Chapter 17.05
GENERAL REGULATIONS
Sections:
17.05.010 Archaeological and historic resources.
17.05.020 Environmental protection.
17.05.030 Shoreline vegetation conservation.
17.05.040 Water quality, stormwater, and nonpoint pollution.
17.05.060 Flood hazard reduction.
17.05.010 Archaeological and historic resources.
A. The city shall require that permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources or located within an area classified as “high risk and/or very high risk” for archaeological resources based on the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) predictive model require a site inspection or evaluation by a professional archaeologist. Auger tests may be required before construction and representatives of DAHP and Yakama Nation may be invited to observe any tests and construction work, and will be provided the results of such tests. If auger or historical data indicate probable presence of cultural resources which may be disturbed by excavation, the city shall meet the shoreline permit applicant and may impose conditions on any shoreline permit to assure that such resources are protected, preserved or collected.
B. Developers and property owners shall immediately stop work and notify the city, DAHP, and the Yakama Nation if archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation. Following such notification, the city may follow the provisions of subsection C of this section.
C. Where a professional archaeologist or historian, recognized by the state of Washington, has identified an area or site as having significant value, or where an area or site is listed in national, state or local historical registers, or where the DAHP predictive model identifies the area as having “high risk and/or very high risk” for archaeological resources, the city shall require an evaluation of the resource, and appropriate conditions, which may include preservation and/or retrieval of data, proposal modifications to reduce impacts, or other mitigation authorized through the State Environmental Policy Act, or other local, state, or federal laws. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.05.020 Environmental protection.
A. Ecological Functions. Uses and developments on city of Yakima shorelines must be designed, located, sized, constructed and maintained to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources. Uses and developments must not have an unmitigated significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions fostered by this SMP.
B. Protection of Critical Areas and Critical Areas Buffers. Critical areas, critical areas buffers, and shoreline buffers must be protected in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 17.09 YMC, Critical Areas in Shoreline Jurisdiction.
C. Mitigation Requirement. If a proposed shoreline development, use or modification is entirely addressed by specific, objective standards (such as setback distances, pier dimensions, or materials requirements) contained in this SMP, only then is a mitigation sequencing analysis described in subsection D of this section not required. In the following circumstances, the applicant must provide the mitigation sequencing analysis described in subsection D of this section:
1. If a proposed shoreline use or modification is addressed in any part by discretionary standards (such as standards requiring a particular action if feasible or requiring the minimization of development size) contained in this chapter, then the mitigation sequencing analysis is required for the discretionary standard(s); or
2. When an action requires a shoreline conditional use permit or shoreline variance permit; or
3. When specifically required by regulations contained in this chapter and Chapters 17.07 and 17.09 YMC.
D. Mitigation Sequence. In order to ensure that development activities contribute to meeting the no net loss of ecological functions provisions by avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating for adverse impacts to ecological functions or ecosystem-wide processes, an applicant required to complete a mitigation analysis pursuant to subsection C of this section must describe how the proposal will follow the sequence of mitigation as defined below:
1. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
2. Minimize the impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;
3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project or activity;
4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action;
5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and
6. Monitor the impact and the compensation projects and take appropriate corrective measures.
E. Mitigation Plan. All proposed alterations to shoreline jurisdiction that will have adverse effects on ecological functions require mitigation sufficient to provide for and maintain the functions and values of the shoreline area or to prevent risk from a critical areas hazard. The applicant must develop and implement a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional. Mitigation in excess of that necessary to ensure that development will result in no net loss of ecological functions will not be required by the city of Yakima, but may be voluntarily performed by an applicant. In addition to any requirements found in Chapter 17.09 YMC, Critical Areas in Shoreline Jurisdiction, a mitigation plan must include:
1. An inventory and assessment of the existing shoreline environment including relevant physical, chemical and biological elements;
2. A discussion of any federal, state, or local management recommendations which have been developed for critical areas or other species or habitats located on the site;
3. A discussion of proposed measures which mitigate the adverse impacts of the project to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions;
4. A discussion of proposed management practices which will protect fish and wildlife habitat both during construction and after the project site has been fully developed;
5. Scaled drawings of existing and proposed conditions, materials specifications, and a minimum three-year maintenance and monitoring plan, including performance standards;
6. A contingency plan if mitigation fails to meet established success criteria; and
7. Any additional information necessary to determine the adverse impacts of a proposal and mitigation of the impacts.
F. Alternative Mitigation. To provide for flexibility in the administration of the ecological protection provisions of this SMP, alternative mitigation approaches may be approved within shoreline jurisdiction where such approaches provide increased protection of shoreline ecological functions and processes over the standard provisions of this SMP and are scientifically supported. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.05.030 Shoreline vegetation conservation.
A. Vegetation conservation standards do not apply retroactively to existing uses and developments. Vegetation associated with existing structures, uses and developments may be maintained within shoreline jurisdiction as stipulated in the approval documents for the development.
B. Vegetation within shoreline buffers, other stream buffers, wetlands and wetland buffers, WDFW-mapped priority habitats and species areas, and other critical areas must be managed consistent with Chapter 17.09 YMC, Critical Areas in Shoreline Jurisdiction. Regulations specifying establishment and management of shoreline buffers (buffers associated with Type 1 streams and shoreline lakes) are located in YMC 17.09.030, Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
C. Other vegetation within shoreline jurisdiction, but outside of shoreline buffers, other stream buffers, wetlands and wetland buffers, and other WDFW-mapped priority habitats and species areas must be managed according to YMC 17.05.020, Environmental protection, and any other regulations specific to vegetation management contained in this SMP and city of Yakima code.
D. Vegetation clearing must be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate approved shoreline development that is consistent with all other provisions of this SMP and city of Yakima code. Mitigation sequencing per YMC 17.05.020(D) must be applied, unless specifically excluded by this SMP, so that the design and location of the structure or development minimizes native vegetation removal. The city may approve modifications or require minor site plan alterations to achieve maximum tree retention.
E. Where vegetation removal conducted consistent with this section results in adverse impacts to shoreline ecological function, new developments or site alterations are required to develop and implement a supplemental mitigation plan. Adverse impacts are assumed to result from:
1. Removal of native trees and shrubs;
2. Removal of nonnative trees or shrubs that overhang aquatic areas or stabilize slopes; or
3. Removal of native or nonnative trees or shrubs that disrupts an existing vegetation corridor connecting the property to other critical areas or buffers.
Mitigation plans must be prepared by a qualified professional and must contain information required in YMC 17.05.020(E). Mitigation measures must be maintained over the life of the use or development, and must include compensation for temporal loss of function and the restoration of specific functions adversely impacted by the vegetation removal. Removal of invasive species does not require mitigation, but the removal site must be managed as outlined in subsection I of this section to avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts.
F. Shoreline vegetation may be removed to accommodate a temporary staging area when necessary to implement an allowed use or modification, but mitigation sequencing must be utilized and the area must be immediately stabilized and restored with native vegetation once its use as a staging area is complete.
G. Where a tree poses a safety hazard, it may be removed or converted to a wildlife snag if the hazard cannot be eliminated by pruning, crown thinning, or other technique that maintains some habitat function. If a safety hazard cannot be easily determined by the city, a written report by a certified arborist or other qualified professional is required to evaluate potential safety hazards.
H. Selective pruning of trees for views is allowed. Selective pruning of trees for views does not include removal of understory vegetation, and must not compromise the health of the tree.
I. Hand removal or spot-spraying of invasive species or noxious weeds on shorelands outside of steep or unstable slope areas is encouraged. Where noxious weeds and invasive species removal results in bare soils that may be subject to erosion or recolonization by invasive species, the area must be stabilized using best management practices and replanted with native plants.
J. Aquatic weed control may only be permitted where the presence of aquatic weeds will adversely affect native plant communities, fish and wildlife habitats, or an existing water-dependent recreational use. Aquatic weed control efforts must comply with all applicable laws and standards. Removal using mechanical methods is preferred over chemical methods. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.05.040 Water quality, stormwater, and nonpoint pollution.
A. Do Not Degrade Ecological Functions. Design, construction and operation of shoreline uses and developments shall incorporate measures to protect and maintain surface and groundwater quantity and quality in accordance with all applicable laws, so that there is no net loss of ecological functions.
B. Do Not Degrade Views and Recreation Opportunities. Design, construction and operation of shoreline uses and developments shall incorporate measures to protect and maintain surface and groundwater quantity and quality, in accordance with all applicable laws, so that significant impacts to aesthetic qualities or recreational opportunities do not occur. A significant impact to aesthetics or recreation would occur if a stormwater facility and appurtenant structures such as fences or other features have the potential to block or impair a view of shoreline waters from public land or from a substantial number of residences per RCW 90.58.320, or if water quality were visibly degraded such that the color and character were unattractive and discouraged normal uses such as swimming, fishing, boating, or viewing.
C. Requirements for New Development.
1. New development and redevelopment shall manage short-term and long-term stormwater runoff to avoid and minimize potential adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions through compliance with the latest edition of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington or approved local equivalent if applicable to the project. If certain thresholds are not met by a development that triggers compliance with the stormwater management manual or approved local equivalent, best management practices (BMPs) must still be employed to avoid and minimize potential adverse effects.
2. When the stormwater management manual applies, deviations from the standards may be approved where it can be demonstrated that off-site facilities would provide better treatment, or where common retention, detention and/or water quality facilities meeting such standards have been approved as part of a comprehensive stormwater management plan.
D. Chemical Applications. Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers should be applied in a manner which minimizes direct or indirect entrance into nearby waters. Application of pesticides intended to abate mosquitoes or similar water-related infestations should be administered in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency standards.
E. Sewage Management. To avoid water quality degradation, sewer service is subject to the requirements outlined below.
1. Any existing septic system or other on-site system that fails or malfunctions will be required to connect to an existing municipal sewer service system if feasible, or make system corrections approved by Yakima public health.
2. Any new development, business, single-family or multifamily unit will be required to connect to an existing municipal sewer service system if feasible, or install an on-site septic system approved by Yakima public health.
F. Materials Requirements. All materials that may come in contact with water shall be untreated or approved treated wood, concrete, approved plastic composites or steel that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants or animals.
G. Low Impact Development (LID). Use of the most current version of the Yakima Regional Low Impact Development (LID) Stormwater Design Manual throughout the various stages of development, including site assessment, planning and design, site preparation, construction, and ongoing management, is encouraged. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.05.050 Public access.
A. Shoreline development shall not interfere with public access and enjoyment of any nearby publicly owned land areas.
B. The city shall not vacate any road, street, or alley abutting a body of water except as provided under RCW 35.79.035.
C. Efforts to implement the public access provisions of this section shall be consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations on regulation of private property and the principles of nexus and proportionality. Public access requirements on privately owned lands should be commensurate with the scale and character of the development and should be compatibly designed to meet needs of affected parties including, but not limited to, the landowner and the public.
D. Applications that access or are part of properties owned by Yakima County shall submit documentation of county approval prior to submittal to the city.
E. Public access does not include the right to enter upon or cross private property, except on dedicated public rights-of-way or easements or where development is specifically designed to accommodate public access.
F. Except as provided in subsection G of this section, shoreline substantial developments and shoreline conditional uses shall provide for safe and convenient public access to and along the shoreline where any of the following conditions are present:
1. The development is proposed by a public entity or on public lands, or is a publicly financed erosion control measure;
2. The nature of the proposed use, activity or development will likely generate a public demand for one or more forms of physical or visual access to the shoreline;
3. The proposed use, activity or development is not a water-oriented or other preferred shoreline use, activity or development under the Act, such as a nonwater-oriented commercial or industrial use; or
4. The proposed use, activity or development will interfere with the public use, activity and enjoyment of shoreline areas or water bodies subject to the public trust doctrine (see definition, YMC 17.01.090).
G. An applicant shall not be required to provide public access where the city determines that one or more of the following conditions apply:
1. Reasonable, safe and convenient public access to the shoreline is accessible within one-quarter mile (one thousand three hundred twenty feet) of the site, or the city’s adopted parks and recreation plans do not indicate a need for a trail or access at the property;
2. The site is within or part of an overall development which has previously provided public access through other application processes;
3. The economic cost of providing for public access upon the site is unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term economic value of the proposed use, activity or development;
4. The proposed use, activity or development only involves the construction of four or fewer single-family or multifamily dwellings;
5. The proposed use, activity or development only involves agricultural activities;
6. The proposal consists of a new or expanded road or utility crossing through shoreline jurisdiction serving development located outside of shoreline jurisdiction;
7. The nature of the use, activity or development or the characteristics of the site make public access requirements inappropriate due to health, safety or environmental hazards based on evidence provided in the proposed application;
8. The proposed use, activity or development has security requirements that are not feasible to address through the application of alternative design features or other measures;
9. Significant and unmitigable harm to the shoreline environment would be likely to result from an increase, expansion or extension of public access upon the site;
10. Public access is deemed detrimental to threatened and/or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.
H. Public Access Standards. When public access is provided, the following standards shall apply:
1. Physical public access is preferred to solely visual access. Where physical public access is not feasible, the applicant shall incorporate visual public access. Visual public access may consist of view corridors, viewpoints, or other means of visual approach to public waters. Physical public access may consist of a dedication of land or easement and a physical improvement in the form of a trail, park, or other area serving as a means of physical approach to public waters.
2. Physical public access shall be designed to connect to existing or future public access features on adjacent or abutting properties, or shall connect to existing public rights-of-way or access easements, consistent with design and safety standards.
3. Public access proposals shall be designed consistent with parks and recreation standards or plans contained in applicable city, county, state, or federal codes or approved plans.
I. Shared community access may be allowed if there is no existing or planned public access along the shoreline as determined by a review of adopted parks and recreation plans. Where provided, community access is subject to all applicable development standards of this section.
J. Off-site public access, either physical or visual, may be permitted by the city where it results in an equal or greater public benefit than on-site public access, or when on-site limitations of security, environment, or feasibility are present. Off-site public access is preferred where it implements adopted city, county, or Yakima Greenway parks and recreation plans. Off-site public access may include, but is not limited to, enhancing a nearby public property (e.g., existing public recreation site; existing public access; road, street or alley abutting a body of water; or similar) in accordance with city standards; providing, improving or enhancing public access on another property under the control of the applicant/proponent; or another equivalent measure.
K. The city may condition public access proposals to ensure compatibility with existing public access or transportation facilities, address environmental conditions or environmental impacts, and/or address compatibility with adjacent properties. Public access facilities shall be made compatible with adjacent private properties through the use of techniques to define the separation between public and private space. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.05.060 Flood hazard reduction.
A. Development in floodplains shall avoid significantly or cumulatively increasing flood hazards. Development shall be consistent with this SMP, as well as Part Four of Chapter 15.27 YMC, applicable guidelines of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and an approved comprehensive flood hazard management plan.
B. The channel migration zone (CMZ) is considered to be that area of a stream channel which may erode as a result of normal and naturally occurring processes and has been mapped consistent with WAC guidelines.
C. The following uses and activities may be authorized within the CMZ or floodway:
1. New development or redevelopment on or landward of existing legal structures, such as levees, that prevent active channel movement and flooding.
2. Development of new or expansion or redevelopment of existing bridges, public stormwater facilities and outfalls, and other public utility and transportation structures, including trails, where no other feasible (see definition in YMC 17.01.090) alternative exists or the alternative would result in unreasonable and disproportionate costs (see definition in YMC 17.01.090). The evaluation of cost differences between options within the CMZ or floodway and outside of the CMZ or floodway shall include the cost of design, permitting, construction and long-term maintenance or repair. Where such structures are allowed, mitigation shall address adversely impacted functions and processes in the affected shoreline.
3. Development of new or expansion or redevelopment of existing utility lines where no other feasible alternative exists or the alternative would result in unreasonable and disproportionate costs. The evaluation of cost differences between options within the CMZ or floodway and outside of the CMZ or floodway shall include the cost of design, permitting, construction and long-term maintenance or repair. Where such structures are allowed, mitigation shall address adversely impacted functions and processes in the affected shoreline. When the primary purpose of a utility transmission line is to transfer bulk products or energy through a floodway en route to another destination, as opposed to serving customers within a floodway, such transmission lines shall conform to the following:
a. All utility transmission lines shall cross floodways by the most direct route feasible as opposed to paralleling floodways;
b. Electric transmission lines shall span the floodway with support towers located in floodway fringe areas or beyond. Where floodway areas cannot be spanned due to excessive width, support towers shall be located to avoid high floodwater velocity and/or depth areas, and shall be adequately floodproofed;
c. Buried utility transmission lines transporting hazardous and nonhazardous materials, including but not limited to crude and refined petroleum products and natural gas, shall be buried a minimum of four feet below the maximum established scour of the waterway, as calculated on the basis of hydrologic analyses. Such burial depth shall be maintained horizontally within the hydraulic floodway to the maximum extent of potential channel migration as determined by hydrologic analyses. In the event potential channel migration extends beyond the hydraulic floodway, conditions imposed upon floodway fringe and special flood hazard areas shall also govern placement. All hydrologic analyses are subject to acceptance by the city of Yakima, which shall assume the conditions of a one-hundred-year frequency flood as verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and shall include on-site investigations and consideration of historical meander characteristics in addition to other pertinent facts and data. The use of riprap as a meander containment mechanism within the hydraulic floodway shall be consistent with this title;
d. Beyond the maximum extent of potential channel migration, utility transmission lines transporting hazardous and nonhazardous materials shall be buried below existing natural and artificial drainage features; and
e. Aboveground utility transmission lines, not including electric transmission lines, shall only be allowed for the transportation of nonhazardous materials where an existing or new bridge or other structure is available and capable of supporting the line. When located on existing or new bridges or other structures with elevations below the one-hundred-year flood level, the transmission line shall be placed on the downstream side and protected from flood debris. In such instances, site-specific conditions and flood damage potential shall dictate placement, design and protection throughout the floodway. Applicants must demonstrate that such aboveground lines will have no appreciable effect upon flood depth, velocity or passage, and shall be adequately protected from flood damage. If the transmission line is to be buried except at the waterway crossing, burial specifications shall be determined as in this subsection (C)(3).
4. New or redeveloped measures to reduce shoreline erosion; provided, that it is demonstrated that the erosion rate exceeds that which would normally occur in a natural condition, that the measures do not interfere with fluvial hydrological and geomorphological processes normally acting in natural conditions, and that the measures include appropriate mitigation of adverse impacts on ecological functions associated with the river or stream.
5. Actions that protect or restore the ecosystem-wide processes or ecological functions or development with a primary purpose of protecting or restoring ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes.
6. Water-dependent installations which by their very nature must be in the floodway. In all instances of locating utilities and other installations in floodway locations, project design must incorporate floodproofing (examples of water-dependent installations are: docks and boat launches; dams for domestic/industrial water supply; wastewater treatment and collection systems; flood control and/or hydroelectric production; water diversion structures and facilities for water supply; irrigation and/or fisheries enhancement; floodwater and drainage pumping plants and facilities; hydroelectric generating facilities and appurtenant structures; and nonstructural uses and practices; provided, that the applicant shall provide evidence that a floodway location is necessary in view of the objectives of the proposal; and provided further, that the proposal is consistent with other provisions of this chapter and title).
7. Modifications or additions to an existing nonagricultural legal use; provided, that channel migration is not further limited and that the modified or expanded development includes appropriate protection of ecological functions.
8. Repair and maintenance of existing legally established use and developments; provided, that channel migration is not further limited, flood hazards to other uses are not increased, and significant adverse ecological impacts are avoided.
9. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities; provided, that no new restrictions to channel movement are proposed.
D. Existing structural flood hazard reduction measures, such as levees, may be repaired and maintained as necessary to protect legal uses on the landward side of such structures. Increases in height of an existing levee, with any associated increase in width, that may be needed to prevent a reduction in the authorized level of protection of existing legal structures and uses shall be considered an element of repair and maintenance.
E. Flood hazard reduction measures shall not result in channelization of normal stream flows, interfere with natural hydraulic processes such as channel migration, or undermine existing structures or downstream banks.
F. New development in shoreline jurisdiction, including the subdivision of land, shall not be permitted if it is reasonably foreseeable that the development or use would require structural flood hazard reduction measures within the channel migration zone or floodway.
G. New public and private structural flood hazard reduction measures:
1. Shall be approved when a scientific and engineering analysis demonstrates the following:
a. That they are necessary to protect existing development;
b. That nonstructural measures, such as setbacks, land use controls, wetland restoration, dike removal, use or structure removal or relocation, biotechnical measures, and stormwater management programs, are not feasible;
c. That adverse effects upon adjacent properties will not result relative to increased floodwater depths and velocities during the base flood or other more frequent flood occurrences;
d. That the ability of natural drainage ways to adequately drain floodwaters after a flooding event is not impaired;
e. That the proposal has been coordinated through the appropriate diking district where applicable, and that potential adverse effects upon other affected diking districts have been documented; and
f. That adverse impacts on ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully mitigated so as to assure no net loss.
2. Shall be consistent with an approved comprehensive flood hazard management plan.
3. Shall be placed landward of associated wetlands and designated shoreline buffers, except for actions that increase ecological functions, such as wetland restoration, or when no other alternative location to reduce flood hazard to existing development is feasible as determined by the shoreline administrator.
H. All new flood control projects shall define maintenance responsibilities and a funding source for operations, maintenance, and repairs for the life of the project.
I. New public structural flood hazard reduction measures, such as levees, shall dedicate and improve public access pathways unless public access improvements would cause unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public, inherent and unavoidable security problems, unacceptable and unmitigable significant adverse ecological impacts, unavoidable conflict with the proposed use, or a cost that is disproportionate and unreasonable to the total long-term cost of the development. Setbacks of existing levees are not considered “new” structural flood hazard reduction measures for purposes of this regulation.
J. In those instances where management of vegetation as required by this SMP conflicts with vegetation provisions included in state, federal or other flood hazard agency documents governing city-authorized, legal flood hazard reduction measures, the vegetation requirements of this SMP will not apply. However, the applicant shall submit documentation of these conflicting provisions with any shoreline permit applications, and shall comply with all other provisions of this section and this SMP that are not strictly prohibited by the approving flood hazard agency.
K. The removal of gravel or other riverbed material for flood management purposes shall be consistent with YMC 17.07.050, Dredging and dredge material disposal, and be allowed only after a biological and geomorphological study shows that extraction has a long-term benefit to flood hazard reduction, does not result in a net loss of ecological functions, and is part of a comprehensive flood management solution.
L. Roads shall be located outside the floodway, except necessary crossings which shall be placed perpendicular to the water body as much as is physically feasible. New transportation facilities shall be designed so that the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain is not reduced. The applicant shall provide all necessary studies, reports and engineering analyses which shall be subject to review and modification by the city. If proposed transportation facilities effectively provide flood control, they shall comply with policies and regulations of this section.
M. In recognition of the significant benefits of levee setbacks, maximum flexibility of this title, including Chapter 17.09 YMC, Critical Areas in Shoreline Jurisdiction, should be granted when existing structural flood hazard reduction measures are proposed for relocation landward of the existing flood hazard reduction measure. Existing public access or recreation facilities that need to be relocated to accommodate the relocated flood hazard reduction measure shall be allowed to be reconstructed in the floodway or channel migration zone provided they do not further limit channel migration or increase flood hazards. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).