' Add 45' Add 75' Forested Category I: 190' NA NA NA Natural Heritage Wetlands Category I or II: 150' NA NA NA Alkali or Vernal Pool I :Category 111 (all) ~o· Add 15'NA Add 45'NA Add 75'.N/>l _ -I Category IV (all) ~o· NA NA NA Commented [SJ(8]: Required change to table number to accommodate nev. wetland mitigation table above. Commented [SJ(9]: Reqwred changes to score ranges based on updates to Eastern Washington Wetland Rating system Commented [SJ(lOJ: Required change per WAC 173- I 26-201 (2}(a}, and 173-26-221(2)(c), based on flawed I CIA wetland analysis and unsupported reduction of standard buffers Buffers for Category 3 and 4 wetlands have been reduced arbrtrarily from 60' (with additional buffers of 30' and 60'} and 40'; to 25' for both categories with no additional area for higher functioning scores While we recognize that the Cumulative Impacts Recommendatt0ns report prepared by Watershed Co made recommendation that Category 3 wetlands should be provided a 25' buffer, we do not agree with the underlying analysis, and the proposed buffers do not reflect the totality of the recommendation. Watershed Co, makes the statement that • .•. proposed buffers should etther be: 1) consistent wtth existing conditions, or 2) consistent w~h recommerldations of the "most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern· (WAC 173-26-201(2)(a)) •.This is an incorrect interpretation of the WAC. The analysis of existing condltiOns IS informative and should be considered, but it cannot substitute for the reqwement under WAC 173-26-201(2}(a} The analysis performed regarding category 3 wetland buffers presented does not meet the defin~ion under 201(2)(a), having only one, unverified category 3 wetland, along with subjective conclusions about function based on aerial photo interpretation as its' basis. In addition, the proposed wetland buffers do not reflect even that flawed recommendation by allowing the smaller buffer without the required additional buffer width for higher ' \ \ habitat scores or for non SR-R designations. Category 4 wetland buffers should align with the science-based buffer of 40 feet (Small Cities Guidance Publication# I 0- 06-001) ' Commented [SJ(ll]: Required change to table number to accommodate new wetland mitigation table above Chapter 7 Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations 7-30. Boating Facilities 7-30-020. Policies 1. Boating facilities should be located, designed, and operated to provide FiaJ11Fl'luff\:~a_sieLe.:P.!:O_!e_c~o_n __ - and enhancement of aquatic and terrestrial life including animals, fish, birds, plants, and their habitats Commented [SJ(12]: Delete "maximum feaS!ble" from text Recommended changes from Moses Lake staff based on public comment and migratory routes. When plastics and other non-biodegradable materials are used, precautions should be taken to ensure their containment. 7-30-030. Regulations 2. !f3oatlng fac1ht1es shall be designed in accordance to technical standards found in WAC 220-660-150 Boat ra sand launches in freshwater areas and -160 Mannas and terminals in freshwater areas or as amended> as applicable . ________________________________________ J .. ,--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-·~ Commented [SJ(l3]: Requued change to address DNR Comment regarding dimensional standards for manna construction. While 220-660-160 does not provide dimensional standards per se, referencing it here does ensure that marina and boat ramp designs are compliant with other pennil requirements. 6. A marina shall be allowed only as a conditional use. The City shall request technical assistance from agencies with jurisdiction and/or knowledge, including but not limited to the Washington departments of Ecology, of Fish and Wildlife, bf Natural Resources.@r.i_d_ oJ ti~alt~._af]<! ajl.§11~ f!i~k~ .§IY.all~ble_IQ t_tiQS.!J __ - agencies the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization and maps developed as part of this SMP. The Planning Commission shall consider the comments received from commenting agencies before making Commented [SJ(14]: Recommended changes from Moses Lake staff based on pubhc comment ,' ~:~~~~~~~i~~~~~~u~e.q~~:!,~~~v1~:nR~ 173-a decision on whether or not to approve the permit, and any conditions or modifications required. 7-50-030. Regulations 7-50-030-C. Joint-use community recreational docks _1_. _All multi-family residences proposing to provide moorage facilities shall be limited to a single, joint-use moorage facility, provided that the City may authorize more than one joint-use dock if, based on conditions specific to the site, a single facility would be inappropriate for reasons of safety, security, or , impact to the shoreline environment. 1 2. ~~ moorage is 1.9 be provided or E!lanned as Qart of a new residential development of two or more~' waterfront dwelling units or lots. or as part of a subdivision or other divisions of land occurring after the effective date of this SMP.1oint use or community dock facilities shall be required when feasible, rather than allow individual docks for each residence. A joint use dock shall not be required for: a. Development of a single residence. b. Existing single residential units that currently do not have a dock. c. Replacement of existing single residential docks. 3. In order to evaluate the feasibility of a joint community dock in a new residential development of two or more waterfront dwelling units, the applicanUproponent shall demonstrate the following: a. Existing facilities in the vicinity, including marinas and shared moorage, are not adequate or feasible for use· and b. The applicanUproponent has contacted abutting property owners and none have indicated a willingness to share an existing dock or develop a shared moorage in conjunction with the applicanUproponent. 7-100-030. Regulations 2. !New mult1-umt residential development (including multiplexes), and the subdivision of land into four or more lots shall make ade uate rov1s1ons for ubhc ac ess ns1stent \Vlth the r ulallons set 1 forth 1n Section 7-90. Recreational Uses. and all provisions of this SMP. ______________ _,1 I I I "requires new residenllal development of two 01 more dwelhng um ls to provide JOlOt use or community dock facullles when foastble, rather than allO\\ tndividual docks for each residence" Note that when used tn the context of an SMP update "Should" means that the pamcular acnon 1s required unless there ts a demonstrated, compelJmg reason, based on policy of the Shorelme Management Act and thts chapter, agamst takrng the action (WAC 173-26-020(35)) Per WAC 171-29-321(3Xb), the city hasnot pro'1ded" a demonstrated compelling reason, based on polt<) of the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter, again.vi talang theactinn., The recently adopted Grant County SMP provides clear language and feasibility revtew stmdards to this effect, which were developed specifically for Moses I akr., and are provided here a; a required change 1 Commented !SJ(l6]: Requued change, addmg 2 new , secllons and changmg outlrne numbenng aocmdrngly WAC 1 173-26-221(4)(d)(m) requires that SMPs provide standards ,' for the ded1cauon and unprovement of pub he access tP development; for water-enjoyment water-rela1ed and non water-dependent uses and for the suhd1vis1on of land mto more than four parcels Specific to residential development, WAC l 73-26-241 (3)()) states lh<lt •·new mul!tunit residential development, mcludmg the subd1V1st0n of land for more than four parcels. should provide commumty and!or pubhc access rn conformance to the local government'5 puhlu .. accc!ss. p Janning and thts chapter " 3. Public access shall be located and designed to resoect private propertv rights. be compatible with the shoreline environment. protect ecological functions and processes. protect aesthetic values of shoreline. and provide for public safety (including consistency with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design ICPTEDl prjnciples. where applicable). a. Residential uses shall comply with the environment-specific requirements in Chapter 9, except as provided in Regulation ~~IQ..y. _________________________ _ ~ _ lC.9!!1!!1£>1! 'dlle_ ~e!P~q_k§LT!J~ r_e§iQ~n~C!) !?0!.!l~ l n_ T_a!?I~ ~·~ §il_aB !:'<2.t £11?.P.!YJ'l ~§~S Y!_h~r_!i Jh_e majority of existing development in the area does not meet the established buffer standards. In•,, such cases residential structures shall be set back common to the average of setbacks for existing ' '' dwelling units within three hundred (300) feet of siae JlF9fler1y liResa proposed residential structure. ' If there is only one or no dwelling units within three hundred (300) feet of a proposed residential structuresiae JlFElJ;Jefty liAes. the shoreline buffers of Table 9.3 shall apply. Common line setback allowed in this section is subject to approval by the Shoreline Administrator. Common line setback shall only be allowed where no loss of shoreline ecological functions or interference with shoreline processes will result from said common line setback per the mitigation requirements in this SMP. The Administrator may place ccnditions on the approval. Any further deviation from setback requirements beyond that allowed in this section shall require approval of a shoreline variance permit. .WJi _ f gr_ I.Qt§ P~\!ejl _b_!i!fl[_e_tb~ ~d_oQtLo!:' .9!. t.tiLs _M_a§t~r:.. i:r2g_r'!ll]. jf_ tbe_ r:_egl!!r~<! §il.O!eJiQ.e_ l?_u.!f~r _ causes there to be less than 60' from the buffer to the front zoning setback line, the front yard zoning setback may be reduced to 1 O' for a porch. 15' for living space or the side of a garage, and 20' for a garage door. Side yard setbacks may be reduced to 5'. If there is still not 60' from the reduced zoning setback to the shoreline buffer,-_the shoreline buffer may also be reduced by the minimum amount that will allow 60' of buildable area, provided there will be no net loss of shoreline ecological function kper Section 6-30 Critical Areas, and Appendix A Mitigation of this SMPll _ and provided that at least a 25' shoreline buffer will be maintained. These reductions in buffer and setbacks do not authorize encroachments into any easements which may be on the property. All proposals to reduce setbacks and buffers shall be submitted to the Administrator for review. The Administrator may place conditions on the approval. 44-,~ Subject to RCW 58.17.140 and RCW 58.17. 170 Fei:lots in plats with preliminary plat approval before the adoption of this Master Program. and which had wetland or shoreline buffers set during the platting process, the buffer shall be as set dunng the platting process. L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~H). __ R_!l~i<!eIJQaJ E~.fi.!)g_: .f~llcLng rn.!l~t[!ig ~yQ.ic2)12,a! Qq_d.!l §!§l!JdJlf.d§ rnJI~ ~ig~nsJ Jo_ tb~ lpQ.d:V£li:fl _ edge of the shoreline buffer. Fencing may be installed within the buffer If all of the following are 1 m~ \ I I I I I Commented [SJ(17]: Changes to internal nwnbenng structure accommodate new subsections 7-100-030 2 and 3 above. Commented [SJ(18]: Changes to internal numbenng structure accommodate new subsections 7-100-030 2 and 3 above. Commented [SJ(19]: Changes to internal nwnbering structure accommodate new subsections 7-100-030 2. and 3 above. Commented {SJ(20]: C.ommon line selbacks are a useful tool for the purpose of allowing shoreline v1e"'-s to b• adequate and comparable to adjacent residences Ecology has previously only approved common line setback language for 150' on each side of a structure for the purpose of providing for comparable views. The distance measured should be the minimum needed to encompass a similar view corridor on either side of a residence. and with the application of mitigation requirements No change to the 300-foot allowance is requ1red Commented {SJ(21]: Changes to internal numbenng structure accommodate new subsections 7-100-030 2. and 3 above Commented [SJ(22]: Required change. Limited administrative buffer reductions that allow reasonable development on previously platted lots, are a sensible approach to avoiding the need for complex variances. AI. "'ritten, the provision does not specify how no net loss is to be achieved or evaluated This required change refers the apphcant to standards in the Critical Areas and Mitigation prov1s1ons of the regulauons Commented {SJ(23]: Required change Add reference to statutory time frames for vesting of subdivisions to section 7-100-030 (II ) for compliance with RCW 58.17 140and 170 See Attachment A Findings and Conclusions for further discussion. Commented {SJ(24]: Changes to internal numbering structure accommodate ne" subsections 7-100-030 2 and 3 above. Chapter 8 Shoreline Modification Policies and Regulations 8-30-040. Bulkheads and Riprap 8-30-070. Regulations ~-lwlkReaEI 1y11e st™sture used to stabilize a Elosk FAay Ile !IBFFAtlteEI, eut !Re size sRall ee liFAtteEI le ll:la ffilRtFAUFA Resessaf)' fer IRe elesk TRe s1a0111zahOR 6IFU6lure SRall ROI eKseeEI 2' WtdeF tRaR IRO Elosk oA easR stEle ROF sRall 11 exseeEI 14' 1A total Wllllt:i aleA!l lRe sR0rel1Aej ___________________ _ Chapter 9 Shoreline Environment Designations City of Moses Lake Shoreline Environment Designations This master program establishes nine shoreline environments for the City of Moses Lake and its UGA: H = High Intensity H-R = High Intensity-Resource Area SR = Shoreline Residential SR-R = Shoreline Residential-Resource Area SR-S = Shoreline Residential-Special Resource Area jsR I) -St:iereliRe ResiEleAltal DuRes Area _ _ _ _ _ ____________________________ _ W =Water-Oriented Parks and Public Facilities N =Natural A = Aquatic The table below describes the designation criteria for each of the nine shoreline environments. Policies for each shoreline environment follow TABLE 9.1 SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA Environment Classification criteria Comments designation TRe area lo be aes1!lRaleEI ·st:ioreliRe Res1deAliel DllABS t:ias eeeA RestEleAUal feuAEI le ee relali•,ely 1Rtasl as re!laras esele§tsal luAslteA II ts iiaFI el ~ a BUAOS esesysleffi tRal perferFAS 1"1!19FtaAt 06010!lt68l IUA6lt0AS II ts also f'llaAReEI ftlr st:iereliAe restaeAt1al use. Tl:le area Ras "11!ll:1 peteAttal ler plaAAed 1le.,.elef:l"1BRI 1t:ia1 eeFA9iAes liFAtled restdeRtial i,ise w1IR eselG!Jtsal 11reteslteA aAEI res1eral10A. l .. __ -----------~ Commented (SJ(2S]: Recommended change Deleted per cuy rcspo~ tO commcu~ pruVJded earlier ID tbr adopnon proces~ but that did not occur puor to the local adopuon action Commented (SJ(26]: Required change tO re-designate SR- O to SR-S envuonment de.ignatlon Without proVJdmg specific development standards for the SR-D designation, as called form the Cumulative Impacts AoalySIS (page I 0) to ensure no net loss , this area rn the city l.!GA "'more appropriately designated SR-Sb~ on its physic-al ecological charactensttcs, underlymg zorung, and the areas' current des1gnanon as Naturnl m the Grant County SMP Set complete dtscuss100 and ranonale ID Attachment A Fwchngi. and Co_n_c_lu_si_on_s __________ ~ Commented (SJ(27]: Required change ro re-dC'>tgnate SR-] D to SR-S .:nw onment de~1gnatioo. See complete d1scui.sion and rational< in Attachment A Fmdmg; and I Conclusions. Reaches Designated "SR-5" Reach Rationale ~ Und~velQQed ~!Jnefi; ~mergent V!!9!!l!!!iQQ; w~!l!!ndfi, n12arian tree £Qver Sl'lereline ResiElenUal Dunes A':ea CSR Dl EA'llirenment ~ Zoning Comp Plan Designation ~ ~----- 1. All of the polieies lisleel elleve fer ShoreliAe ResieleAtial shoreliAe eAviFOAffieAls also apply IA ShoreliAo ResieleAllal D1:1Aes eAYiFeAffieAts. 2. f>, PlaAAei:! De'lelo13ffieAt PeFfAit sllo1:1le Ile reii1:1ireel fer aAy use or asti11ity iA tile Shoreline ResiElonlial D1:1nes BA¥iFOAFABAt, ·,.,;tll tile elEeo13tioA of traAs130Ftation fasilities, whieh sha1:1IEI ee alloweEI with a ConElillonal Use PeFfAit. :3. The fellowing 1:1sos sl=ie1:1lel net ea alloweEI iA Sherelino ResiElentlal D1:1Aes sA¥iranrneAls: oeffimereial asli'<'1!ies, iAel1:1stFial aeli'>•il1es, miAiAg, agFie1:11t1:1re, ffi1:1nielpal 1:1ses, gelf eo1:1rses, nen water enentei:! Feereatian, aAel reaels anEI 13arking areas that san Ile lesateel elsewheFEl. 4. As noted IA the general reg1:1latieAs in Cha131er 6, mainteAanse of esologisal fl:IAstions sA01:1ld Ile reii1:1ireEI fer 1:1ses aAd aelio11ties iA the Shoreline Residential [)1:1nes enviroArnent. Reaslles Designated "SR D" The roashee designateEI "SR o• are 1:1nelevela13eel trasts in a E11:1nes esesystem. They are relatively intasl as regards esolegisal f1:1netien, anEI are plaAAeEI fer law IO!ensity resii:!ential 1:1se. Both reashes are lasated in the City's UG/\; they aFEJ zoneel fer UFllan ResieleAlial 6 (UR 3) 1:1se; anEI elesignateEI fer bow Density Resielential (bQR) 1:1se in llrn COR'lf!ffJ/:lansi1ce Plan, ----Commented [SJ(28]: Requtred change to re-designate Reach 25 from SR-D to SR-S environment designation See complete discussion and rationale m Attachment A Findings and Conclusions TABLE 9.2 SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT USE & ACTIVITY CHART All uses and activities, including those classified as 'Allowed" ("P") in the table below and including those considered exempt, must comply with all provisions of this Shoreline Master Program (SMP), including the General Regulations in Chapter 7. Uses and activities not listed in the Shoreline Environment Use and Activity Chart may be allowed, subject to approval by the Shoreline Administrator, if they comply with the standards in this section and with any special regulations that apply to similar uses. Legend H= High Intensity P =Allowed use; Substantial Development Permit required unless use is exempt H-R = High Intensity-Resource Area CUP= Shoreline Conditional Use Permit required SR= Shoreline Residential X = Prohibited use [sR D -SherehAe ResiEl0At1al DlolAes l\Fea , _ ------- -- - -fE? __ i:_laA_A~~ E?~"'.0L0flA'l!!Fll .f'.!3r.~.il_F~Ejt!iF§~ ----- ---- --- -- -- ------ --- SR-R = Shoreline Residential-Resource Area S = Same as in adjacent environment shoreward of the OHWM ' SR-S = Shoreline Residential-Special Resource Area NIA= Not Applicable w =Water-Oriented Parks and Public Facilities N =Natural A= Aquatic H H·R SR SR·R SR-S ~-f( w N A Agriculture (subject to regulations in Chapter 7) x x x x x x x x NA Aquaculture (subject to regulations in Chapter 7) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA CUP Boating facilities (subject to regulations in Chapter 7) rail-type boat launch systems CUP CUP CUP CUP x x x x s Boat houses [prohibited by WAC 173-26-211(5)(c)(ii)A] x x x x x x x x x Boat launch ramps, community and public CUP CUP CUP CUP x x CUP x s Boat launch ramps, private x x x x x x x x s Boat lifts, private CUP CUP p p p pg CUP x s Marinas CUP CUP CUP CUP x x CUP x s Floating homes, houseboats. and liveaboards x x x x x x x x x Commercial uses (subject to regulations in Chapter 7) Water dependent p CUP p CUP x x x x s Water related & water-enjoyment CUP CUP CUP CUP x x x x x Other (not water-oriented) CUP CUP CUP x x x x x x Docks1 1 Docks will only be allowed in accordance with all applicable provisions of this SMP, including critical areas provisions and the specific use regulations that apply to docks. Commented (SJ(29]: Required change to re-designate SR- D to SR-S environment designation See complete discussion and rat10nale m Attachment A Fmdmgs and Conclusions Commented [SJ(30J: Reqmred change to re-designate SR- D to SR-S environment designation. See complete discussion and rationale m Attachment A Findings and Conclusions Commented [SJ(31]: Reqmred change to re-designate SR- D to SR-S environment designation See complete discuss10n and rationale rn Attachment A Findings and Conclusions H H·R SR SR-R SR-S ~-w N A -Joint-use community recreational docks p p p p p pg p x s Private residential docks x x p p p pg x x s Commercial docks p CUP CUP CUP x x x x s Industrial uses x x x x x x x x x Mining (subject to regulations in Chapter 7) CUP x x x x x x x x Parking-primary (subject to regulations in Chapter 6) x x x x x x x x x Parking-serving a permitted use other than a single-family p p p p CUP pg p x x residential use (subject to regulations in Chapter 6) Parking-serving a single-family residential use (subject to p p p p p p.g p x x regulations in Chapter 6) Public access (subject to regulations in Chapter 6) p p p p CUP p.g p CUP s Recreation (subject to regulations In Chapter 7) Water dependent p p p p CUP p.g p CUP CUP Water related p CUP p CUP CUP p.g p CUP CUP Water enjoyment p CUP p CUP CUP pg p CUP CUP Golf courses x x x x x x x x x Other (not water-oriented) p CUP CUP CUP x x x x x Residential uses (subject to regulations in Chapter 7) p p p p p p.g x x x Residential subdivision (subject to regulations in Chapter 6) p CUP p p p p.g x x x Retaining walls for purposes other than shoreline stabilization x x p p p x x x x (subject to regulations in Chapter 6) Shoreline modifications (subject to regulations in Chapter 8) Dredging CUP x CUP x x x CUP x CUP Dredge material disposal CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP x CUP CUP CUP Filling p CUP p CUP CUP x CUP CUP CUP Shoreline stabilization Structural stabilization, other than bulkheads2 p CUP p CUP CUP pg p x x Bulkheads3 CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP GYP CUP CUP CUP 2 Structural shoreline stabilization will only be allowed in accordance with all applicable provisions of this SMP, including, in the case on non-water-dependent uses, the requirement to demonstrate through a geotechnical report the need to protect the use. 3 Bulkheads may be allowed with a Shoreline Conditional Use Penni! where the need has been documented by a gcotechnical analysis. Sec Bulkhead regulations in Chapter 8. While existing singlc- family residences arc exempt from the requirement to obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit in order to construct a normal protective bulkhead, they must comply with all provisions of this SMP. ~ ..., Commented [SJ(31]: Required change to re-designate SR- O to SR-S enVlronment designation, See complete discussion and rationale in Attachment A Findings and Conclusions. H H·R SR SR·R SR-S !SR-I)._ Vegetative stabilization p CUP p p CUP PG Flood protection facilities x x x x x x Signs (subject to regulations in Chapter 6) Highway and public information p p p p p p Off-premises outdoor advertising, and temporary x x x x x x On premises p p p p CUP PG Solid waste disposal x x x x x x Stormwater management facilities (primary)5 CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP x Transportation facilities (subject to regulations in Chapter 7) p CUP p CUP CUP GYP Utilities (primary; not associated with a use allowed under the provisions of this SMP) (subject to regulations in Chapter 7) Water-oriented p CUP CUP CUP x x Non-water-oriented CUP x CUP x x x 4 On sites previously disturbed, when accompanied by a habitat restoration and mitigation management plan. 5 See 11Environmental Impacts and Water Quality'' m Chapter 6 for policies and regulations related to stormwater management. w N p CUP4 x x p p x x p x x x CUP x CUP CUP CUP x CUP x A CUP x p x x x x CUP CUP CUP Commented (SJ(31]: Required change to re-designate SR- O to SR-S environment designation See complete d1scuss1on and rationale m Attachment A Fmdings and C'onclus1ons TABLE 9.3 SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT REQUIREMENTS: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND SPECIFIC SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS All uses and activities, including those considered exempt, must comply with all provisions of this Shoreline Master Program (SMP), including the General Regulations in Chapter 7. Uses and activities not listed in the Shoreline Environment Requirements Chart may be allowed, subject to approval by the Shoreline Administrator, if they comply with the standards in this section and with any special regulations that apply to similar uses. Shoreline buffers are in feet, from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). All uses with O' buffer must comply with all provisions of this Shoreline Master Program, including any development standards specific to the use. Other regulations, such as wetland buffers, may require a larger buffer than is noted in this table Where height limits are different from those specified in the Moses Lake Municipal Code, the more stringent requirement (i.e., the lower height limit) shall apply. Height is measured from the average finished grade around the structure to the highest point of the structure. Legend H= High Intensity H-R = High Intensity-Resource Area SR = Shoreline Residential SR Q SReFehAe ResiEleAtial Qt,1Aes Jl1Fea SR-R = Shoreline Residential-Resource Area SR-S = Shoreline Residential-Special Resource Area H H-R Agriculture6 NA NA Aquaculture Water-dependent structure and o· o· facility buffer Water-related structure and facility 25' 50' buffer Height limit 35' 25' SR NA o· 25' 35' W =Water-Oriented Parks and Public Facilities N =Natural A= Aquatic PD = Planned Development Permit required N/A = Not Applicable SR-R SR-5 JSR-01. . -w JL _~_ NA NA NA NA NA NA o· o· NA NA NA o· 50' 150' NA NA NA NA 25' 15' NA NA NA 10' Boating facilities (boat lifts, boat launch ramps, and marinas [whether commercial, private, or municipal]) Water-dependent buffer O' O' O' O' O' ~ o· NA o· Height limits Over-water structures NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15' 0-100 feet from OHWM 35' 25' 25' 25' NA 4{j! 15' NA NA >100 feet from OHWM 35' 35' 35' 35' NA 60! 35' NA NA Commercial development-water dependent Water-dependent buffer o· o· O' o· NA NA NA NA NA Water-related and water-enjoyment 50' 50' 50' 50' NA NA NA NA NA buffer Non-water-oriented buffer 50' 150' 75' 150' NA NA NA NA NA Building height limit 35' 35' 35' 35' NA NA NA NA NA Docks: Dimensional standards are found in the Docks section of Ch. 7 Industrial development (prohibited in NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA shoreline jurisdiction) Mining and related facilities buffer 100' NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Parking-primary (prohibited in NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA shoreline jurisdiction) 6 New agricuhural uses are prohibited in areas of shOTelinc jurisdiction Attachment B -Required and Recommended Changes -Moses Lake SMP 11 Commented [SJ(32): Required change to re-<lesignate SR- D to SR-S environment designation. Sec complete discussion and rat10nale in Attachment A Findings and Conclus1ons. H H-R SR SR-R SR-S iSR-0 _ Vj _ N Parking-serving a permitted use' 50' 75' 75' 100' 125' ~ 150' 150' Recreation Buffers Non-water-oriented uses 100' 150' 100' 150' NA NA 150' NA Water-oriented uses 35' 35' 35' 35' NA NA 35' NA Water-dependent uses O' O' O' O' O' ()! O' O' play fields, and other intensive use 100' 150' 100' 150' NA NA 100' NA areas Recreational paths and trails (non-10' 10' 10' tt-G!.25' ~~L--~-10' .?~'- motorized} Height limit 35' 15' 25' 15' 15' w 15' NA Maximum site coverage (percent)8 40 20 40 20 10 4G 20 10 Residential uses• Buffer-all dwelling units, and non-25' 25' 25' 25' 150' pg NA NA water-dependent accessory 50' structures or 100·10 Height limit 35' 35' 35' 35' 25' 26! NA NA Maximum site coverage (percent}" 60 50 50 50 25 26 NA NA Maximum density (dwelling units per 15 10 10 6 4 4 NA NA acre) Retaining walls for purposes other NA NA 20' 30' 100' NA NA NA than shoreline stabilization-setback (subject to regulations in Chapter 6) Signs (on premises) Maximum height (in feet} 12 6 12 6 6 e 6 6 Maximum surface area (in square 36 36 36 36 36 dG 36 36 feet} Setback 20' 50 25 50 150 ~ 20' NA Solid waste disposal12 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Transportation facility setbacks Arterials, highways, and railroads 100' 125' 100' 125' 150' ~ 150' 150' (excluding water crossings) Non-arterial, secondary, and access 50' 75' 75' 100' 100' 4GG! 100' 100' roads Utilities (primary; not associated with a use allowed under the provisions of this SMP} Setbacks for buildings, storage 50' 100' 50' 100' NA NA 100' NA tanks, accessory uses, and distribution lines (excluding water 7 Parking faciJities shall be set back landward of the principal building being served a minimum oftwcnty·fivc feet or the required building sctb~k. whichever is greater (sec Chapccr 6, General Policies and Regulations) 1 Includes aJI impervious surfaces A -NA NA NA O' NA ~A __ 15' NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9 Common line setback may be allowed where the majority of existing development in an area does not meet the established setback standards, as provided in the Residential Use regulations in Chapter 7, Other provisions may also apply; see Chapter 7. IO See Enviroruncnt Designation map for buffer width at the specific local ion. 11 Includes all impervious suriaces 12 Solid waste: disposal is prohibited in areas of shoreline jurisdiction Attachment B -Required and Recommended Changes -Moses Lake SMP 12 Commented [SJ(32]: Required change to re-design.it• 5R- D to SR-S environment designation See complete discuss10n and rationale JO Attachment A Fmdmgs and Conclu.smns Commented [SJ(33]: Required change per WAC l 73- 22J-22 l(2)(a) and (c), and -221(5). comments from WDfW and prev1ousl) from Ecology The city proVJded no rationale for the proposed tnul buffer m e1thtr the SR-R or the SR-S environment<, havmg teduced th• buffer from 50' m pre>1ouo neratlono of the SMP arb!tranly to IO' m the SR-Rand SR-S envuonments Both of thtse environment• are characterized by areas of special or llllact ecolog1cal function, and art ltkely to have wetland buffer overlay' With the exception oftrails specific to ecccss a dock, there 1s no coll'q)Cllmg reason trail> should be located within the shoreline buffet Trails that parallel the shoreline. dependmg on the type and construction method• can be highly de•ttuct1ve to habitat, cao create vector.. for tn\las1vc plant~, and cao fn1gment m1grat1on corridor~ WDFY, recommend• 25' in tis comment, and we concur bel'e H H-R SR SR-R SR-S ~ VLL Ji crossings) Height limits Buildings, storage tanks, and accessory uses Distribution poles 12-20-060 Variances 35' 25' 35' 15' NA 35' 35' 35' 35' NA Chapter 12 Administration and Compliance 12-20 PERMITS F. Wanances from the use regulations of the master program are oroh1b1tedJ 12-60 NON-CONFORMING DEVELOPMENT NA 15' NA 35' 12-60-050 buratton of Permits The duration of permits shall be consistent with WAC 173-27-090. 12-60-060 Initiation of Deve!ooment NA NA ~-~ NA NA A Each oermit for a Substantial Development. Shoreline Condjhooal Use or Shoreline Vanance. fssued by local aovernment shall contain a provision that construction pursuant to the permit shall not begin and is not authorized until twenty-one (21 l davs from the date of receipt with Ecolooy as defined In 'RCW 90.58.140(6\ and WAC 173-27-130. or until all review proceedings mitiated within twenty-one (21\ from the date of receipt of the decision. except as provided in RCW 90.58.140(5lla) and Cb). The date of receipt for a Substantial Develooment Permrt means that date the applicant receives written notice from Ecology that 1! has recejved the decision. With regard to a oermit for a Shoreline Yanance or a Shoreline Conditional Use. date of recejpt means the date a resoonsible local government or applicant receives the written decision of Ecology. B Permits for Substantial Development. Shoreline Conditional use. or Shoreline Variance mav be In apy form oresccibed and used by the City including a combined permit application form Such forms will be supplied by the Citv. C A peanit data sheet shall be submitted to Ecology with each shorehne permit. The permit data sheet form shall be consistent with WAC 173-27 -990. 12-60-070 Review Process A. After the City's approval of a Shoreline Condillpnal Use or Variance Permit, the City shall submit the permit to the Department of Ecology for approval. approval with conditions. or denial. Ecolooy shall render and transmit to the City and the applicant its final decision approving, approving with conditions. or disapprovmg the permit w1thm thirtv days of the date of submittal by the City pursuant to WAC 173-27-110. B The Deoartment of Ecology shall review the complete file sybmltted by the City on Shoreline Conditional Use or Variance Permits and any other information submitted or available that is relevant Attachment B -Required and Recommended Changes -Moses Lake SMP 13 -Commented [SJ(32): Required change to re-designale SR- D to SR-S environment designation s~ complete discussion and rationale in Attachment A Findings and Conclusions -Commented [SJ(34): Required change to comply with WAC 173-27-170(5) to the appllcatmn. Ecology shall base its determination to approve. approve with conditions or deny a cond1t1onal use permit or yanance on coosjstency with the oohcy and prov1smns of the SMA and except as provided in WAC 173-27-210 the cnteria in WAC 173-27-1 60 and 173-27-170. C The City shall provide t1metv notification of the Department of Ecology s final dec1s1on to those inte•ested persons having requested notification from local government pursuant to WAC 173-27-130.1 Chapter 13 Definitions pevelopmen~}l_l~n.P _!J§e_ ~O!l!?_is_!iQg_ qt p~n§t_r:u_?lon or exterior alteration of structures;_g_r<!9Lng,_d_i:e_9giQg, gr.!llLng, __ -- or dumping; filling; removal of sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of pilings; placing of obstructions; or any project of a temporary or permanent nature which modifies structures interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to this SMP at any state of water level. , laAEl, er shereliAes aAEl whieh Elees Rel fall withiA allewa~eFAfllieAs. f loodwaYr: the area. as identified in a master program. that either: __________________________ , (al Has been established in federal emergency management agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps: , m: (bl 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. Regardless of the method used to identify the floodway. the floodway shall not include those 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. The shaAAel et a Fi·1er er ether watersmirse a Ra the a8jaseAt laRd areas !hat mast l3e resep,ceel iA ereler le Elisshar§e the l3ase lleeel withe~! s1oiFA~lalively iRGreasiAfl the water s1oirfase ele·1atieA FAere lhaA eAe feel (1 ') (Ml~4G 18.a;rnag.J). UfJ13er Pafl(er Hern, abeYe the Fill, is eA eltBFAflle. Attachment B -Required and Recommended Changes -Moses Lake SMP 14 ' Commented [SJ(35]: Recommended Change All shoreline penruts are subject to the requirement> in WAC J 73-27 To assi;1 staff and appbcants, we add new adtllln.,trat!'e sectIOn• regardmg permit dt\[auon. tmung and Ecology ~trements for CLP• and Vanances Commented [SJ(36]: Requ11ed change to make consi.tent with the defimtton.> under RCW 90,58 030 (3)(a), and WAl 173-26-020, and 173-27-030(6) I he def!Illtton of "De,elopment" was tmproperly altered to exclude .everal important act1v1t1es mcludmg the cxtenor alteration of structures, placing of obstructions, and uses that mterfere with the normal public use of the water WAC 173-26-020 clearly states !hat the definmous found in RC W 90 58 030 mu>1 be applied m SMP "Development" as defined in the RCW" also repeated in WAC 173-27-030(6) Commented [SJ(37]: Requned change to make consisteut with the dcfm1t10n• under RCW QO 58.010 (2)(b), and WAC 173-26-020 (l 8) The proposed defimllon 1s nol consistent with the "Pettfic defirution required under the WAC and RCWs. The term "noodway" bas a particular technJcal mearung 10 the context of the Shorelme Master Program; either 1t I~ established by FEMA on nRM or llood>'ay maps using specific· procedure~. or n JS an area identified m the field usmg the parameters established under RCW 90 58 030 Comment Name of Topic Commenter Docks Rick Trenbeath, Local resident, Lakeshore Dr. Noise Rick Trenbeath Non Rick Trenbeath Conforming Uses Allowed Uses -Eric Pentico - Natural Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Attachment C · City of Moses Lake Comprehensive SMP Update - Comments received during State public comment period Specific Comment Local Government Response and Rationale "In section 6-70-01 it states that public access includes docks Public access does not include access to private that touch the water. If this is true for resident docks then docks. who is liable if they get hurt?" "Section 6.2 Talks about noise caused by industrial Music played by boats is not "development" manufacturing but what about the boats on the lake that that is regulated by the SMP. See Moses Lake play very very loud music?" Municipal Code 8.28, Noise Control, for existing noise regulations. "Can you tell me were in the proposal you read the Non-conforming use provisions are in Chapter Grandfather info." (Upon further conversation with Mr. 12, Section 12-60. Trenbeath, he is referring to the status of non-conforming uses and structures). WDFW recommends water-dependent (recreation) and Transportation facilities are only allowed in the transportation facility uses not be allowed in areas natural environment as a conditional use permit designated as Natural within the City of Moses Lake. (See Table 9.2, Ch. 9, p.13). Approval of "Natural environments in the City of Moses Lake contain the conditional use permits is limited to those that most intact riparian environments within the city and can meet the criteria listed in 12-20-050, provide the best protection to riparian area functions. including no significant adverse effects to the However, according to table 9.3, buffers in Recreation Areas shoreline environment, including cumulative for water-dependent uses are allowed to be reduced to O'. impacts of similar projects (Ch.12, p.4). The Transportation facility setbacks are allowed to be reduced to Transportation Facilities provisions in 7-110 100' or 150'. Higher intensity water-dependent uses which (Ch.7, p.16-18) minimizes roads and bridges in require buffer widths to be reduced to O' and transportation all shoreline environments. The Cumulative facility uses are not physical alterations which 'serve to Impacts Analysis (Oct. 2013) found no net loss protect or enhance any significant, unique, or highly valued of shoreline functions is anticipated to result feature .. .', which is the stated policy for natural environment from the maintenance or development of areas in the City of Moses Lake." transportation uses {p.33). By its definition, a water-dependent use cannot exist in a location that is not adjacent to the water. Water-dependent uses can't have a setback from the water, or they won't work. So the setback can't be increased. Water dependent recreation uses are only allowed in the natural environment as a conditional use permit (See Table 9.2, Ch. 9, p.12). Approval of conditional use permits is limited to those that can meet the criteria listed in 12-20-050, 1 Ecology Response Ecology staff spoke with this commenter and provided similar feedback. Ecology staff spoke with this commenter and provided similar feedback. Concur Concur RECE IVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN ~'} .. PLANNING A1--JD BlJlLDING CITY OF MOSES LAKE including no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment, including cumulative impacts of similar projects (Ch.12, p.4). The Recreational Uses provisions in 7-90 (Ch.7, p.12- 13) require no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, compatibility, and minimizing any adverse environmental effects. Recreation is limited to uses that complement their surroundings and protect natural areas (Policy #5). Protection of the natural character, resources, and ecology of the shoreline is addressed in Policy #10. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis (Oct. 2013) found no net loss of shoreline functions is anticipated to result from recreational uses (p.30). Setbacks -SR· Eric Pentico -WDFW recommends Aquaculture, Boating Facilities, and Aquaculture: We could prohibit this in the SR-S Aquaculture is s WDFW Recreation water-dependent uses not be allowed unless designation. It was our understanding that we exceptionally unlikely absolutely necessary in SR.S designated areas within the City were supposed to allow/encourage aquaculture in Moses Lake, but as a of Moses Lake and that required buffers for recreational as a priority use in shorelines. water dependent use, trails be expanded to a minimum width of 25'. "Shoreline it should be areas designated SR-5 within the City of Moses Lake Boating Facilities: The only boating facilities accommodated where demonstrate some ecological impairments, but ' ... they also allowed in SR-Sare boat lifts. It is our appropriate. We retain important ecological functions and have high understanding that boat lifts have very minimal generally concur with potential for ecological protection and restoration because impact. this response. they include relatively large tracts that have not been subdivided or include large wetland areas.' (Table 9.1) Recreation: Same as for Natural, above. Proposed buffers listed in Table 9.3 for SR-S designated areas that could hinder properly functioning ecological Buffers for trails: All recreational uses in the SR- conditions or interfere with future restoration efforts S designation, including trails, are conditional include the allowed buffer reduction for Aquaculture water-uses, so all the safeguards listed above for dependent structures and facilities to O', Boating water-Recreational Uses in the Natural Designation dependent facilities to O', and Recreation water-dependent are in place. uses and paths and trails reduced to O' and 15'." Setbacks -SR-Eric Pentico -WDFW recommends buffers for water-related, water-65' buffers in SR-R: Most of the proposed Ecology generally R WDFW dependent and water enjoyment structures and facilities in buffers in SR-Rare 50' or more. The proposed concurs with this areas that are currently functioning properly or may possibly residential buffer in SR-R is 25', 50', or 100', response. Without be restored to proper functioning conditions be set at a depending on the existing conditions. In places further information, it minimum of 65' wide and buffer widths for paths and trails where there are existing houses built 25' back is not clear why the should only be allowed to be reduced to 25'. "Residential from the water and only a few scattered vacant commenter is uses should have the buffers expanded to a minimum of 65' lots, the buffer was set at 25', since there isn't proposing that 65' is a to retain most functioning conditions and allow for adequate ecological function left to preserve in those more appropriate restoration of degraded areas. SR-R designated lands, similar areas. The places that did have ecological buffer width than those 2 to SR-S lands, demonstrate impairments to ecological functions, but 'They retain important ecological functions and have the potential for development that is compatible with ecological protection and restoration.'(Table 9.1) Proposed buffers in table 9.3 that could hinder properly functioning ecological conditions and impair potential restoration efforts include O' and 50' buffers for Aquaculture water-dependent and water-related structures, 50' Commercial water-related and water-enjoyment buffers, and 35' & 10' Recreation water-oriented uses and Recreational path/trail buffers. In addition, 25' and 50' buffer widths are allowed for dwelling units and non-water- dependent accessory structures in Residential uses areas." Setbacks · Eric Pentico • WDFW recommends buffers in areas retaining some H-R WDFW properly functioning ecological conditions or may be restored should be set for water-related, water-dependent and water-enjoyment structures and Recreation water- oriented uses to a minimum 65' buffer width. Buffer widths for Recreation paths and trails should only be allowed to be reduced to 25'. WDFW recommends buffers in Residential areas be expanded to a minimum of 65' to retain most functioning ecological conditions and allow for adequate restoration of degraded areas. "H-R designated lands demonstrate impairments to ecological functions, but 'They retain important ecological functions and have the potential for development that is compatible with ecological protection and restoration.' (Table 9.1) The proposed buffers listed in Table 9.3 that could hinder properly functioning ecological conditions and impair restoration efforts include 50' buffers for Aquaculture water-related structure and facilities, 50' buffers for Commercial water-dependent and water-enjoyment structures, and 35' & 10' buffers for Recreation water-oriented uses and Recreational paths/trails. For Residential use areas, buffer reductions to 25' are proposed for dwelling units and non-water dependent accessory structures." 3 function remaining were set at 50' or 100', depending on how much of a buffer currently exists. This varying-width buffer was a recommendation based on the Cumulative Impacts Analysis. See Recommendations to Meet No Net Loss of Ecological Functions in the City's Shoreline Master Program, Oct. 31, 2013, by The Watershed Company .. 25' trail buffer: The Cumulative Impacts Analysis (Oct. 2013) found no net loss of shoreline functions is anticipated to result from recreational uses (p.30). 50'buffer Aquaculture, 50' Commercial: There are only a few areas designated H-R. All of these areas are zoned Commercial or Industrial. However, in the H-R designation, all commercial uses, even water dependent, are only allowed by conditional use permit. Approval of conditional use permits is limited to those that can meet the criteria listed in 12-20-050, including no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment, including cumulative impacts of similar projects (Ch.12, p.4). Commercial developments are required to be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions (7-40-020 Policy 8, p.5; 7- 40-030 Regulation 2.d, p.6). 35' Recreation: Only water-dependent recreation is allowed outright, water related or water enjoyment recreation uses are CUPs, with all the protections listed above for CUPs. 10' Trail: All water related and water enjoyment recreation uses, including trails, in the H-R environment are conditional uses, so all the safeguards listed above for Recreational Uses in the Natural Designation are in place. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis (Oct. 2013) found proposed, and SU pported by the IAC and CIA documents. Ecology general concurs with the exception of trail setbacks. The city provided no rationale for the proposed trail buffer in either the SR-R or the SR-S environments, having reduced the buffer from 50' in previous iterations of the SMP ~~ ~o~ i~ ~h~ - - SR-Rand SR-S environments. Both of these environments are characterized by areas of special or intact ecological function, and are likely to have wetland buffer overlays. With the exception of trails specific to access a dock, there is no compelling reason trails should be located within the shoreline Commented [GT(l]: The first clause states the real Issue -there is no rationale. It may have been arbltrai:y but we can't tell unless they document their rationale no net loss of shoreline functions is anticipated buffer. Trails that to result from recreational uses (p.30). parallel the shoreline, depending on the type 25' Residential: Residential uses, while allowed and construction by the draft SMP in H-R, would be highly methods, can be highly restricted by the Commercial and Industrial destructive to habitat, zoning so would be unlikely to be proposed. can create vectors for invasive plants, and can fragment migration corridors. WDFW recommends 25' in its comments. Setbacks Eric Pentico -WDFW recommends that a 65' buffer be required to retain Trail buffer: The proposed buffer for SR-D area will be WDFW most functioning ecological conditions and allow for recreational paths and trails is the same in SR-D removed and Reach 25 adequate restoration potential of degraded areas. "The SD-as in the Natural Environment. will be afforded AR-R D designated areas have' ... been found to be relatively environment intact as regards ecological functions.' and ' ... has high Residential buffer: If reviewing the proposed designation based on potential for planned development that combines limited residential buffer as part of the Planned the city designation residential use with ecological protection and Development is not sufficient, a specific criteria in Chapter 9, restoration.'(Table 9.1) Table 9.3 indicates ecological minimum distance could be set. and the lack of functions and restoration potentials are being adequately applicable standards protected in most cases. A planned development permit is present in the required for Residential uses." Municipal Code (Chapter 18.67 - Planned Development District Zone) the city defers to for governing SR-D. Boating Hugo Flores-7-30 Boating Facilities. 7-30-020.(1) Policies. Page 3. Provide "Maximum feasible" will be removed. Ecology concurs with Facilities Department of criteria that defines how "maximum feasible protection and this approach, and will Natural enhancement" will be achieved or remove the "maximum include this text edit as Resources feasible" qualifier. a Recommended Change in our Findings and Conclusions Boating Hugo Flores-7-30 Boating Facilities. 7-30-020 (6). Policies Page 3. Per State direction, policies are "should" Ecology concurs with Facilities DNR Consider using "shall be prohibited" rather than "should" statements. The "shall" statement comes in the this approach, and will with reference to floating homes, houseboats, and regulation. Floating homes are prohibited in all work with the city on liveaboards. environment designations in Table 9.2 (under revised language, Boating Facilities). A regulation could be added should they chose to to 7-30-030, the regulations that implement the develop regulations policies in 7-30-020. relating to floating homes. 4 Boating Hugo Flores-7-30 Boating Facilities. 7-30-030 (3). Regulations. Page 4. The minimum for a private dock could be very This response does not Facilities DNR Provide a numerical value for the minimum required for a different from the minimum needed for a address the comment dock-to-shore-attachment site abutment. commercial or public access dock. provided, it merely states that two different standards may need to be developed. Ecology will coordinate with the city on possible alterations to the text. Boating Hugo Flores-7-30 Boating Facilities. 7-30-030 (5). Regulations. Page 4. At DNR will be added to the list of agencies. Ecology concurs with Facilities DNR " ... The City shall request technical assistance from agencies this approach, and will with jurisdiction ... ", consider adding DNR to the list of include this text edit as agencies. a Recommended Change in our Findings and Conclusions. Boating Hugo Flores-7-30 Boating Facilities. 7-30-030 (13). Regulations. Page 4. At We disagree that a boathouse is a residential Ecology concurs with Facilities DNR " ... Boat houses, as non-water dependent structures, are use. Our definition of a boathouse is a structure this response. prohibited.". Consider clarifying how a boathouse can be over or immediately adjacent to water, used to used as a non-water dependent use. Suggests "Boathouses, store watercraft (Ch. 13). Boats can be stored as a residential use, are prohibited." as replacement text. upland, therefore boathouses are not needed and are prohibited. Commercial Hugo Flores-7-40 Commercial Uses. 7-40-030 (l)(b). Regulations. Page 5. We would be open to suggestions for criteria The comment could Uses ONR Regards prohibition of non-water-oriented uses where for assessing severe limitations on navigability. provide a sensible "Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site ... ". improvement to the Provide criteria for assessing severe limitation on Draft SMP. Ecology will navigability. coordinate with the city on possible alterations to the text. Archeological Eric "Please be advised that your proposed undertaking (SMP Noted. Noted and Historical Oosahwee-update) lies within the traditional territory of the Moses- Resources Voss -Colville Columbia tribe, one of the twelve tribes that make up the Confederated Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (also known Tribes as the Colville Confederated Tribes or CCT), which is governed by the Colville Business Council (CBC). The CBC has delegated to the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) the responsibility of representing the CCT with regard to cultural resources management issues throughout the traditional territories of all of the constituent tribes under Resolution 1996-29." 5 Archeological Eric Commenter includes attached general recommended SMP and Historical Oosahwee-language, without specific text edits for section as follows: Resources Voss -Colville "State and local cultural resources laws apply to shoreline Confederated development. State laws include Tribes RCW 27.53 (Archaeological Sites and Records), which prohibits the unpermitted removal of archaeological materials and establishes a permitting process, and RCW 27.44 (Indian Graves and Records), which describes how human remains must be treated. This shoreline management master plan requires each project proponent to: •Consult with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and Native American tribes to determine ifthe projects lie within areas of cultural significance. • Conduct background research at DAHP • Conduct a site assessment if cultural resources are recorded in the proposed project area or if requested by DAHP or Native America tribes • Recover archaeological materials in compliance with RCW 27 .53 prior to construction •Consult with the County, DAHP, and Native American tribes if resources are discovered during construction • Consider cultural resources in planning for public spaces and access Given the importance of shoreline locations throughout the human history of Washington, the potential for cultural resources should be considered high for any shoreline development permit unless demonstrated otherwise. To comply with state and local law, applicants should perform records searches at DAHP and require cultural resources site assessments in high potential areas where resources are recorded on or near the project lands. If the probability of unrecorded resources is high, applicants should be prepared to follow the provisions of RCW 27.53 and 27.44 if cultural resources are identified or encountered during the planning or construction process." Archeological Gretchen In regard to 6-20-010, recommended change to this and Historical Kaehler -State statement would read something like the following: ''The Resources Dept. of following policies and regulations apply to sites, buildings, Archaeology structures, districts, and objects within the shoreline 6 Earlier versions of the SMP included a requirement that subdivisions and commercial development submit a site inspection and evaluation, unless deemed unnecessary by DAHP. This requirement was removed by the Planning Commission as it was felt the other regulations were protective enough. Our current permit process includes notifying DAHP & CCT for all shoreline permits that include ground or lakebed disturbance. If no comments are received, we assume there are no cultural resources concerns about the site/project. In addition, 6-20-030 Regulation 3 (p.3) requires immediate stoppage of work and notification of the City, DAHP, & CCT if anything of possible archaeological interest is uncovered. The recommended change can be made. Here is the text as modified: The following policies and regulations apply to all 'lolisleFisal,t.A.FsReele~i; AFeas" ieeR!iliea Ecology appreciates the thoughtful comments provided by the Tribe. While we believe incorporation of the proposed language would ~mprove the SMP ~ EEqh~.gy &e!l~r~l!Y _ concurs with this response. The SMP ~.9'!1eli~s_ ~i0 _w_~ ___ 173-26-221(1). Any changes to the cultural resources section will be at the city's discretion. The city is aware of the need to comply with the provisions of RCW 27.53 and 27.44 as indicated. Ecology concurs with this approach, and will include this text edit as a Recommended Commented (GT(2]: Here we acknowledge the suggestion would improve the SMP. It seems redundant to repeat 1t below, where it dilutes the point that these Improvements are at the city's discretion --l Commented (GT(3): This assessment 1s not tentative. The city has adopted the minimum requirements that are the basis for our approval and Historic jurisdiction that are identified in the Shoreline Inventory and iA IAe li>RfHeliRe IR•<eRlefJ' aRfi Change in our Findings Preservation Characterization; that are recorded at the Washington Cllarastefi;!!a#eR aRe eR all sites. buildings, and Conclusions. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation; structures, districts, and object§ within and/or within local jurisdictions including the City of Moses shoreline jurisdiction that are identified in Lake, Grant County, and affected Indian tribes; or that have the Shoreline lnventor:x and Characterization: Aa¥iA§ arsAaeele§ieal er been inadvertently discovered. Aisleris rese~rees that are recorded at the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP): and/or within local jurisdictions, including the City of Moses Lake, Grant County, and affected Indian tribes; or that have been inadvertently ~Aee~·eree discovered. Archeological Gretchen We recommend clarifying Policy 6·20-020 (4) as to the We will delete this policy in Chapter 6, p. 2. Ecology concurs with and Historical Kaehler· State purpose of this policy. It is unclear as to why access to these this approach, and will Resources Dept. of resources should be at public expense. Access to include this text edit as Archaeology archaeological sites should be restricted to appropriate a Recommended and Historic parties. Also please be aware the location of archaeological Change in our Findings Preservation site is exempt from public disclosure to prevent looting and and Conclusions. (DAHP) (note depredation (RCW 42.56.300). that comments by this reviewer were provided 56 minutes after the comment period closed on March 4th) Archeological Gretchen We recommend that "The completed archaeological We will incorporate the recommendation as Ecology concurs with and Historical Kaehler-evaluation should be submitted to OAHP and the interested follows: this approach, and will Resources DAHP Tribe for review prior to the issuance of any shoreline An evaluation and a report meeting the include this text edit as permits" to Policy 6·20·30(2). minimal reporting standards of DAHP, a Recommended prepared by. a cultural resource Change in our Findings management professional who meets the and Conclusions. qualification standards promulgated by the National Park Service and published in 36 CFR Part 61, shall be required before the start of any ground disturbance work in any area known to contain archaeological or historic resources. The City may require such an evaluation prior to the issuance of any shoreline permit or shoreline exemption. The comoleted archaeolooical evaluation 7 shall be s~!;!mitt!:d tQ DAHP and the interested Tribe for review Qrior to issuance of anv shoreline nermits. Archeological Gretchen In the definitions in Chapter 13, we note the inclusion of a We would be willing to consider including a Ecology did not receive and Historical Kaehler-definition of "archaeological resources." However, we definition of cultural resources. an alternate definition Resources DAHP recommend that definitions for cultural resources be of Cultural Resources broadened to be clear that the Shoreline Master Program from the City as a part addresses a broader range of cultural resource types. of its response. As written, the SM P complies with WAC 173-26-221(1). Archeological Gretchen In regard to Appendix A Mitigation, it should be made clear The Mitigation Appendix is specific to ecological Ecology generally and Historical Kaehler -elsewhere in the document (such as in section 6-20) that mitigation, with plant survival rates, irrigation, concurs with this Resources OAHP mitigation will also pertain to cultural resources that are monitoring, etc. Cultural resources impacts response. The SMP negatively impacted and should be identified and would need to be mitigated very differently. complies with WAC implemented in consultation with DAHP, affected Tribes, Since cultural resources are already regulated 173-26-221(1). Any and other appropriate affected parties. by the state, we would defer to state changes to the cultural requirements for mitigation should any resources section will resources be found. be at the city's discretion. Archeological Gretchen There is little specificity or process with regard to cultural Our current permit process includes notifying Ecology generally and Historical Kaehler-resources. There are also no details on how previously DAHP & CCT for all shoreline permits that concurs with this Resources DAHP recorded archaeological sites will be recognized during pre-include ground or lakebed disturbance. If no response. While project review. We recommend that the City of Moses Lake comments are received, we assume there are entering into a data enter into a data sharing agreement with DAHP so that no cultural resources concerns about the sharing agreement is a archaeological and historic sites can be identified prior to site/project. sensible project construction. recommendation, the SMP as submitted complies with WAC 173-26-221(1). Any changes to the cultural resources section will be at the city's discretion. Archeological Gretchen We also recommend adding process and specificity to the We prefer to keep our regulations as short as While the suggested and Historical Kaehler· shoreline management plan regarding cultural resources. possible. We believe we have provided model SM P language Resources OAHP We have attached DAHP's model shoreline management adequate protection with the regulations as may provide for more language for that purpose. (commenter provides copy of the proposed. specificity, and may DAHP model language for SMPs). improve implementation of the cultural resources provisions, the SM P as submitted complies 8 Comments received during Local Government public comment period -Unresolved at local adoption Selected text local submittal document: "City Council Public Hearing and Comments Responsiveness Summary" Comment Name of Specific Comment Local Government Response and Rationale Topic Commenter Wetlands-Jeremy Sikes p.16. 6-30-070-C-5-e-v (mitigation ratios). While the The Planning Commission recommendation mitigation (Ecology) provisions are generally well written and thorough, this of not requiring mitigation for any larger area compensatory mitigation standard does not reflect the than has been impacted is supported by the most current science on wetland mitigation, and per the City Council. Cumulative Impacts Analysis (Watershed Co. 2013) will result in net loss of ecological function. Ratios should be similar to those found in Wetlands in Washington State Vol. 2 or Ecology's Small Cities Guidance which was the source for many of the wetland provisions in this SMP. Wetland impacts from fill also require authorization from Ecology and possibly from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Mitigation ratios ... were co- developed by Ecology and the Corps, and would be required for an applicant to obtain the needed permits. Revising the SMP to align with federal and state requirements will ensure that applicants have a predictable process to follow when they wish to do a project that will impact wetlands. Wetlands -Jeremy Sikes p.18. Table 6,. 1. Buffers for Category 3 and 4 wetlands The Planning Commission recommendation buffers (Ecology) have been reduced arbitrarily from 60' (with additional of a 25' buffer for Category 3 and 4 buffers of 30' and 60') and 40'; to 25' for both categories wetlands is supported by the City Council with no additional area for higher scores. and has been determined to be adequate based on the Cumulative Impact Analysis developed by The Watershed Company. 9 with WAC 173-26- 221(1). Ecology Response This previous comment from Ecology observed that the draft language would not meet the standards required in WAC 173-26-221(c)(i), or 173-26- 201(2)(a)(i)(E) and (F) Mitigation. The mitigation language will be revised as a required change. This previous comment from Ecology observed that the draft language would not meet the standards required in WAC 173-26-221(c)(i), or 173-26-201(2)(a). Generally Ecology finds the CIA/ CIR to be thorough and well done, however this particular conclusion of the CIA is in error. Buffers for Category 3 and 4 wetlands have been reduced f,Yjt!i~u! _ adequate documented , , Commented [GT(4]: Maybe keep the focus on the problem of not having rationale. There are circumstances where reductions might not be arbitrary but they haven't adequately demonstrated that In this case 10 rationale from 60' (with additional buffers of 30' and 60') and 40'; to 25' for both categories with no additional area for higher scores. While we recognize that the CIR report prepared by Watershed Co. made recommendation that Category 3 wetlands should be provided a 25' buffer, the underlying analysis, and the proposed buffers do not reflect the totality ofth_e recommendation. Watershed Co, makes the statement that ''. .. proposed buffers should either be: 1) consistent with existing conditions, or 2) consistent with recommendations of the "most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern" (WAC 173-26- 201(2)(a))." This is an incorrect interpretation of the WAC. The analysis of existing conditions is informative and should be considered, ~hosekonditions must Commented'[GT(S]: Some changes here to reflect the latest Findings and Conclusions narrative on page 4. be analyzed consistent with the requirement under WAC 173-26- 201(2)(a). The analysis performed regarding category 3 wetland buffers presented does not meet the definition under 201(2)(a), having only one, unverified category 3 wetland, along with subjective conclusions about function based on aerial photo interpretation as its basis. In addition, the proposed buffer regulationss do not reflect the totality of the CIA recommendations because they do not require additional buffer width for higher habitat scores or for non SR-R designations. Category 4 wetland buffers should align with the science-based buffer of 40 feet {Small Cities Guidance- Ecology Publication No. 10-06-001). Docks Jeremy Sikes p.6. 7-50-020 (Dock Policies). Per RCW 173-26-The Planning Commission recommendation Per WAC 173-29- {Ecology) 231(3)(b), SMPs should* contain a provision that not requiring new residential development of 321{3)(b), the city has "requires new residential development of two or more two or more dwelling units to share a dock is not provided " ... a dwelling units to provide joint use or community dock supported by the City Council. demonstrated, facilities, when feasible, rather than allow individual compelling reason, docks for each residence." The recently adopted Grant based on policy of the County SMP provides clear language and feasibility Shoreline Management 11 review standards to this effect, and was developed Act and this chapter, specifically for Moses Lake (See May 2012 Grant against taking the County Draft SMP Section 24.12.390 Private Moorage action." Without this, Facilities, p.64-66) the SMP must require *Note that when used in the context of an SMP update, the use of joint use "Should" means that the particular action is required unless docks when feasible, there is a demonstrated, compelling reason, based an policy and revised language of the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter, against will be provided as a taking the action (WAC 173-26-020(35)). required change. Docks Jeremy Sikes p.7. 7-50-030 (Dock Regulations). See comments The Planning Commission recommendation Per WAC 173-26- (Ecology) above about joint-use docks. not requiring new residential development of 231{3)(b), the city has two or more dwelling units to share a dock is not provided " ... a supported by the City Council. demonstrated, compelling reason, based on policy of the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter, against taking the action." Without this, the SMP must require the use of joint use docks when feasible, and revised language will be provided as a required change. Docks Jeremy Sikes p.9. 7-50-030-C (Joint-use community docks). Expand The Planning Commission recommendation Per WAC 173-29- (Ecology) this section to include developments of two or more not requiring new residential development of 321(3)(b), the city has dwellings. two or more dwelling units to share a dock is not provided " ... a supported by the City Council. demonstrated, compelling reason, based on policy of the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter, against taking the action." Without this, the SMP must require the use of joint use docks when feasible, and revised language will be provided as a required change. 12 Docks Docks Buffers - platted Public Access Jeremy Sikes (Ecology) Jeremy Sikes (Ecology) Jeremy Sikes (Ecology) Jeremy Sikes (Ecology) p.15. 7-100-020-7 (Residential). Statement "Individual docks should be allowed for lots in subdivisions with joint-use or community docks" is not consistent with the WAC requirements. See above comments regarding the requirement to provide for joint-use docks on developments of 2 or more dwelling units. There are currently only 3 developments in city limits where individual docks were limited and joint use (1 development) or community (2 developments) docks were planned. See above comments for limited extent of provisions that affect new shoreline subdivisions. p.16. 7-100-030 (Residential Regulations). New multi-There are only 3 large parcels remaining in unit residential development (including subdivision of the City that this provision would apply to, land for more than 4 parcels) is required to provide plus possibly a few smaller ones on the lower community and/or public access in conformance to local Peninsula (see vacant land map). public access plans per WAC 173-26-241(3)(j). p.17. 7-100-030-11 (plats with wetland or shoreline I Additional discussion between Ecology and buffers set during the platting process prior to adoption City of Moses Lake shall take place prior to of updated SMP). This section requires some additional final approval of SMP. discussion between the City and Ecology, and may need to be refined. p.15. 7-100-020-6 (Residential). New multi-unit There are only 3 large parcels remaining in residential development (including subdivision of land for the City that this provision would apply to, more than 4 parcels) is required to provide community plus possibly a few smaller ones on the lower and/or public access in conformance to local public Peninsula (see vacant land map). access plans per WAC 173-26-241(3)(j). 13 While it may be accurate that there are very limited circumstances where the provision would apply, this is not determinative in the requirement under the cited WAC that SMPs must require joint use docks where feasible. Revised language will be provided as a reauired change. While it may be accurate that there are very limited circumstances where the provision would apply, this is not determinative in the requirement under the cited WAC that SMPs must require public access for new multi- unit developments. Revised language will be provided as a required chan11:e Please see Attachments A and B for more detailed discussion. While it may be accurate that there are very limited circumstances where the provision would apply, this is not determinative in the requirement under the Bulkheads Buffers Jeremy Sikes (Ecology) Eric Pentico (WDFW) p.12. 8-30-070 (bulkhead regulations: "A bulkhead-type structure used to stabilize a dock may be permitted, but the size shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the dock. The stabilization structure shall not exceed 2' wider than the dock on each side nor shall it exceed 14' in total width along the shoreline.") There are a number of problems with this provision (list) ... Consider removing this provision, or providing detailed standards by which a project that incorporates a mini-bulkhead demonstrates need, avoids impacts, and mitigates for unavoidable impacts, and tie it more to the dock construction process. Shoreline Residential Special Resource (SR-S) Environment, p.11 to 16 Table 9.2 & 9.3 Shoreline areas designed SR-S within the City of Moses Lake demonstrate some ecological impairments, but • ... they also retain important ecological functions and have high potential for ecological protection and restoration because they include relatively large tracts that have not been subdivided or include large wetland areas." (Table 9.1) Some of the proposed buffers listed in Table 9.3 for the SR-S designated areas could significantly hinder properly functioning ecological conditions or interfere with future restoration efforts .... buffer reductions to 15 ft. wide are allowed for trails in the Recreation use areas. WOFW recommends ... required buffers for recreational trails be expanded to a minimum of 25 ft. 14 This provision was added at the suggestion of Doug Pineo, when he was the Department of Ecology reviewer of shoreline master programs. It can be deleted. Trail: The Planning Commission specifically reduced the recreational trail distance from the initially proposed 50' to 15'. cited WAC that SMPs must require public or community access for new multi-unit developments. Revised language will be provided as a required change Ecology supports the deletion of this language, but it appears to still be present in the locally adopted draft. The text is deleted as a Recommended Change in our Findings and Conclusions The city provided no rationale for the proposed trail buffer in either the SR-R or the SR-S environments. These environments are characterized by areas of special or intact ecological function, and are likely to have wetland buffer overlays. With the exception of trails specific to access a dock, there is no compelling reason trails should be located within the shoreline buffer. Trails that parallel the shoreline, depending on the type and construction methods, can be highly destructive to habitat, can create vectors for invasive plants, and can fragment migration corridors. Buffers Eric Pentico Shoreline Residential Resource (SR-R) Environment, ... The city provided no (WDFW) p.11 to 16 Table 9.2 & 9.3. SR-R designated lands rationale for the demonstrate impairment to ecological functions, but Residential: The residential buffers are proposed trail buffer in "They retain important ecological functions and have based on the Cumulative Impacts Analysis either the SR-R or the the potential for development that is compatible with and Recommendations, which found no SR-S environments. ecological protection and restoration" (Table 9.1) .... cumulative impacts for the 25' and 50' These environments WDFW recommends buffers for water-related buffers as proposed. Most shoreline are characterized by structures and facilities in areas that are properly residential lots have already been areas of special or functioning ecologically or may be restored should be developed-see Vacant Incorporated intact ecological set at a minimum of 65' and buffer widths for paths and Residential Lots map. function, and are likely trails should only be allowed to be reduced to 25'. SR-R Buffer for paths and trails: The Planning areas having Residential uses should have the buffers Commission specifically reduced the to have wetland buffer expanded to a minimum of 65' to retain most recreational trail distance from the initially overlays. With the functioning ecological conditions and allow for adequate proposed 50' to 10'. exception of trails restoration of degraded areas. specific to access a dock, there is no compelling reason trails should be located within the shoreline buffer. Trails that parallel the shoreline, depending on the type and construction methods, can be highly destructive to habitat, can create vectors for invasive plants, and can fragment migration corridors. Ecology can work with the city to develop required language to provide greater specificity in trail location regulations, while protecting the most sensitive riparian areas. 15