Chapter 17.13
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Sections:
17.13.010 Roles and responsibilities.
17.13.030 Statutory noticing requirements.
17.13.040 Application requirements.
17.13.050 Exemptions from shoreline substantial development permits.
17.13.060 Shoreline substantial development permits.
17.13.070 Shoreline conditional use permits.
17.13.080 Shoreline variance permits.
17.13.090 Duration of permits.
17.13.100 Initiation of development.
17.13.115 Special procedures for WSDOT projects.
17.13.130 Amendments to permits.
17.13.010 Roles and responsibilities.
The city shall administer the shoreline master program (SMP), collectively this title and the associated goals and policies contained in Comprehensive Plan Chapter 10, Section 3, according to the following roles and responsibilities:
A. Shoreline Administrator. The shoreline administrator in the city of Yakima is the community development director. The shoreline administrator shall have overall administrative responsibility of the SMP. The shoreline administrator or his/her designee is hereby vested with the authority to:
1. Administer this SMP.
2. Make field inspections as needed, and prepare or require reports on shoreline permit applications.
3. Grant or deny exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit requirements of this SMP.
4. Authorize, approve or deny shoreline substantial development permits.
5. Authorize, approve or deny shoreline conditional use permits except for those involving nonconforming uses, which shall be the responsibility of the hearing examiner.
6. Make written recommendations to the hearing examiner, planning commission, or city council as appropriate.
7. Advise interested persons and prospective applicants as to the administrative procedures and related components of this SMP.
8. Collect fees for all necessary permits as provided in city ordinances or resolutions. The determination of which fees are required shall be made by the city.
9. Make administrative decisions and interpretations of the policies and regulations of this SMP and the Act in accordance with the Yakima Municipal Code.
B. SEPA Official. The responsible SEPA official or his/her designee is authorized to conduct environmental review of all use and development activities subject to this SMP, pursuant to Chapter 197-11 WAC and Chapter 43.21C RCW. The responsible SEPA official is designated in accordance with the city’s SEPA implementation ordinance.
C. Hearing Examiner. The hearing examiner shall have the authority to:
1. Decide on appeals from administrative decisions issued by the shoreline administrator of this SMP.
2. Grant or deny variances from this SMP.
3. Grant or deny shoreline conditional use permits associated with nonconforming uses.
4. The hearing examiner may, at the request of the shoreline administrator, receive and examine available information, conduct public hearings and prepare records and reports thereof, and issue recommendations to the council based upon findings and conclusions on applications for shoreline substantial development permits and conditional use permits.
D. Planning Commission. The planning commission is vested with the responsibility to review the SMP as part of regular SMP updates required by RCW 90.58.080 as a major element of the city’s planning and regulatory program, and make recommendations for amendments thereof to the city council.
E. City Council. The city council is vested with authority to:
1. Initiate an amendment to this SMP according to the procedures prescribed in WAC 173-26-100.
2. Adopt all amendments to this SMP, after consideration of the recommendation of the planning commission, where established. Amendments shall become effective upon approval by Ecology. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.13.020 Interpretation.
A. The city shall make administrative decisions and interpretations of the policies and regulations of this SMP and the Act in accordance with the Yakima Municipal Code.
B. The city shall consult with Ecology to ensure that any formal written interpretations are consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173-26 WAC.
C. The application of this SMP is intended to be consistent with constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. The shoreline administrator shall give adequate consideration to mitigation measures and other possible methods to prevent undue or unreasonable hardships upon property owners. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.13.030 Statutory noticing requirements.
A. Applicants shall follow the noticing requirements of the city. At a minimum, the city shall provide notice in accordance with WAC 173-27-110, and may provide for additional noticing requirements. Per WAC 173-27-120 the city shall comply with special procedures (public notice timelines, appeal periods, etc.) for limited utility extensions and bulkheads.
B. The following subsections provide a summary of noticing days. The city shall consult the most current version of WAC 173-27-110 and 173-27-120 to confirm the days. In case of conflict, state statutes or rules shall control:
1. Issuance of Notice of Application. Notice of application shall be provided within fourteen days after the determination of completeness of the application.
2. Statement of Public Comment Period. The notice of application shall state the public comment period which shall be not less than thirty days following the date of notice of application, unless otherwise specified for limited utility extensions or single-family bulkheads below.
3. Notice of Application Prior to Hearing. If an open record predecision hearing, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, is required for the requested project permits, the notice of application shall be provided at least fifteen days prior to the open record hearing.
4. Limited Utility Extension or Single-Family Bulkhead. An application for a substantial development permit for a limited utility extension or for the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to protect a single-family residence and its appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion shall be subject to all of the requirements of this chapter except that the following time periods and procedures shall be used:
a. The public comment period shall be twenty days. The notice provided shall state the manner in which the public may obtain a copy of the city’s decision on the application no later than two days following its issuance;
b. The city shall issue its decision to grant or deny the permit within twenty-one days of the last day of the comment period specified in subsection (B)(2) of this section; and
c. If there is an appeal of the decision to grant or deny the permit to the hearing examiner, the appeal shall be finally determined by the hearing examiner within thirty days. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.13.040 Application requirements.
A. A complete application for a shoreline substantial development, shoreline conditional use, or shoreline variance permit shall contain, at a minimum, the information listed in WAC 173-27-180. In addition, the applicant, including those applying for exemption status, shall provide the following materials:
1. An assessment of the existing ecological functions and/or processes provided by topographic, physical and vegetation characteristics of the site and any impacts to those functions and/or processes, to accompany development proposals; provided, that proposals for single-family residences, as long as they meet the exemption criteria, shall be exempt from this requirement if proposal is located outside required buffers. When the project results in adverse impacts to ecological function and/or processes, a mitigation plan must be provided that describes how proposed mitigation compensates for the lost function or process.
2. Site plan or division of land depicting to scale the location of buildable areas, existing and proposed impervious surfaces (building(s), accessory structures, driveways), and allowed landscaping and yards (including proposed water access trails, view corridors, wildfire defensible space, if applicable), general location of utilities, well and septic system, if applicable, and location of storage and staging of materials and equipment during construction. Plans shall show area calculations of each feature.
3. The location of any mapped channel migration zone floodplain, and/or floodway boundary and critical areas, if known, and respective setback/buffer areas on and within two hundred fifty feet of the vicinity of the project site and all applicable buffers.
4. Where a view analysis is required per WAC 173-27-180, it shall address the following:
a. The analysis shall include vacant existing parcels of record as well as existing structures. Vacant parcels of record shall be assumed to be developed with structures complying with the applicable regulations of the city and the maximum height limitation allowed under the SMP.
b. The view corridor analysis shall include residential buildings or public properties located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction if it can be clearly demonstrated that the subject property has significant water views.
B. The shoreline administrator may vary or waive these additional application requirements according to administrative application requirements on a case-by-case basis, but all applications for a substantial development, conditional use, or variance permit shall contain the information found in WAC 173-27-180.
C. The shoreline administrator may require additional specific information depending on the nature of the proposal and the presence of sensitive ecological features or issues related to compliance with other city requirements, and the provisions of this title. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.13.050 Exemptions from shoreline substantial development permits.
A. The city shall exempt from the shoreline substantial development permit requirement the shoreline developments listed in WAC 173-27-040 and RCW 90.58.030(3)(e), 90.58.140(9), 90.58.147, 90.58.355 and 90.58.515.
B. Letters of exemption shall be issued when a letter of exemption is required by the provisions of WAC 173-27-050. Otherwise the exemption status shall be documented in the project application file. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.13.060 Shoreline substantial development permits.
A. A shoreline substantial development permit shall be required for all development of shorelines, unless the proposal is specifically exempt per YMC 17.13.050.
B. A shoreline substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with:
1. The policies and procedures of the SMA;
2. The provisions of Chapter 173-27 WAC;
3. Chapter 10, Section 3 of the City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan; and
4. This title.
C. The city may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the Act and this SMP. Additionally, nothing shall interfere with the city’s ability to require compliance with all other applicable laws and plans. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.13.070 Shoreline conditional use permits.
A. This section provides procedures and criteria guiding the review of shoreline conditional use permits, which require careful review to ensure the use can be properly installed and operated in a manner that meets the goals of the Act and this program in accordance with any needed performance standards. After a shoreline conditional use application has been approved by the city, the city shall submit the permit to Ecology for Ecology’s approval, approval with conditions or denial. Ecology shall review the file, in accordance with WAC 173-27-200.
B. Uses specifically classified or set forth in this shoreline master program as conditional uses shall be subject to review and condition by the city and by the Department of Ecology.
C. Other uses which are not classified or listed or set forth in this SMP may be authorized as conditional uses provided the applicant can demonstrate consistency with the requirements of this section and the requirements for conditional uses contained in this SMP.
D. Uses which are specifically prohibited by this SMP may not be authorized as a conditional use.
E. Uses which are classified or set forth in the applicable master program as conditional uses may be authorized; provided, that the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the master program;
2. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;
3. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and SMP;
4. That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and
5. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
F. In the granting of all shoreline conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if shoreline conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
G. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the city or Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or to assure consistency of the project with the SMA and this SMP.
H. Nothing shall interfere with the city’s ability to require compliance with all other applicable plans and laws. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.13.080 Shoreline variance permits.
A. The purpose of a variance is to grant relief to specific bulk or dimensional requirements set forth in this shoreline master program where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of this shoreline master program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Variances from the use regulations of the SMP are prohibited.
B. After a shoreline variance application has been approved by the city, the city shall submit the permit to Ecology for Ecology’s approval, approval with conditions or denial. Ecology shall review the file in accordance with WAC 173-27-200.
1. Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
2. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the OHWM, as defined in YMC 17.01.090, and/or landward of any wetland as defined in YMC 17.01.090, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the SMP precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property;
b. That the hardship described in the criterion in subsection (B)(2)(a) of this section is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the SMP, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant’s own actions;
c. That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment;
d. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area;
e. That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and
f. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
3. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the OHWM, as defined in YMC 17.01.090, or within any wetland as defined in YMC 17.01.090, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property;
b. That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under the regulation in subsection (B)(2) of this section; and
c. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected.
C. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.13.090 Duration of permits.
Time duration requirements for shoreline substantial development, shoreline variance, and shoreline conditional use permits shall be consistent with the following provisions:
A. General Provisions. The time requirements of this section shall apply to all shoreline substantial development permits and to any development authorized pursuant to a shoreline conditional use permit or shoreline variance authorized by this chapter. Upon a finding of good cause, based on the requirements and circumstances of the project proposed and consistent with the policy and provisions of this SMP and this chapter, the city may adopt different time limits from those set forth in subsections B and C of this section as a part of an action on a shoreline substantial development permit.
B. Commencement. Construction activities shall be commenced or, where no construction activities are involved, the use or activity shall be commenced within two years of the effective date of a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance. “Commencement” means taking the action on the shoreline project for which the permit was granted shall begin. For example, beginning actual construction or entering into binding agreements or contractual obligations to undertake a program of actual construction. However, the city may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors if a request for extension has been filed with a complete extension application submittal before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record on the shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance and to Ecology.
C. Termination. Authorization to conduct development activities shall terminate five years after the effective date of a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance. However, the city may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record on the shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance, and to Ecology.
D. Effective Date. The effective date of a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance shall be the date of filing as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). The permit time periods in subsections B and C of this section do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to pending administrative appeals or legal actions or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonably related administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals. The applicant shall be responsible for informing the city of the pendency of other permit applications filed with agencies other than the city and of any related administrative and legal actions on any permit or approval. If no notice of the pendency of other permits or approvals is given by the applicant to the city prior to the date of the last action by the city to grant permits and approvals necessary to authorize the development to proceed, including administrative and legal actions of the city, and actions under other city development regulations, the date of the last action by the city shall be the effective date.
E. Revisions. Revisions to permits may be authorized after original permit authorization has expired; provided, that this procedure shall not be used to extend the original permit time requirements or to authorize substantial development after the time limits of the original permit.
F. Notification to Ecology. The city shall notify Ecology in writing of any change to the effective date of a permit, as authorized by this section, with an explanation of the basis for approval of the change. Any change to the time limits of a permit other than those authorized by RCW 90.58.143 as amended shall require a new permit application. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.13.100 Initiation of development.
A. Amortization to Begin Construction. Each permit for a substantial development, shoreline conditional use or shoreline variance issued by the city shall contain a provision that construction pursuant to the permit shall not begin and is not authorized until twenty-one days from the date of filing with Ecology as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130, or until all review proceedings initiated within twenty-one days from the date of filing of the decision. The date of filing for a substantial development permit means that date that Ecology received a final decision from the city. With regard to a permit for a shoreline variance or a shoreline conditional use, date of filing means the date the city or applicant receives the written decision of Ecology.
B. Forms. Permits for substantial development, shoreline conditional use, or shoreline variance may be in any form prescribed and used by the city, including a combined permit application form. Such forms will be supplied by the city.
C. Data Sheet. A permit data sheet shall be submitted to Ecology with each shoreline permit. The permit data sheet form shall be consistent with WAC 173-27-990.
D. Construction Prior to Expiration of Appeal Deadline. Construction undertaken pursuant to a permit is at the applicant’s own risk until the expiration of the appeals deadline. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.13.110 Review process.
A. After the city’s approval of a conditional use or variance permit, the city shall submit the permit to the department for Ecology’s approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Ecology shall render and transmit to the city and the applicant its final decision approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving the permit within thirty days of the date of submittal by the city pursuant to WAC 173-27-110.
B. Ecology shall review the complete file submitted by the city on conditional use and variance permits and any other information submitted or available that is relevant to the application. Ecology shall base its determination to approve, approve with conditions or deny a shoreline conditional use permit or shoreline variance on consistency with the policy and provisions of the SMA and, except as provided in WAC 173-27-210, the criteria in WAC 173-27-160 and 173-27-170.
C. The city shall provide appropriate notification of Ecology’s final decision to those interested persons having requested notification from local government pursuant to WAC 173-27-130. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.13.115 Special procedures for WSDOT projects.
A. Permit Review Time for Projects on a State Highway. Pursuant to RCW 47.01.485, the Legislature established a target of ninety days review time for local governments.
B. Optional Process Allowing Construction to Commence Twenty-One Days After Date of Filing. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.140, Washington State Department of Transportation projects that address significant public safety risks may begin twenty-one days after the date of filing if all components of the project will achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021).
17.13.120 Appeals.
A. Administrative review decisions by the administrator, based on a provision of this SMP, may be the subject of an appeal to the hearing examiner by any aggrieved person. Such appeals shall be an open record hearing before the hearing examiner.
B. Appeals of exemptions are allowed only for exemptions where a letter is required pursuant to YMC 17.13.050.
C. Appeals must be submitted within fourteen calendar days after the date of decision or written interpretation together with the applicable appeal fee. Appeals submitted by the applicant or aggrieved person shall contain:
1. The decision or interpretation being appealed, including the file number reference and the specific objections in the decision document;
2. The name and address of the appellant and his/her interest(s) in the application or proposed development;
3. The specific reasons why the appellant believes the decision or interpretation to be erroneous, including identification of each finding of fact, each conclusion, and each condition or action ordered which the appellant alleges is erroneous. The appellant shall have the burden of proving the decision or interpretation is erroneous;
4. The specific relief sought by the appellant; and
5. The appeal fee established by the city.
D. Per WAC 173-27-120, the city shall comply with special procedures for limited utility extensions and bulkheads. If there is an appeal of the decision to grant or deny the permit to the hearing examiner, the appeal shall be finally determined by the hearing examiner within thirty days.
E. Appeals to the Shoreline Hearings Board of a final decision on a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, shoreline variance, or a decision on an appeal of an administrative action may be filed by the applicant or any aggrieved party pursuant to RCW 90.58.180 within twenty-one days of filing of the final decision by the city or by Ecology as provided for in RCW 90.58.140(6). (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.13.130 Amendments to permits.
A. A permit revision is required whenever the applicant proposes substantive changes to the design, terms or conditions of a project from that which is approved in the permit. Changes are substantive if they materially alter the project in a manner that relates to its conformance to the terms and conditions of the permit, this SMP, and/or the policies and provisions of Chapter 90.58 RCW. Changes which are not substantive in effect do not require approval of a revision.
B. When an applicant seeks to revise a permit, the city shall request from the applicant detailed plans and text describing the proposed changes. Proposed changes must be within the scope and intent of the original permit, otherwise a new permit may be required.
C. If the city determines that the proposed changes are within the scope and intent of the original permit, and are consistent with this SMP and the Act, the city may approve a revision.
D. “Within the scope and intent of the original permit” means all of the following:
1. No additional over-water construction is involved except that pier, dock, or float construction may be increased by five hundred square feet or ten percent from the provisions of the original permit, whichever is less;
2. Ground area coverage and height may be increased a maximum of ten percent from the provisions of the original permit;
3. The revised permit does not authorize development to exceed height, lot coverage, setback, or any other requirements of this SMP except as authorized under a shoreline variance granted as the original permit or a part thereof;
4. Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with any conditions attached to the original permit and with this SMP;
5. The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and
6. No adverse environmental impact will be caused by the project revision.
E. The revision approval, including the revised site plans and text clearly indicating the authorized changes, and the final ruling on consistency with this section shall be filed with Ecology. In addition, the city shall notify parties of record of their action.
F. If the revision to the original permit involves a shoreline conditional use permit or shoreline variance, the city shall submit the revision to Ecology for approval, approval with conditions, or denial, and shall indicate that the revision is being submitted under the requirements of this subsection. Ecology shall render and transmit to the city and the applicant its final decision within fifteen days of the date of Ecology’s receipt of the submittal from the city. The city shall notify parties of record of Ecology’s final decision.
G. The revised permit is effective immediately upon final decision by the city or, when appropriate per subsection F of this section, upon final action by Ecology. Construction undertaken pursuant to a permit is at the applicant’s own risk until the expiration of the appeals deadline.
1. Filing. Appeals of a revised permit shall be in accordance with RCW 90.58.180 and shall be filed within twenty-one days from the date of filing of the city’s action by Ecology or, when appropriate under shoreline variances or conditional uses, the date Ecology’s final decision is transmitted to the city and the applicant.
2. Basis of Appeals. Appeals shall be based only upon contentions of noncompliance with the provisions of subsections A and B of this section. Appeals shall be based on the revised portion of the permit.
3. Risk. Construction undertaken pursuant to that portion of a revised permit not authorized under the original permit is at the applicant’s own risk until the expiration of the appeals deadline.
4. Scope of Decision. If an appeal is successful in proving that a revision is not within the scope and intent of the original permit, the decision shall have no bearing on the original permit. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.13.140 SMP amendments.
A. This shoreline master program carries out the policies of the Shoreline Management Act for the city. It shall be reviewed and amended as appropriate in accordance with the review periods required in the Act and in order to:
1. Assure that the master program complies with applicable law and guidelines in effect at the time of the review; and
2. Assure consistency of the master program with the city’s comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW, if applicable, and other local requirements.
B. This SMP and all amendments thereto shall become effective fourteen days from the date of Ecology’s written notice of final approval.
C. The SMP may be amended annually or more frequently as needed pursuant to the Growth Management Act.
D. Initiation. Future amendments to this shoreline management plan may be initiated either by any person, resident, property owner, business owner, governmental or nongovernmental agency, shoreline administrator, planning commission, or city council as appropriate.
E. Application. Applications for shoreline master program amendments shall specify the changes requested and any and all reasons therefor. Applications shall be made on forms specified by the city. Such applications shall contain information specified in the city’s procedures for comprehensive plan and development regulation amendments pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW, the Growth Management Act, and information necessary to meet minimum public review procedures in subsection F of this section.
F. Public Review Process—Minimum Requirements. The city shall accomplish the amendments in accordance with the procedures of the Shoreline Management Act, Growth Management Act, and implementing rules including, but not limited to, RCW 36.70A.106, 36.70A.130 and 90.58.080 and WAC 173-26-090, 173-26-100, 173-26-104, and Part Six, Chapter 365-196 WAC.
G. Roles and Responsibilities. Proposals for amendment of the shoreline management plan shall be heard by the planning commission. After conducting a hearing and evaluating testimony regarding the application, including a recommendation from the shoreline administrator, the planning commission shall submit its recommendation to the city council, who shall approve or deny the proposed amendment.
H. Finding. Prior to approval, the city shall make a finding that the amendment would accomplish subsections (H)(1) or (2) of this section, and must accomplish subsection (H)(3) of this section:
1. The proposed amendment would make this program more consistent with the Act and/or any applicable Department of Ecology guidelines;
2. The proposed amendment would make this program more equitable in its application to persons or property due to changed conditions in an area;
3. This program and any future amendment hereto shall ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes on a programmatic basis in accordance with the baseline functions present as of the effective date of this SMP.
I. After approval or disapproval of a program amendment by the Department of Ecology as provided in RCW 90.58.090, Ecology shall publish a notice that the program amendment has been approved or disapproved by Ecology pursuant to the notice publication requirements of RCW 36.70A.290. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.13.150 Enforcement.
The city shall apply Chapter 173-27 WAC, Part II, Shoreline Management Act Enforcement, to enforce the provisions of this SMP whenever a person has violated any provision of the Act, this SMP, or other regulation promulgated under the Act. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).
17.13.160 Monitoring.
A. The city will track all shoreline permits and exemption activities to evaluate whether the SMP is achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Activities to be tracked using the city’s permit system include development, conservation, restoration and mitigation, such as:
1. New shoreline development.
2. Shoreline variances and the nature of the variance.
3. Compliance issues.
4. Net changes in impervious surface areas, including associated stormwater management.
5. Net changes in fill or armoring.
6. Net change in linear feet of flood hazard structures.
7. Net changes in vegetation (area, character).
B. Using the information collected per subsection A of this section, a no net loss report shall be prepared every eight years as part of the city’s shoreline master program evaluation or comprehensive plan amendment process. Should the no net loss report show degradation of the baseline condition documented in the city’s shoreline analysis report, changes to the SMP and/or shoreline restoration plan shall be proposed at the time of the eight-year update to prevent further degradation and address the loss in ecological functions. (Ord. 2021-015 § 2 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 2017-017 § 2 (Exh. B), 2017: Ord. 2015-002 § 1 (Exh. A), 2015).