Full Text
REDMOND SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW Row Summary of change Review Action 2018 a. OFM adjusted the cost threshold for new and replacement docks in freshwater to $11,200 and $22,500 respectively. Current shoreline regulations reference older cost threshold. Update Application Requirements for Shoreline Exemption form. Amend Table 21.68.200 to increase exemption threshold to $7,047 as of 11/4/18. Also add a note to the table to reference state statute, RCW 90.58.030(3)(e) that the Office of Financial Management adjusts the cost threshold for inflation every five years. Note: Submittal requirements on the City’s web site have been updated to reflect new cost thresholds. 2017 a. OFM adjusted the cost threshold for substantial development to $7,047. Current shoreline regulations reference older cost threshold. Update Application Requirements for Shoreline Exemption form. Amend Table 21.68.200 to increase exemption threshold to $7,047 as of 9/2/17. Also add a note to the table to reference state statute, RCW 90.58.030(3)(e) that the Office of Financial Management adjusts the cost threshold for inflation every five years. Note: Submittal requirements on the City’s web site have been updated to reflect new cost thresholds. b. Ecology permit rules clarified the definition of “development” does not include dismantling or removing structures. Current shoreline regulations rely on the SMA definition of Development to avoid duplicate Zoning Code definitions. No amendment needed. c. Ecology adopted rules clarifying exceptions to local review under the SMA. Ecology’s revised rule addressing exceptions incorporated a 2015 Legislative statutory exceptions for WSDOT. Other statutory exceptions are included in WAC 173-27-044 and WAC 173-27-045. Add new section, 21.68.200.C.10, to Shoreline Administration and Procedures, to clarify that certain actions are not required to obtain a shoreline permit or local review. EXHIBIT D ---PAGE BREAK--- Redmond SMP Periodic Review Checklist 2 Row Summary of change Review Action b. Ecology amended rules clarifying permit filing procedures consistent with a 2011 statute. Current shoreline regulations describe filing procedures. Ecology amended WAC 173-27-044 to incorporate a 2011 law relating to permit filing. Add new language , 21.68.200.C.6.b&c, Shoreline Administration and Procedures, to reflect updated permit filing procedures. c. Ecology amended forestry use regulations to clarify that forest practices that only involves timber cutting are not SMA “developments” and do not require SDPs. It is not necessary to amend the SMP to reflect this since Redmond does not have extensive commercial forestry. No amendment needed. d. Ecology clarified the SMA does not apply to lands under exclusive federal jurisdiction There are no lands in Redmond with exclusive federal jurisdiction and therefore no need to amend the SMP for clarification. No amendment needed. e. Ecology clarified “default” provisions for nonconforming uses and development. Redmond has a SMP Nonconformances section in RZC 21.68.200.B. It addresses nonconforming shoreline uses and nonconforming shoreline structures. Definitions section of Zoning Code (RZC 21.78) contains definitions of nonconforming lot, nonconforming use, and nonconforming structures. Add a new section, 21.68.200.B.4, for nonconforming shoreline lots f. Ecology adopted rule amendments to clarify the scope and process for conducting periodic reviews. Redmond’s current SMP does not include a description of the periodic review process. As noted in Ecology’s checklist guidance, it is not necessary to include this provision in the SMP. No amendment needed. g. Ecology adopted a new rule creating an optional SMP amendment process that allows for a shared local/state public comment period. This is an optional process that does not conflict with Redmond Type VI process/procedure for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. No need to make code revisions. No amendment needed. h. Submittal to Ecology of proposed SMP amendments. Redmond’s current SMP does not include a description of the SMP submittal process. No need to make code revisions. No amendment needed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Redmond SMP Periodic Review Checklist 3 Row Summary of change Review Action 2016 a. The Legislature created a new shoreline permit exemption for retrofitting existing structure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Current regulations do not include new permit exemption for retrofits to comply with ADA. Update RZC Table 21.68.200 that lists shoreline exemptions to include a consistent with Ecology example code. The Application Requirements for Shoreline Exemption form has been updated to reflect this exemption. b. Ecology updated wetlands critical areas guidance including implementation guidance for the 2014 wetlands rating system. Incorporate Ecology’s most updated rating system and other clarifications into the City’s CAO since the SMP incorporates the CAO by reference. Update RZC 21.64.030, wetlands section with the Critical Areas Regulations to address Ecology’s most recent wetlands guidance. This includes changes to wetland buffers and wetland replacement ratios to be consistent with Ecology’s best available science. 2015 a. The Legislature adopted a 90-day target for local review of Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) projects. The current SMP does not address timelines for permit review. As noted in Ecology’s checklist guidance, it is not necessary to include this provision into the SMP. No amendment needed. 2014 a. The Legislature raised the cost threshold for requiring a Substantial Development Permit (SDP) for replacement docks on lakes and rivers to $20,000 (from $10,000). Current regulations need to be updated to include this new threshold. Amend RZC Table 21.68.200 to reference increase in exemption threshold for freshwater docks to $20,000. Reference state statute, WAC 173-27-040(2)(h) as well to cover future changes to the dollar threshold. The Application Requirements for Shoreline Exemption form has been updated to reflect this change. b. The Legislature created a new definition and policy for floating Current shoreline regulations (RZC 21.68.050.C.2.vi) prohibit floating homes. No changes required. No amendment needed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Redmond SMP Periodic Review Checklist 4 Row Summary of change Review Action on-water residences legally established before 7/1/2014. 2012 a. The Legislature amended the SMA to clarify SMP appeal procedures. The current SMP does not address SMP appeal procedures. City will rely on state laws and rules. No amendment needed. 2011 a. Ecology adopted a rule requiring that wetlands be delineated in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual. Current shoreline regulations (RZC 21.78) contain this Wetland Delineation Manual definition. No amendment needed. b. Ecology adopted rules for new commercial geoduck aquaculture. No saltwater shorelines in Redmond No amendment needed. c. The Legislature created a new definition and policy for floating homes permitted or legally established prior to January 1, 2011. Current shoreline regulations (RZC 21.68.050.C.2.vi) prohibit floating homes. No amendment needed. d. The Legislature authorizing a new option to classify existing structures as conforming. Current shoreline regulations (RZC 21.68.200.B) address nonconforming shoreline structures. No amendment needed. 2010 a. The Legislature adopted Growth Management Act – Shoreline Management Act clarifications. Current SMP does not include effective dates of SMP amendments. No amendment needed. 2009 a. The Legislature created new “relief” procedures for instances in which a shoreline restoration Current shoreline regulations (RZC 21.68.060.A) address this matter as it relates to buffers. It Add language under 21.68.020, Shoreline Jurisdiction, which makes reference to this approach. Add new section 21.68.200.c.11, ---PAGE BREAK--- Redmond SMP Periodic Review Checklist 5 Row Summary of change Review Action project within a UGA creates a shift in Ordinary High Water Mark. makes sense to clarify this approach to the Shoreline Jurisdiction as well. Shoreline Administration and Procedures, to reference relief consistent with criteria and procedures in WAC 173-27-215. b. Ecology adopted a rule for certifying wetland mitigation banks. Current regulations need to be updated to include these provisions. Wetland mitigation banks could be considered under “fill and excavation for ecological restoration” in RZC 21.68.050. For clarity, add wetland mitigation bank as a line item on RZC 21.68.050 under Other Activities. Although off-site mitigation is permitted, modify RZC 21.64.010.L, to specifically include wetland mitigation banks. c. The Legislature added moratoria authority and procedures to the SMA. Current SMP does not address moratoria authority and procedures. Rely on state statue RCW 90.58.590. No amendment needed. 2007 a. The Legislature clarified options for defining "floodway" as either the area that has been established in FEMA maps, or the floodway criteria set in the SMA. RZC 21.78 does not include a Floodway definition. RZC 21.64.040.A.1 defines both the FEMA Floodway and Zero-Rise Floodway. Added floodway definition to RZC 21.78, F Definitions for SMA consistency. b. Ecology amended rules to clarify that comprehensively updated SMPs shall include a list and map of streams and lakes that are in shoreline jurisdiction. Redmond’s shoreline jurisdiction remains the same. No changes required. No amendment needed. c. Ecology’s rule listing statutory exemptions from the requirement for an SDP was amended to include fish habitat enhancement projects that conform to the provisions of RCW 77.55.181. Current SMP includes this provision. No amendment needed.