planning commission meeting agenda monday,...

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA

Monday, October 9, 2017

6:00 PM

Preliminary Matters 1. Chair Selects Public Comment Option

2. Minutes August 14th Meeting Minutes

3. Public Comment Period (For items not located elsewhere on the agenda)

New Business 4. Shoreline Advisory Committee ICR Update, Shoreline Environment Designations, Cultural Resources

5. Work Plan Determine priorities for 2018

6. SP2017-03 Planning Commission review of proposed 2-lot residential division

Old Business None.

Discussion 7. Staff & Commission Reports Sewer System Upgrades, City Administrator 8. Thought of the Month 9. Development Permit Update:

Adjournment

14 4 21 5

94

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Residential Units Commercial Small Structures Signs Total

Build

ing

Perm

its

2015

2016

2017 (YTD)

0123456789

101112131415

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Plan

ning

Per

mits

2017 (12 YTD)

2016 (14 Total)

2015 (17 Total)

Public Comment Options

Option 1- Each speaker will be offered three (3) minutes to express their thoughts during the general public comment period and three (3) minutes to comment during each public hearing period. Under certain circumstances the Chair may announce a change in a meeting’s time limits. Written comments may also be submitted for the record.

Option 2- Any member of the public may participate in discussion throughout the meeting, provided that the Chair acknowledges them prior to their contribution. Participants should be keep comments brief and related to the agenda topic. Written comments may also be submitted for the record.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, August 14, 2017, 6:00 PM

Planning Commission Members Present: Scott Anderson, Karen Ashley, Chris Ford, Valerie Hoy-Rhodehamel, Shawn Van Pelt.

Staff present: Ben Shumaker

Community Members Present: Rick May, Bernard Versari, Pat Albaugh, Julie May.

Guest: Michelle McConnell, Department of Ecology, WA State (DOE).

Call to order: 6:00 PM

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

1. Chair Selected Public Comment Option #1.

2. July 10, 2017 Minutes: ASHLEY moved and FORD seconded for approval of the Minutes; approved without opposition.

3. Public Comment Period: None.

NEW BUSINESS:

4. Shoreline Advisory Committee Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Administrative Provisions:

Shumaker introduced Michelle McConnell of Department of Ecology. Shumaker reviewed the three types of Shoreline Permits (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Variance) and described when they are required. McConnell said DOE wants to ensure basic standards are implemented in our local shoreline program and that these are adopted as part of our local program so there is no “secret” book of standards.

Shumaker brought up 2 additional permit tracks, the first related to limited utility extensions and residential bulk heads, which both require a fast track based on state statute. The second track is for statements of exemption. McConnell said activity in the shoreline needs to be documented and consistent with state law even if it doesn’t require a permit. The Statement of Exemption process is a way to review and condition exemption even when a permit is not required.

Shumaker referred to a 3-page memo handout with the current timeline for reviewing the three types of permits. The City’s timeline is twice as long as DOE requires; the new process aims to align with DOE’s timeline. Shumaker reviewed the changes with the Commission. In this updated process, the Planning Commission would have approval authority instead of City Council. Council still retains authority to send it to a hearings officer if it’s highly contentious. Much of the rest of the process is straight from the WAC. Skamania County’s SMP is used for the framework, with some provisions from North Bonneville’s and the WAC.

McConnell said that the other jurisdictions SMPs are not fully approved and comments could be expected on the City’s proposal during the state’s approval period. The basic process: submit a complete SMP after holding a public hearing; City Council then approves a version or rejects it. Then it is sent to DOE for review and a 30-day comment period starts. DOE input goes back to city with any public comments. Council accepts it or works out changes with DOE. DOE director makes the final decision; effective 14 days after approval letter. It can be appealed.

City of Stevenson Planning Commission August 14, 2017, Page 2

Returning to specific shoreline proposals, Shumaker referred to Attachment 3 handout to point out one of biggest changes: it won’t be up to City Council to approve; Planning Commission will approve most proposals, but staff will approve fast track and statement of exemption proposals. This provides flexibility to adapt to each situation and stay on timelines.

Shumaker explained his goal at this meeting was to explain the procedure and share the updates to prepare the Commission to approve it. Albaugh asked about timelines (35 days instead of DOE’s 30) and Versari asked about exempt versus non-exempt. Shumaker said these requirements are new for Stevenson. DOE will monitor how well the City’s exempt development implements the program. Members of the group noted that nonconforming (“grandfathered use”) use and development regulations of the SMP draft will affect people more than the substantial development because of Stevenson’s small area and slow growth rates.

McConnell reviewed some likely scenarios with the Commission to help them understand the process and requirements. Shumaker said no decision is needed today—just building understanding. Next step: focus on inventory and characterization report.

5. Private Road Standards/Road Diet Review City Council Request. Shumaker explained the Commission has been asked by Council to take on additional reviews: Public works standards and how many homes can be built with a shared driveway. Council also is dealing with the downtown parking issues again and hopes the Planning Commission can hold the detailed reviews required. Shumaker noted the public works standards came up as part of the “Road Diet” discussion at the joint Planning/Council meeting last December. These parking issues have come up four years in a row. Rick May said he doesn’t want a variance, feels the standards needs to change, to account for proposals where wetlands impact density and road development. Shumaker asked if the planning Commission wants to deal with these this winter. If the road standards issue is pursued, there are 3 approaches: focused approach (private road triggers and standards); road diet (reduce required pavement and right-of-way widths); more robust complete streets (buzz worthy topic at state level now, more grant opportunities). We need more of a transportation plan that considers multiple modes of travel (bus stops, pedestrians, bikes, etc.). ANDERSON said we’ve set up a precedent for flexibility, maybe it is time we dive in, but timeline needs defined, keeping in mind the Shoreline Program. The Commission agreed a complete transportation systems plan is needed and they do need to work on it. It would enable grant opportunities. Rick May emphasized it should include how to best plan for least disturbance of wetlands/sensitive areas. ANDERSON noted the groundwork for that has been set up in the PUD (planned unit development) process. Shumaker said reducing space that roads take up should be included. Julie May said the PUD process might be used if someone needs a variance. VAN PELT said he doesn’t think the City should use the PUD pretense to fit a project into road standards rules. Design land use and road standards are very different. Rick May thinks they are more similar, example: small development of three acres doesn’t need a 60-foot road standard. Shumaker said the policies need to support each other and it seems they currently don’t. ANDERSON pointed out the current Commission is well educated on these issues right now so it’s a good time to tackle this, but doesn’t want to get into the engineering details of the road standards (pavement mix, vertical curves, etc.).

6. Downtown Parking/Traffic Review City Council Request: ANDERSON asked the Commission to read the Melissa Still letter again, which was submitted recently, and he referred to City Councilor HENDRICKS’s letter, which suggests a full traffic study is necessary. Stevenson Downtown Association (SDA) is a new partner with which the City could contract with a consultant. ANDERSON said the SDA can’t tackle this in the near future and the Planning Commission just committed to a big project, and that the “parking problem” is not really a problem in his view. He feels that parking onsite requirements


for new construction are burdensome currently. Shumaker said the City could pursue a fee-in-lieu approach. Developers could pay a fee, that contributes to a pool of money for improving parking, instead of providing onsite parking. This would fill a funding gap since the City doesn’t have a capital improvement plan for parking improvements. ANDERSON said the City should review the Comp Plan before considering Road Plans/Parking Plan. Shumaker will bring it to the group next meeting. Rick May thought said this is a brilliant plan. ASHLEY expressed not wanting to use prime property for a parking lots. Rick May said downtown Portland has various prime property as parking; this is a great public/private solution. The City can buy property for parking and recoup cost by this fee. FORD noted the City already has areas not being used fully that could be used for parking rather than buying new property. ANDERSON proposed to defer the downtown plan and prioritize parking as part of the transportation plan. HOY-RHODEHAMEL said the City Council should be asked to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations more carefully.

Shumaker said the next meeting will cover the overall work plan discussion for the SMP, review of relevant Comp Plan sections, scope of work for road diet effort (in the form of budget request for a consultant). VAN PELT felt the parking issues should not be put off too far and suggested a two-year moratorium could be possible on parking requirements for new construction. ANDERSON said they will start early next year on the parking issues. Rick May asked if Shumaker is adequately supported. Shumaker said he is doing his best to accommodate all the projects, but may need a consultant’s support. ANDERSON agreed with VAN PELT; it would be sad to miss opportunities we have currently.

OLD BUSINESS: None.

DISCUSSION

7. Staff and Commission Reports, Planning Fee Schedule, Sewer System Upgrades, Water System Plan, City Administrator Search: Shumaker reported on the fee schedule. Sewer upgrade: developing and implementing funding strategy for this; it’s requiring a lot of his time. Considering applying for a US Economic Development Administration grant; partnering with the private industries; meeting with high load dischargers (beverage industries and Skamania Lodge). Karl has been leading the water system plan; a draft plan is ready, about $2million for 10-year plan to help give us more time with the sewer system to align with future development in higher areas. Sewer plan/rate structure will be presented to City Council August 24.

Wednesday night interviews will be conducted of four City Administrator applicants (out of 14). 8. Thought of the Month: None.

9. Development Permit Update: Shumaker reported 11 single family home permit applications so far this year, which is more than last year. There are also applications for two short plats; and the 34-lot Hidden Ridge development continues working on finalizing punch list items before can sell lots. Not quite half are local applicants.

Meeting adjourned at 7:48 pm.

Approved __________; Approved with revisions ___________

_______________________________________________________________


Scott Anderson , Chair Date Minutes by: Julie Mayfield Planning Commissioner Attendance 2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ANDERSON X + + + + + + Ashley X 0 + + + + + Ford X + + + + 0 + Hoy-Rhodehamel X + + + 0 + + Van Pelt X + + + + + + + = present; 0 = excused absence, — = unexcused absence, X = cancelled meeting

of 2

City of Stevenson Planning Department

(509)427-5970 7121 E Loop Road, PO Box 371 Stevenson, Washington 98648

TO: Shoreline Advisory Committee, Planning Commission FROM: Ben Shumaker DATE: October 9th, 2017

SUBJECT: Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations Exercise; Goals & Provisions

Introduction

This memo 1) reviews the changes to the draft Inventory and characterization report, 2) attempts to provide an overview of the Shoreline Management Program (Attachment 1) and 3) introduces an exercise designed to apply Chapter 4 – Shoreline Environment Designation Provisions of the draft SMP. While no action is expected on the program overview, the shoreline environment designation exercise allows the Shoreline Advisory Committee to recommend specific designations for specific shoreline areas.

Inventory & Characterization Report (ICR)

The latest draft ICR was sent out without a cover memo. The changes to that document are highlighted in yellow and focus primarily on adding a more complete review and rationale for the assessment of ecological indicators by reach. This rationale is more fully explained in the schematic figure in Section 1.0 which connects Ecosystem-Wide Processes to reach scale ecological functions, which themselves are not represented in Consumer Reports-style, Harvey Ball assessments for each reach.

Discussion on this topic is not expected to pass the surface level of changes and no action is expected. Group members are encouraged to review and comment on the draft ICR. Any comments received will be responded to individually by staff and summarized for review and action as necessary.

Overview of Shoreline Management Program (SMP

This overview of the SMP provided to help bring the regulatory program into better focus and allow the Shoreline Advisory Committee and Planning Commission to begin transitioning past the Inventory & Characterization Report assessment of Stevenson’s existing conditions. Readers are encouraged to first review the draft table of contents for an understanding of program components and draft Chapter 2 (previously prepared) to see the procedures required to review applications. Chapter 3 is populated with an example of how the program will develop and implement overall goals that apply to all shoreline projects. Chapter 4 (detailed more below) will establish certain areas with differing levels of regulatory applicability. Attachment 2 is provided from Skamania County’s SMP to both show the variability in restrictiveness that can exist between shoreline environments and as an indication of the structure and content of draft Chapter 5. Chapter 6 will deal with modifications to the shoreline itself when an applicant proposes shoreline stabilization, fills, breakwaters, dredging, and restoration or enhancement.

Discussion on this topic can be as wide ranging as the group desires. No action is expected, but the discussion should facilitate fuller debate in the future.

of 2

Shoreline Environment Designations (SEDs)

Attachments 3-4 will help further apply the overview to Stevenson’s shoreline areas. These two attachments explain 1) the 4-part system staff is proposing for designation of shoreline environments and 2) the areas where these 4 designation types might apply.

After reviewing the basic handouts, staff will conduct an interactive exercise that allows meeting attendees 1) to develop their individual SED Map, 2) share their map with the full group, and 3) combine individual maps into an overall draft map for use as a regulatory tool.

Next Steps

After receiving direction based on this exercise, staff will prepare an electronic copy of the draft map for final review and recommendation. This is anticipated to occur in conjunction with the full draft SMP when it is brought to the Shoreline Advisory Committee and Planning Commission at the November or December meeting.

Committee and Commission members are encouraged to review the draft ICR, SMP and SMC materials, ask questions, and provide specific comments that may be reviewed at future meetings.

Prior to final action on this program, staff will prepare a Restoration Plan, No Net Loss Analysis, and additional materials as required by the state.

Prepared by,

Ben Shumaker Planning Director Attachments:

1- October Working Draft SMP 2- Skamania County SMP Use & Standards Table 3- Draft Shoreline Environment Designation Descriptions 4- Shoreline Environment Designation Maps & Resources

i

STEVENSON

2017 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE

City of Stevenson First Draft Shoreline Management Program

October 2017

Ecology Grant # G1200-044 Tasks 3.1 through 3.5

ii

Page Intentionally Left Blank

i

Acknowledgements

City Council

Frank Cox, Mayor Paul Hendricks Robert Muth

Mark Peterson Jenny Taylor

Amy Weissfeld

Planning Commission

Scott Anderson, Chair Karen Ashley

Chris Ford Valerie Hoy-Rhodehamel

Shawn Van Pelt

Local Advisory Committee

Brian Birkenfeld Joe Birkenfeld Gerald Doblie

Eran and Gloria Howell John McSherry

Scott Pineo Mary Repar Tim Todd

Bernard Versari Ken Wieman

City Staff

Melissa Anderson, Minutes Taker Eric Hansen, Public Works Director

Nick Hogan, City Administrator 5 Ben Shumaker, Planning Director, Primary Author

Ken Woodrich, City Attorney

State Staff 10

This Inventory and Characterization Report is made possible by Washington State Department of Ecology Grant G1200-044, Task 2.2 with the assistance of

Michelle McConnell, Regional Shoreline Planner

City of Stevenson First Draft 2017 Shoreline Master Program October 2017

ii

15 20 25 30 35 40



iii

Table of Contents 45 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 LIST OF TABLES 4 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 TITLE 1 50 1.2 ADOPTION AUTHORITY 1 1.3 PURPOSE OF THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 1 1.4 SHORELINE JURISDICTION 1

1.4.1 Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction Definition 1 1.4.2 Applicable Shoreline Jurisdiction in Stevenson 2 55 1.4.3 Shoreline Environmental Designations 2

1.5 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM APPLICABILITY TO DEVELOPMENT 2 1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS AND REGULATIONS 3 1.7 LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION 3 1.8 ORGANIZATION OF THIS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 3 60 1.9 PERIODIC REVIEW & AMENDMENTS TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 4 1.10 EFFECTIVE DATE 4

CHAPTER 2 – ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 5 2.1 PURPOSE & APPLICABILITY 5 2.2 SHORELINE ADMINISTRATOR 5 65 2.3 PRE-APPLICATION PROCEDURES 5

2.3.1 Pre-Application Conference – Required 5 2.3.2 Pre-Application Conference – Purpose & Outcomes 5

2.4 PERMIT PROCESS 5 2.4.1 Permits Required 5 70 2.4.2 Application Contents 6 2.4.2 Application Review & Processing 7

2.5 EXEMPTIONS FROM SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS 7 2.5.1 Exemptions –Interpretation & Guidelines 7 2.5.2 Statement of Exemption Process 8 75

2.6 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS 9 2.6.1 Shoreline Substantial Development Permits – Purpose – Applicability – Criteria 9 2.6.2 Substantial Development Permits – Permit Process 9

2.7 SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 9 2.7.1 Conditional Use Permits – Purpose – Applicability – Criteria 9 80 2.7.2 Conditional Use Permits – Permit Process 10

2.8 SHORELINE VARIANCES 10 2.8.1 Variances – Purpose – Applicability – Criteria 10 2.8.2 Variances – Permit Process 11

2.9 NONCONFORMING USE & DEVELOPMENT 11 85 2.9.1 Nonconforming Use & Development – Purpose – Applicability – Criteria 11

2.10 SHORELINE PERMIT REVISIONS 13 CHAPTER 3 – GOALS & GENERAL PROVISIONS 15

3.1 INTRODUCTION 15 3.2 GOALS OF THE STEVENSON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 15 90 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES 15

3.3.1 Applicability 15


iv

3.3.2 Policies 15 3.3.3 Regulations 15

3.4 CRITICAL AREAS 17 95 3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & NO NET LOSS 17 3.6 PUBLIC ACCESS 17 3.7 SHORELINE VEGETATION CONSERVATION 17 3.8 WATER QUALITY & NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION 17 3.9 SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE 17 100 3.10 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 17

CHAPTER 4 – SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION PROVISIONS 18 4.1 INTRODUCTION 18 4.2 ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS 18

4.2.1 Aquatic Environment 18 105 4.2.2 Natural Environment 19 4.2.3 Rural Conservancy Environment 20 4.2.4 Shoreline Residential Environment 20 4.2.5 Urban Conservancy 21 4.2.6 Urban Environment 21 110

4.3 BOUNDARY INTERPRETATION 21 CHAPTER 5 – SHORELINE USE REGULATIONS 23

5.1 INTRODUCTION 23 5.2 PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL USES 23 5.3 SPECIFIC SHORELINE USE POLICIES & PROVISIONS 23 115

CHAPTER 6 – SHORELINE MODIFICATION PROVISIONS 24 6.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS 24 6.2 SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS TABLE 24 6.3 SPECIFIC SHORELINE MODIFICATION PROVISIONS 24

CHAPTER 7 – DEFINITIONS 25 120 APPENDIX A – SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION MAP 26

List of Tables NO TABLE OF FIGURES ENTRIES FOUND.

125


v

130 135 140 145 150



Attachment 1 1

Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.1 Title This document shall be known and may be cited as the Stevenson Shoreline Master Program (SMP).

1.2 Adoption Authority This SMP is adopted under the authority granted by the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) of 1971 5 embodied in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 90.58, and is adopted in compliance with the Shoreline Master Program guidelines contained in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26 as may be hereafter amended.

1.3 Purpose of the Shoreline Master Program The purpose of the SMP is: 10 1. To guide the future use and development of the City of Stevenson’s shorelines in accordance

with local goals and objectives and in compliance with the requirements of the SMA. 2. To ensure that use and development under the SMP will result in no net loss of ecological

functions. 3. To provide for the preservation and enhancement of shoreline ecological resources as part of 15

coordinated planning for new use and development in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest.

4. To provide a fair and equitable process for applicants and the public to review and comment on development proposals within Stevenson’s shorelines. 20

1.4 Shoreline Jurisdiction

1.4.1 Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction Definition As defined by the SMA, “shorelines of the state” include certain waterbodies plus their associated “shorelands.” At a minimum, the waterbodies designated as “shorelines” in Stevenson are streams and rivers whose mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second or greater and lakes of 20 acres or larger. 25 Streams and rivers with mean annual flow of 200 cubic feet per second or greater (east of the Cascade Range) or 1,000 cubic feet per second or greater (west of the Cascade Range), and lakes of 1,000 acres or larger are designated as “shorelines of statewide significance.” Collectively, shoreline jurisdiction includes these waters, the lands underlying them, all shorelands extending landward a minimum of 200 feet in all directions, as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM); 30 floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams and lakes which are subject to the provisions of this chapter. Such associated wetlands may extend beyond the minimum distance. The City’s shoreline jurisdiction does not include optional areas of 100-year floodplain, or buffers for critical areas. The extent of the shoreline jurisdiction shall be determined for specific project proposals based on the 35 actual location of the OHWM, floodway, and the presence and delineated boundary of associated


Attachment 1 2

wetlands as may be determined on a site-by-site basis based on adopted definitions and technical criteria.

1.4.2 Applicable Shoreline Jurisdiction in Stevenson The 2017 city limits of Stevenson includes 3 waterbodies which are regulated by this SMP. The 40 Columbia River is a shoreline of statewide significance. Rock Cove and Rock Creek are also included within the shoreline jurisdiction of this SMP as depicted on the Shoreline Environment Designation maps in Appendix A to this SMP. For any streams and rivers partly within shoreline jurisdiction, jurisdiction starts from an upstream point where the mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second and continues downstream from that point. In addition, shoreline jurisdiction also includes the associated 45 wetlands of these waterbodies. This SMP also predesignates areas outside of city limits that will be considered within Stevenson’s shoreline jurisdiction upon annexation. Predesignated areas include extended reaches along the Columbia River, Rock Cove, Rock Creek, as well as a small reach along Ashes Lake. This SMP does not apply within predesignated areas until the areas are annexed to the City. 50

1.4.3 Shoreline Environmental Designations The approximate shoreline jurisdictional area of the Shoreline Environment Designations are delineated on a series of maps, hereby incorporated as a part of this SMP that shall be known as the Shoreline Environment Designation Maps (See Appendix A). The boundaries of the shoreline jurisdiction on the maps are approximate. The actual extent of 55 shoreline jurisdiction shall be based upon an on-site inspection and the definitions provided in accordance with sections 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 of this SMP, Chapter 7, and in accordance with RCW 90.58.030.

1.5 Shoreline Master Program Applicability to Development The SMP shall apply to all land and waters under the jurisdiction of Stevenson as identified in sections 1.4.1, 1.4.2, and 1.4.3 above. If the provisions of the SMP conflict with other applicable local ordinances, 60 policies, and regulations, the requirement that most supports the provisions of the SMA as stated in RCW 90.58.020 and that provide the greatest protection of shoreline ecological resources shall apply, as determined by the Shoreline Administrator. This SMP shall apply to every person, individual, firm, partnership, association, organization, corporation, local or state governmental agency, public or municipal corporation, or other non-federal 65 entity that develops, owns, leases, or administers lands, wetlands, or waters that fall under the jurisdiction of the SMA. This SMP applies within the external boundaries of federally-owned lands (including but not limited to, private inholdings in a national forest or national wildlife refuge). The SMP shall not apply to federal agency activities on federal lands. Please see section 2.5 below for more information on when a permit is required. Regardless of their exempt status, exempt uses or activities 70 that do not require a substantial shoreline development permit must continue to demonstrate compliance with the policies and regulations contained in the SMP in accordance with WAC 173-27-040(1)(b) and be authorized by a statement of exemption. The SMP applies to all shoreline uses, development, and activities proposed within shoreline jurisdiction.


Attachment 1 3

1.6 Relationship to Other Plans and Regulations 75

In addition to obtaining authority to undertake use, development, or activities in accordance with the SMP, applicants must also comply with all applicable federal, state, or local statutes or regulations. These may include, but are not limited to, a Section 404 Permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Section 401 Permit by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and State 80 Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) approval (RCW Chapter 43.21 and WAC Chapter 197-11). The Stevenson Municipal Code also applies, including Title 15 “Buildings and Construction”, Title 17 “Zoning”, and Title 18 “Environmental Protection”, and all other applicable code provisions. Applicants must also comply with the Stevenson Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plan. The City’s Shoreline Administrator or designee should inform applicants for shoreline 85 development of all applicable regulations to the best of the Shoreline Administrator's knowledge, provided that the final responsibility for complying with all statutes and regulations shall rest with the applicant.

1.7 Liberal Construction As provided for in RCW 90.58.900, Liberal Construction, the SMA is exempted from the rule of strict 90 construction; the SMA and this SMP shall therefore be liberally construed to give full effect to the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies for which the SMA and this SMP were enacted and adopted.

1.8 Organization of this Shoreline Master Program This SMP is divided into 7 chapters: Chapter 1 – Introduction: Provides general background Information on the purpose of the SMP and 95 explains shoreline jurisdiction, the SMP’s applicability to development and actions within the shoreline, and the organization of the document. Chapter 2 – Administrative Provisions: Provides a system by which shoreline permits, including substantial development, conditional use, and variance, as well as statements of exemption, are considered. 100 Chapter 3 – Goals and General Provisions: Articulates the goals and policies of the SMP that establish the foundation for all other portions of the SMP. In addition, this chapter contains general provisions which are policies and regulations that apply to all shoreline use and development regardless of its location or the Shoreline Environment Designation in which it is located. Topics addressed in this chapter include archaeological and historic resources, critical areas, public access, 105 vegetation conservation, water quality, shorelines of statewide significance, and economic development. Chapter 4 – Shoreline Environment Designation Provisions: Defines the environmental designations of all the shorelines of the state in the City’s jurisdiction. Designation criteria and management policies and regulations specific to the six designated shoreline environments (Aquatic, Natural, Rural 110 Conservancy, Shoreline Residential, and High Intensity) are detailed in this chapter. Chapter 5 – Specific Shoreline Use Provisions: Details the policies and regulations applicable to specific shoreline use categories such as, but not limited to, aquaculture, commercial, industrial, boating facilities and overwater structures, residential, recreation, transportation, and utilities, based on the Shoreline Environment Designation in which the use is proposed to locate. 115


Attachment 1 4

Chapter 6 – Shoreline Modification Provisions: Details the policies and regulations applicable to activities that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the land- water interface, including dredging, excavation, fill, restoration, and stabilization. Chapter 7 – Definitions: Provides definitions for words and terms used in the SMP.

1.9 Periodic Review & Amendments to the Shoreline Master Program 120

1. Any provisions of this SMP may be amended as provided for in RCW 90.58.120 and .200 and WAC 173-26.

2. This SMP shall be periodically reviewed and amendments shall be made as are necessary to reflect changing local circumstances, new information, or improved data, and changes in state statutes and regulations. 125

3. As part of the required SMP update, an evaluation report assessing the effectiveness of the SMP in achieving no net loss shall be prepared and considered in determining whether policies and regulations are adequate in achieving this requirement.

4. The SMP review and update process shall be consistent with the requirements of WAC 173-26 or its successor and shall include a local citizen involvement effort and public hearing to obtain the 130 views and comments of the public.

5. Amendments or revisions to the SMP, as provided by law, do not become effective until approved by Ecology.

1.10 Effective Date This SMP and all amendments thereto shall take effect 14 days from the date of Ecology’s written 135 notice of final action (RCW 90.58.090(7)), and shall apply to new applications submitted on or after that date and to applications that have not been determined to be fully complete by that date. Appendix C is provided as a location to curate the dates and text of Ecology’s written notices of final action.

City of Stevenson First Draft Shoreline Master Program October 2017

Attachment 1 5

Chapter 2 – Administrative Provisions

2.1 Purpose & Applicability Unless specifically exempted by statute, all uses and development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction must conform to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the SMA and this SMP whether or not a permit is required. This Chapter establishes an administrative system assigning responsibilities for 5 implementation of the SMP and shoreline permit review; prescribes an orderly process by which to review proposals and permit applications; and ensures that all persons affected by this SMP are treated in a fair and equitable manner. Where inconsistencies or conflicts with the Stevenson Municipal Code (SMC) exist, this section shall prevail.

2.2 Shoreline Administrator 10

The Planning Director herein referred to as the “Shoreline Administrator” or “Administrator”, or that person’s designee, is hereby vested with overall responsibility for administering this SMP and SMC 18.08 in compliance with the SMA.

2.3 Pre-Application Procedures

2.3.1 Pre-Application Conference – Required 15 A pre-application conference for all proposed uses, activities, and development within shoreline jurisdiction is required. The Shoreline Administrator may waive this requirement if the applicant requests such in writing and demonstrates that the usefulness of a pre-application meeting is minimal.

2.3.2 Pre-Application Conference – Purpose & Outcomes The purpose of the pre-application conference is to review the applicant’s proposal and for the 20 Shoreline Administrator to explain the type of permitting procedures necessary to ensure compliance with this SMP. A written summary of this conference may be prepared to assist the remainder of the review process. This summary should include a description of the proposal, contact information for the applicant and any consultants assisting the applicant, a listing of the permits required, and any special submittal requirements necessary for to ensure compliance with this SMP. 25

2.4 Permit Process

2.4.1 Permits Required 1. Any person wishing to undertake activities requiring a substantial development or exempt

development on shorelines shall apply to the Shoreline Administrator for an appropriate shoreline permit or statement of exemption. 30

2. All non-exempt activities proposed within the jurisdiction of the SMA, Chapter 90.58 RCW, and this SMP shall first obtain a Shoreline Permit (Shoreline Substantial Developments Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, or Shoreline Variances). No such activity shall be undertaken unless a permit has been obtained and the appeal period has been completed and any appeals


Attachment 1 6

have been resolved and/or the applicant has been given permission to proceed by the proper 35 authority.

2.4.2 Application Contents 1. Proposed exempt developments shall submit an application on forms prepared by the

Administrator together with such information necessary to determine consistency with Section 2.4 of this SMP. 40

2. Proposed nonexempt development shall submit a Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) to the City along with the following: a. Complete site plan, including parcel boundary, OHWM, a general indication of the character

of vegetation found on the site, and dimensions and locations of all existing and proposed structures and improvements. 45

i. The OHWM may be an approximate location, provided that, for any development where a determination of consistency with the applicable regulations requires a precise location of the OHWM, the mark shall be located precisely with assistance from Ecology and City staff, or a qualified professional, and the biological and hydrological basis for the location shall be included in the development plan. Where 50 the OHWM is neither adjacent to or within the boundary of the project, the plan shall indicate the distance and direction to the nearest OHWM of a shoreline.

b. A narrative describing the proposal in detail including how the proposal is consistent with this SMP

c. Identification of all critical areas on the subject property. 55 d. Maps and drawings. e. Project and construction details, including grading and (re)vegetation plans. f. Proposed mitigation for unavoidable impacts, if necessary. g. Technical assessments prepared by a qualified professional. The City may require the

applicant to submit a technical assessment addressing how the proposal incorporates the 60 most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available. The technical assessment shall be adequate for the Shoreline Administrator to evaluate the development proposal and all probable adverse impacts to critical areas regulated by this SMP. If adequate factual information exists to facilitate such evaluation, the Shoreline Administrator may determine that a technical assessment is not necessary. The Shoreline 65 Administrator will advise the applicant of existing technical information that may be pertinent to their property. Technical assessments shall be attached to the development permit application package.

h. Fish and wildlife management plan, if applicable. i. If the proposal will require a shoreline variance permit, the applicant's plans shall clearly 70

indicate where development could occur without approval of a variance, the physical features and circumstances on the property that provide a basis for the request, and the location of adjacent structures and uses.

j. If it is determined that the information presented is not sufficient to adequately evaluate a proposal, the Shoreline Administrator shall notify the applicant that additional studies as 75 specified herein shall be provided.


Attachment 1 7

2.4.2 Application Review & Processing 1. Upon the review of materials submitted by an applicant, the Shoreline Administrator can, at that

person’s discretion, require peer review to be completed by a consultant chosen by the Shoreline Administrator, at the sole expense of the applicant. 80

2. The Shoreline Administrator shall review the information submitted by the applicant and, after an optional site visit shall determine the category of project proposed according to SMC 18.08.100.

3. Applications shall be processed according to the timelines and notice procedures listed in SMC 18.08.100 through SMC 18.08.190, the review criteria of this chapter, and WAC 173-27. 85

2.5 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permits

2.5.1 Exemptions –Interpretation & Guidelines Certain developments activities are exempt from securing a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP). The following guidelines shall assist in determining whether or not a proposed development, use, or activity is exempt: 90 1. Exemptions—as required by State law—shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments

that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions in WAC 173-27-040 may be granted a Statement of Exemption (SoE) from the SSDP process.

2. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a SSDP is required for the entire proposed development project, per WAC 173-27-040(1)(d). 95

3. A development or use that is listed as a conditional use pursuant to this SMP or is an unlisted use, must obtain a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (SCUP) even if the development or use is exempt from a SSDP.

4. When a development or use is proposed that does not comply with the bulk, dimension and performance standards of this SMP, such development or use can only be authorized by 100 approval of a Shoreline Variance (SVAR).

5. An exemption from the SSDP process is not an exemption from compliance the SMA (RCW 90.58), this SMP, or from any other regulatory requirements. To be authorized, all uses and developments must be consistent with the policies and provisions of this SMP and the SMA. Exemptions must still comply with no net loss of ecological functions, which may require 105 mitigation even though the development activity is exempt.

6. The following list outlines common exemptions that shall not be considered substantial developments for the purpose of this SMP. This list of exemptions is further articulated and supplemented by provisions of WAC 173-27-040, as amended. a. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, is below 110

the threshold established by the SMA and any amendments to the SMA, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shoreline. The substantial development dollar threshold applicable on the adoption date of this SMP is $7,047. Under current law, the dollar threshold will be recalculated by the Office of Financial Management (OFM) every five years beginning on July 1st, 2007. OFM will post updated 115 dollar thresholds in the Washington State Register. See RCW 90.58.030(3)(e). The State Legislature may change the dollar threshold at any time.


Attachment 1 8

b. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire, or elements, when all of the conditions identified in WAC 173-27-040(2)(b) apply. 120

c. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An “emergency” is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with the SMA or this SMP. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. 125

d. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys. e. Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single-family

residence for their own use or for the use of their family. f. Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the

private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single-family and 130 multiple-family residences. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities or other appurtenances. This exemption applies if the fair market value of the dock does not exceed the threshold established by the SMA, as amended.

g. Any project with certification from the Governor pursuant to Chapter 80.50 RCW. 135 h. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an

application for development authorization when all of the conditions identified in WAC 173-27-040(2)(m) apply.

i. The process of removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds when all of the conditions identified in RCW 17.26.020 apply. 140

j. Watershed restoration projects when all of the conditions identified in WAC 173-27-040(2)(o) apply.

k. A public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the conditions identified in WAC 173-27-040(2)(p) apply.

2.5.2 Statement of Exemption Process 145 1. The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt from the need to obtain a SSDP is on

the applicant. 2. All exempt activities, except for emergency development pursuant to WAC 173-27-040(2)(d),

requires that a SoE be issued by the Shoreline Administrator, including a USACE Section 10 permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, or a Section 404 permit under the Federal 150 Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.

3. At a minimum, applicants for a SoE shall provide a letter stating the applicable exemption under WAC 173-27-040, describe why development proposed by the applicant qualifies for an exemption, and include a statement of compliance with applicable sections of this SMP. Information shall be provided that is sufficient for the Shoreline Administrator to determine if the 155 proposal will comply with the requirements of this SMP which, if necessary, may include project site plan graphics, building elevation drawings, or special studies showing how the project meets applicable sections of this SMP.

4. A SoE may be conditioned to assure consistency of the project with the SMA and this SMP.


Attachment 1 9

5. A notice of SoE shall be provided to the applicant and any party of record. Such notices shall 160 also be filed with Ecology, pursuant to the requirements of WAC 173-27-050.

6. The same measures used to calculate time periods for shoreline permits as set forth in WAC 173-27-040(4) shall be used for SoEs.

7. A denial of an exemption shall be in writing and shall identify the reason(s) for the denial. The Shoreline Administrator’s decision on a SoE is not subject to administrative appeal. 165

2.6 Shoreline Substantial Development Permits

2.6.1 Shoreline Substantial Development Permits – Purpose – Applicability – Criteria The purpose of a shoreline substantial development permit (SSDP) is to assure consistency with the provisions of the SMA and this SMP. In authorizing a SSDP, the City may attach conditions to the approval as necessary to assure the project is consistent with all applicable standards of the SMA and 170 this SMP. The following criteria shall assist in reviewing proposed SSDPs: 1. SSDPs may not be used to authorize any use that is listed as conditional or prohibited in a

shoreline designation. 2. SSDPs may not be used to authorize any development and/or use which does not conform to

the specific bulk, dimensional, and performance standards set forth in this SMP. 175 3. SSDPs may be used to authorize uses which are listed or set forth in this SMP as permitted uses. 4. To obtain a SSDP, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with all of the following review

criteria as listed in WAC 173.27.150: a. That the proposal is consistent with the SMA; b. That the proposal is consistent with WAC 173-27 – Shoreline Management Permit and 180

Enforcement Procedures; and c. That the proposal is consistent with this SMP and SMC 18.08 – Shoreline Management.

2.6.2 Substantial Development Permits – Permit Process Proposals for SSDPs are subject to the City’s permit procedures articulated in SMC 18.08 – Shoreline Management and the State’s permit procedures articulated in WAC 173-27 – Shoreline Management 185 Permit and Enforcement Procedures.

2.7 Shoreline Conditional Use Permits

2.7.1 Conditional Use Permits – Purpose – Applicability – Criteria The purpose of a shoreline conditional use permit (SCUP) is to provide a system within the SMP which allows flexibility in the application of use regulations in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 190 90.58.020. In authorizing a SCUP, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the City or by Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or to assure consistency of the project with the SMA and this SMP. The following criteria shall assist in reviewing proposed SCUPs: 1. SCUPs may not be used to authorize a use that is specifically prohibited in a shoreline

designation. 195 2. SCUPs may be used to authorize uses which are listed or set forth in this SMP as conditional

uses. SCUPs may be used to authorize uses which are unlisted or set forth in this SMP provided


Attachment 1 10

the applicant can demonstrate consistency with the requirements of this section and WAC 173-27-160.

3. In the granting of all SCUPs, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional 200 requests for like actions in the area. For example if SCUPs were granted to 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 cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.

4. To obtain a SCUP, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with all of the following review 205 criteria as listed in WAC 173-27-160: a. That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and this SMP; b. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; c. 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 210 Plan and this SMP;

d. That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and

e. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.

2.7.2 Conditional Use Permits – Permit Process 215 Proposals for SCUPs are subject to the City’s permit procedures articulated in SMC 18.08 – Shoreline Management and the State’s permit procedures articulated in WAC 173-27 – Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures.

2.8 Shoreline Variances

2.8.1 Variances – Purpose – Applicability – Criteria 220 The purpose of a shoreline variance (SVAR) is strictly limited to granting relief to specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this SMP where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of this SMP would impose unnecessary hardship on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in the SMA. The following criteria shall assist in reviewing proposed SVARs: 225 1. SVARs to the use regulations of this SMP are prohibited. 2. SVARs should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting

of the policies set forth 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 detrimental effect. 230

3. In the granting of all SVARs, 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. 235

4. To obtain a SVAR for development and/or uses landward of the OHWM or wetland, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the following review criteria as listed in WAC 173-27-170:


Attachment 1 11

a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this SMP precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property;

b. That the hardship described in (a) above is specifically related to the property, and is the 240 result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of this 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 this SMP and will not 245 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. 250

5. To obtain a SVAR for development and/or uses waterward of the OHWM or within any wetland, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the following review criteria as listed in WAC 173-27-170: a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this

SMP precludes all reasonable use of the property; 255 b. That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established in 4(b) through (f) above; and c. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected.

2.8.2 Variances – Permit Process Proposals for SVARs are subject to the City’s permit procedures articulated in SMC 18.08 – Shoreline Management and the State’s permit procedures articulated in WAC 173-27 – Shoreline Management 260 Permit and Enforcement Procedures.

2.9 Nonconforming Use & Development

2.9.1 Nonconforming Use & Development – Purpose – Applicability – Criteria The purpose of nonconforming use and development provisions is to recognize uses and development that have previously been established within shoreline jurisdiction. Where those uses & development 265 were lawfully established according to the standards in place prior to the effective date of this SMP, these provisions are intended to allow the use or development to continue— or be “grandfathered”—until a later date when conformity to this SMP can be achieved. The following policies shall assist in reviewing proposals involving nonconforming use and/or development: 1. “Nonconforming Use or Development” means a shoreline use or development which was lawfully 270

constructed or established prior to the effective date of the SMA or this SMP, or amendments thereto, but which does not now conform to the use and development standards contained in this SMP.

2. Nonconforming uses and development on Stevenson’s shorelines shall meet the standards of the City of Stevenson Zoning Code, SMC 17.44 – Nonconforming Uses, with the following 275 exceptions: a. A building or structure conforming as to use but nonconforming as to the shoreline setback,

critical area buffer, and/or height provisions of the environment designation in which said


Attachment 1 12

building or structure is located may be altered, repaired, or extended, provided, that the alteration does not further exceed or violate the appropriate shoreline setback, critical area 280 buffer, and height provisions. (For example, a building or structure encroaching in a shoreline setback area shall not further encroach into the shoreline setback area as a result of the alteration.)

b. For the purposes of this SMP, any strengthening or restoring to a safe condition permitted under SMC 17.44.090(B) shall not further exceed or violate the appropriate shoreline bulk or 285 dimensional standards of this SMP.

c. Proposed appurtenant, accessory uses and structures to nonconforming dwelling units must conform to all applicable requirements of this SMP.

d. A use which is listed as a conditional use but which existed prior to adoption of this SMP or any relevant amendment and for which a shoreline conditional use permit (SCUP) has not 290 been obtained shall be considered a nonconforming use.

e. A structure for which a shoreline variance (SVAR) has been issued shall be considered a legal nonconforming structurer and the requirements of this section shall apply as they apply to preexisting nonconformities.

f. A structure that is being or has been used for a nonconforming use may be used for a 295 different nonconforming use only upon the approval of a SCUP. A SCUP may be approved only upon a finding that:

i. No reasonable alternative conforming use is practical; and ii. The proposed use will be at least as consistent with the policies and provisions of the

SMA and this SMP and as compatible with the uses in the area as the preexisting 300 use.

In addition, conditions may be attached to the SCUP as are deemed necessary to assure compliance with the above findings, the requirements of this SMP and the SMA and to assure that the use will not become a nuisance or a hazard.

g. A nonconforming structure which is moved any distance must be brought into conformance 305 with this SMP and the SMA unless a SVAR is approved.

h. For the purposes of this SMP, SMC 17.44.100 applies; provided, that application is made for the permits necessary to restore the structure within one year of the date the damage occurred and all permits are obtained, and that the restoration is completed within 2 years of permit issuance. 310

i. An undeveloped lot, tract, parcel, site, or division of land located landward of the OHWM which was established in accordance with local and state subdivision requirements prior to the effective date of the SMA or this SMP, but which does not conform to the present lot size standards in the SMC may be developed, only if:

i. The proposed development is permitted by other City land use regulations; and 315 ii. The proposed development conforms to all other requirements of this SMP and the

SMA. iii. The proposed development conforms to the Critical Areas regulations applicable to

lots of record in SMC 18.13.085. 320


Attachment 1 13

2.10 Shoreline Permit Revisions 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 325 which are not substantive in effect do not require approval of a revision. When a revision of a Shoreline Permit is sought, the applicant shall submit detailed plans and text describing the proposed changes and must demonstrate compliance with the following guidelines and standards as articulated in WAC 173-27-100: 1. If the City determines that the proposed changes are within the scope and intent of the original 330

permit, and are consistent with this SMP and the SMA, the City may approve a revision. 2. “Within the scope and intent of the original permit” means all of the following:

a. No additional over water construction is involved except that pier, dock, or float construction may be increased by 500 square feet or 10% from the provisions of the original permit, whichever is less; 335

b. Ground area coverage and height may be increased a maximum of 10% from the provisions of the original permit;

c. 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 variance granted as the original permit or part thereof; 340

d. Additional revised landscaping is consistent with any conditions attached to the original permit and with this SMP;

e. The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and f. No adverse environmental impact will be caused by the project revision.

3. Revisions to permits that have already expired (RCW 90.58.143) may be allowed only if the 345 changes: a. Are consistent with this section; b. Would not otherwise require a shoreline permit per the SMA, WAC 173-27, or this SMP. If

the proposed change constitutes substantial development then a new permit is required; and c. The revision does not extend the time requirements of the original permit or authorize 350

substantial development beyond the time limits of the original permit. 4. If the revision, or the sum of the revision and any previously approved revisions, cannot satisfy all

the provisions itemized in subsection 2 of this section, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Shoreline Permit.

5. Revision approval, including revised site plans and text necessary to clearly indicate the 355 authorized changes and the final consistency ruling, shall be subject to the notice and filing procedures of SMC 18.08.190; provided, that the timelines stated in WAC 173-27-100 are to be followed in the event of any discrepancy.

6. The revised permit is effective immediately upon final decision by the City or, when appropriate, upon final action by Ecology. 360

7. Appeals to permit revisions shall be in accordance with SMC 18.08.200 and shall be based only upon contentions of noncompliance with the provisions of subsection 2 of this section. Construction undertaken pursuant to that portion of a revised permit not authorized under the


Attachment 1 14

original permit is at the applicant’s own risk until the expiration of the appeals deadline. If an appeal is successful in proving that a revision is not within the scope and intent of the original 365 permit, the decision shall have no bearing on the original permit.


Attachment 1 15

Chapter 3 – Goals & General Provisions

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Goals of the Stevenson Shoreline Master Program

3.3 Cultural Resources

3.3.1 Applicability 5 All sites which contain documented archaeological, cultural, and historic resources that are either recorded at the state historic preservation office and/or by Skamania County or have been discovered inadvertently during development are subject to the provisions of this section. In addition to complying with the provisions of this chapter, archaeological sites are subject to RCW Chapter 27.44 (Indian graves and records) and RCW Chapter 27.53 (Archaeological sites and records). Developments 10 or uses that may impact archaeological sites are subject to WAC Chapter 25-48.

3.3.2 Policies 1. Archaeological, cultural, or historic sites should be protected from the impacts of development

proposed within the shoreline due to the limited and irreplaceable nature of these resources 2. Protection of archaeological, cultural, and historic resources should occur in collaboration with 15

appropriate, tribal, state, federal and local governments. Cooperation among public and private parties is encouraged for the identification, protection and management of such resources.

3. Any proposed site development and/or associated site demolition work should be planned and carried out to avoid impacts to archaeological, cultural, and historic resources.

4. Owners of property containing previously identified archaeological, cultural, or historic sites are 20 encouraged to coordinate with the County and other appropriate agencies well before permit application. The intent is to allow these parties ample time to assess the site and make arrangements to preserve archaeological, cultural, and historic sites as applicable. These parties include the Yakama, Nez Perce, Warm Springs, Umatilla, and Cowlitz tribes, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), and others. 25

5. If development or demolition is proposed adjacent to an identified archaeological, cultural, or historic site, then the proposed development should be designed and operated to be compatible with continued protection of the archaeological, cultural, or historic resource.

3.3.3 Regulations 1. Site Inspections, Evaluations, and Surveys – Required When: 30

a. When a shoreline use or development is within 500 feet of an area documented to contain, or likely to contain, archaeological, cultural, or historic resources based on information from DAHP, or a prior archaeological report/survey, or based on a state or federal register , the applicant shall provide a site inspection and evaluation report prepared by a professional archaeologist prior to issuance of any shoreline permit or approval, including a shoreline 35 statement of exemption. Work may not begin until the inspection and evaluation have been completed, and the City has issued its permit or approval.


Attachment 1 16

b. An archaeological survey may be required to be conducted based on the recommendations of an archaeologist contained in the site inspection and evaluation report. Any archaeological survey shall conform to DAHP’s survey and reporting standards. 40

2. Cultural Resources Management Plan. If an archaeological site inspection or evaluation identifies the presence of significant archaeological, cultural, or historic resources that will be impacted by a project and if recommended by an archaeologist, a cultural resource management plan shall be prepared prior to the City’s approval of the project. A professional archaeologist and/or historic preservation management professional, as appropriate, shall prepare the cultural resource 45 management plan. Cultural resource management plans at a minimum shall conform to DAHP’s current standards. In addition, a permit or other requirement administered by DAHP pursuant to RCW 27.44 and RCW 27.53 may apply. If the archaeologist determines that impacts to an archaeological, cultural, or historic resource can be adequately avoided by establishing a work limit area within which no project work or ground disturbance may occur, then a cultural 50 resources management plan is not required.

3. Inadvertent discovery. If any item of possible archaeological interest (including human skeletal remains) is discovered on site during construction or site work, all the following steps shall occur: a. Stop all work in the immediate area (initially allowing for a 100’ buffer, this number may vary

by circumstance) immediately; 55 b. Implement reasonable measures to protect the discovery site, including any appropriate

stabilization or covering; c. Take reasonable steps to ensure the confidentiality of the discovery site; d. Take reasonable steps to restrict access to the site of discovery; e. Notify the City, DAHP, and Yakama, Nex Perce, Warm Springs, Umatilla, and Cowlitz tribes of 60

the discovery. f. A stop-work order will be issued. g. The shoreline permit will be temporarily suspended. h. All applicable state and federal permits shall be secured prior to commencement of the

activities they regulate and as a condition for resumption of development activities. 65 i. Development activities may resume only upon receipt of City approval. j. If the discovery includes human skeletal remains, the Skamania County Coroner and local law

enforcement shall be notified in the most expeditious manner possible. The County Coroner will assume jurisdiction over the site and the human skeletal remains, and will make a determination of whether they are crime-related. If they are not, DAHP will take jurisdiction 70 over the remains and report them to the appropriate parties. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Native American and report that finding to the affected parties. DAHP will handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains.


Attachment 1 17

3.4 Critical Areas 75

3.5 Environmental Protection & No Net Loss

3.6 Public Access

3.7 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation

3.8 Water Quality & Non-Point Source Pollution

3.9 Shorelines of Statewide Significance 80

3.10 Economic Development


Attachment 1 18

Chapter 4 – Shoreline Environment Designation Provisions

4.1 Introduction The state SMP guidelines require that Shoreline Environment Designations be assigned to shoreline areas according to their function, existing land uses, and the goals and aspirations of the community. For those unfamiliar with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), a Shoreline Environment Designation 5 (SED) is similar to the more common concept of a zoning district. Consistent with the City’s requirements under the SMA, this chapter provides a system SEDs which mirror those outlined in the SMP guidelines and overlay other zoning district requirements. The locations of the City’s SEDs are depicted on the map of shoreline jurisdiction and environment designations in Appendix A.

4.2 Environment Designations 10

4.2.1 Aquatic Environment 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Aquatic Environment is to protect, restore, and manage the unique

characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM). 2. Location Criteria:

a. The Aquatic SED may only apply to lands waterward of the OHWM. 15 b. The Aquatic SED may apply independently or in conjunction with the SED applied to

adjacent shorelands. 3. Management Policies:

a. Allow new overwater structures only for water-dependent uses, public access, or ecological restoration. 20

b. Limit the size of new overwater structures to the minimum necessary to support the structure’s intended use.

c. Encourage multiple use of overwater facilities to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources.

d. Locate and design all developments and uses on navigable waters or their beds to i) 25 minimize interference with surface navigation, ii) consider impacts to public views, iii) allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration.

e. Limit uses that adversely impact the ecological functions of critical freshwater habitats, except where necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, and then only when 30 their impacts are mitigated according to the sequence described in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) as necessary to assure no net loss of ecological functions.

f. Design and manage shoreline uses and modifications to prevent degradation of water quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions.

g. Reserve shoreline space for preferred uses. Such planning should consider upland and in-35 water uses, water quality, navigation, presence of aquatic vegetation, existing shellfish protection districts and critical habitats, aesthetics, public access and views.


Attachment 1 19

4.2.2 Natural Environment 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Natural Environment is to protect those shoreline areas that are

relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline 40 funcitons intolerate of human use. These systems require that only very low intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. Consistent with the policies of this designation, the City should include planning for restoration of degraded shorelines within this environment.

2. Location Criteria: 45 a. The Natural SED may apply to shorelands that:

i. Are ecologically intact and therefore currently performing an important, irreplaceable function or ecosystem-wide process that would be damaged by human activity;

ii. Is considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of particular 50 scientific and educational interest; or

iii. Is unable to support new development or uses without significant adverse impacts to ecological functions or risk to human safety.

iv. Such shoreline areas include largely undisturbed portions of shoreline areas such as wetlands, unstable bluffs, and ecologically intact shoreline habitats. 55

v. As used in this section, Ecologically Intact Shorelines means those shoreline areas that retain the majority of their natural shoreline functions, as evidenced by the shoreline configuration and the presence of native vegetation. Generally, but not necessarily, ecologically intact shorelines are free of structural shoreline modifications, structures, and intensive human uses. In forested areas, they generally 60 include native vegetation with diverse plant communities, multiple canopy layers, and the presence of large woody debris available for recruitment to adjacent water bodies. Recognizing that there is a continuum of ecological conditions ranging from near natural conditions to totally degraded contaminated sites, this term is intended to delineate those shoreline areas that provide valuable functions for the larger 65 aquatic and terrestrial environments which could be lost or significantly reduced by human development. Whether or not a shoreline is ecologically intact is determined on a case-by-case basis, and the term may apply to all shoreline areas meeting the above criteria ranging from larger reaches that may include multiple properties to small areas located within a single property. 70

b. The Natural SED may not apply to shorelands with significant existing agricultural lands, except where the existing agricultural operations involve very low intensity uses where there is no significant impact on natural ecological functions, and where the intensity or impacts associated with such agriculture activities is unlikely to expand in a manner inconsistent with the Natural SED. 75

3. Management Policies: a. Prohibt any use that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural

character of the shoreline area. b. Prohibit the following new uses:

i. Commercial uses. 80


Attachment 1 20

ii. Industrial Uses. iii. Nonwater-oriented recreation. iv. Roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside of the Natural

SED. c. Prohibit new development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the capability 85

of vegetation to perform normal ecological functions. This includes subdivision of property in a configuration that, to achieve its intended purpose, will require significant vegetation removal or shoreline modification that adversely impacts ecological functions. That is, each new parcel must be able to support its intended development without significant ecological impacts to the shoreline ecological functions. 90

d. Allow single-family residential development as a conditional use when the density and intensity of such use is limited as necessary to protect ecological functions and consistent with the purpose of this SED.

e. Allow commercial forestry as a conditional use provided it meets the State Forest Practices Act and its implementing rules and is conducted in a manner consisten with the purpose of 95 this SED.

f. Allow agricultural uses of a very low intensity nature consistent with this SED when such use is subject to appropriate limitations or conditions to assure that the use does not expand or alter practices in a manner inconsistent with the purpose of this SED.

g. Allow scientific, historical, cultural, educational research uses, and low-intensity water-100 oriented recreational access uses provided that no significant ecological impact on the area will result.

4.2.3 Rural Conservancy Environment

4.2.4 Shoreline Residential Environment 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Shoreline Residential Environment is to accommodate residential 105

development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this WAC 173-26. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.

2. Location Criteria: The Shoreline Residential SED may apply to shorelands that have predominantly single-family or multi-family residential development or are planned and platted for residential development. 110

3. Management Policies: a. Set standards for density or minimum frontage width, setbacks, lot coverage limitations,

buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality shall be set to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of 115 infrastructure and services available, and other comprehensive planning considerations.

b. Require multifamily and multilot residential and recreational developments to provide public access and joint use for community recreational facilities.

c. Ensure access, utilities, and public services are available to serve existing needs and/or planned future development. 120

d. Limit commercial development to water-oriented uses.


Attachment 1 21

4.2.5 Urban Conservancy

4.2.6 Urban Environment 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Natural Environment is accommodate water-oriented commercial,

transportation, recreation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions of 125 open space and other sensitive lands and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded.

2. Location Criteria: The Urban SED may apply to shorelands that are appropriate and planned for commercial, transportation, recreation, and industrial development that is compatible with maintaining or restoring of the ecological functions of the area. 130

3. Management Policies: a. Prefer uses that preserve the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open

spaces and sensitive lands, either direction or over the long term. Allow uses that result in restoration of ecological functions if the use is otherwise compatible with the purpose of the environment and the setting. 135

b. Give priority to water-oriented uses when regulating uses in the Urban SED. For shoreline areas adjacent to commercially navigable waters, give highest priority to water-dependent uses.

c. Prohibit nonwater-oriented uses, except: i. As part of mixed use development; 140 ii. In limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water-

oriented uses; iii. On sites where there is no direct access to the shoreline; iv. As part of a proposal that result in a disproportionately high amount of restoration

of ecological functions. 145 d. Assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions as a result of new development through

shoreline policies and regulations. Where applicable, new development shall include environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline to comply in accordance with any relevant state and federal law.

e. Require public visual and physical access and implement public recreation objectives 150 whenever feasible and where significant ecological impacts can be mitigated.

4.2.6 High Intensity Environment

4.3 Boundary Interpretation 1. If disagreement develops as to the exact location of the boundary line of a Shoreline

Environment Designation (SED) that is shown on the map in Appendix A, the following rules shall 155 apply: a. Boundaries indicated as approximately following lot, tract, or section lines shall be so

construed. b. Boundaries indicated as approximately following streets, alleys, or railways shall be

respectively construed to follow the right-of-way centerlines. 160 c. Boundaries indicated as approximately parallel to or extensions of features indicated in a) or

b) above shall be so construed.


Attachment 1 22

2. Whenever existing physical features (including stream centerlines) are inconsistent with the boundaires on the Shoreline Environment Designation Map, the Shoreline Administrator shall interpret the boundaries with deference to actual conditions. 165

3. In the event of a mapping error, the City will rely upon common boundary descriptions and the criteria contained in RCW 90.58.030(2) and chapter 173-22 WAC pertaining to determinations of shorelands, as amended, ranter than the incorrect or outdated map.

4. Where a SED boundary linedivides a lot in single ownership at the effective date of this SMP and any amendment thereto, the use permited on the least restrictive protion of such lot may extend 170 to the portion lying in the more restrictive SED a distance of not more than 50 feet beyond the district boundary line.

5. If disagreement remains after applying the preceding rules, the City shall interpret the boundary during review of the underlying application.


Attachment 1 23

Chapter 5 – Shoreline Use Regulations

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Provisions Applicable to All Uses

5.3 Specific Shoreline Use Policies & Provisions


Attachment 1 24

Chapter 6 – Shoreline Modification Provisions

6.1 General Provisions for Shoreline Modifications

6.2 Shoreline Modifications Table

6.3 Specific Shoreline Modification Provisions


Attachment 1 25

Chapter 7 – Definitions


Attachment 1 26

Appendix A – Shoreline Environment Designation Map

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

b. Structure Height. There shall be a 35-foot maximum building height for allstructures, except the following: water-dependent industry in the High Intensityenvironment shall have a height limit of 100 feet and water-related industrialuses in the High Intensity environment shall have a height limit of up to 50 feet.Other structures such as transmission towers and lines, masts, aerials, temporarylogging equipment, flagpoles, and buildings and structures for livestock, farm,and agriculture purposes, such as barns, silos, and horse arenas shall have aheight limit of 100 feet in any environment designation. Other than theexceptions stated above, for a building or structure to exceed 35 feet, theproponent must apply for a shoreline variance, and comply with the followingcriteria in addition to the standard shoreline variance criteria:

5. Demonstrate that overriding considerations of the public interest will be served, and

6. Demonstrate that the proposal will not obstruct the view of a substantial number ofresidences on areas adjoining such shorelines.

5.3 Shoreline Use Policies and Provisions Table 5-1 indicates which shoreline activities, uses, and developments may be allowed or are prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction within each Shoreline Environment Designation. The table also lists the shoreline setbacks applicable to use, activity, or development categories within each environment designation. Height limits are provided at the top of table. More specific information, further explanation, and exceptions are provided in the footnotes to the table. Where there is a discrepancy between this table and the text of the SMP, the text shall take precedence.

Table 5.1. Shoreline Use and Standards

Proposed Shoreline Uses

Shoreline Environment Designations

Aquatic Natural Rural Conservancy

Shoreline Residential High Intensity

Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

1

(ft)

Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

1

(ft)

Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

1

(ft)

Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

(ft

)

Hig

h In

tens

ity

Setb

acks

(ft

)

Agriculture X N/A X N/A P 150 X N/A X N/A

Aquaculture Water-oriented P N/A C 0 P 0 X N/A P 0 Non-water-oriented

X N/A P 50 P 50 P 50 P 50

Attachment 2 1





Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

1

(ft)

Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

1

(ft)

Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

1

(ft)

Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

(ft

)

Hig

h In

tens

ity

Setb

acks

(ft

)

Boating Facilities and Overwater Structures Residential Docks (serving four or fewer residences)

See

adja

cent

upl

and

envi

ronm

ent

N/A X N/A C N/A P N/A P N/A

Community/Joint Use Piers and Docks

X C P P

Non-residential Piers and Docks

X C C P

Floats X C C P Non-motorized boat/kayak launches

C P P P

Motorized boat launches

X C C P

Marinas X C C P Commercial

Water-dependent C N/A X N/A C 0 C 0 P 0 Water-related, water-enjoyment

C3 N/A X N/A C 150 C 75 P 50

Non-water-oriented

X N/A X N/A C 150 X N/A C 100

Forest Practices Roads X N/A C 150 P 150 C 100 X N/A Stream Crossings C N/A C 0 C 0 C 0 X N/A Log storage4 C N/A C 150 P 150 C 100 N/A Temporary structures associated with forestry practices

X N/A C 150 P 150 C X N/A

Industrial and Port Water-dependent P N/A X N/A P 0 C5 100 P 0 Water-related X N/A X P 150’ C5 P 50 Non-water-oriented

X X X N/A X P 100

Attachment 2 2





Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

1

(ft)

Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

1

(ft)

Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

1

(ft)

Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

(ft

)

Hig

h In

tens

ity

Setb

acks

(ft

)

Institutional Water-dependent C N/A X N/A C 0 X N/A P 0 Water-related X N/A X C 100 X P 100 Non-water-oriented

X X C 150 X C 100’

Instream Structures Hydroelectric Facilities/Dams

P N/A C 0 P 0 X 0 P 0

All other in-stream structures

C N/A C 0 C O C O C 0

P = Permitted, C = Conditional, X = Not Permitted N/A = Not Applicable Mining

Gravel Mining C N/A X N/A C 200 X N/A C 200 Hard Rock Mining X N/A X C 150 X C 100

Recreational Water-dependent P N/A P 0 P 0 P 0 P 0 Water-related/water-enjoyment (

X N/A C 150 P 100 P 50 P 50

Trails Parallel to the Shoreline, view platforms

X N/A P 50 P 50 P 50 P 50

Dirt or gravel public Access Trails to the Water

X N/A P 0 P 0 P 0 P O

Non-water-oriented (golf courses, sports fields)

X N/A X N/A C 150 C 100 C 100

Residential Single-family6 X N/A X N/A P 150 P 60 X N/A Multi-family X X X N/A C 100 P 50 Floating homes & Floating On-water Residences

X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Attachment 2 3





Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

1

(ft)

Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

1

(ft)

Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

1

(ft)

Allo

wan

ce

Setb

acks

(ft

)

Hig

h In

tens

ity

Setb

acks

(ft

)

Shoreline Restoration/Enhancement P N/A P 0 P 0 P 0 P 0

Transportation and Parking Facilities: Highways/Arterial roads7

C N/A X N/A C 150 P 150 P 100

Access roads X N/A C8 175 P 100 P 50 P 50 Collector roads X N/A C8 200 P 150 P 125 P 75 Private roads X N/A C 75 P 50 P 50 P 25 P = Permitted, C = Conditional, X = Not Permitted N/A = Not Applicable Bridges 9 C N/A C 0 P 0 P 0 P 0 Railroads10 X N/A X N/A C 150 X N/A P 100 Airports X N/A X N/A C 150 X P 100 Primary parking facilities

X N/A X N/A X N/A X N/A X N/A

Accessory (on-site parking serving a use)

X X P 150 P 100 P 50

Utilities: Production and Processing Facilities Water-oriented P N/A X 0 P 0 P 0 P 0 Transmission Facilities Non-water-oriented (Parallel)

X N/A C 175 C 150 P 50 P 35

Non-water-oriented (Perpendicular)

C N/A C 0 P 0 P 0 P 0

Water-oriented P N/A C 0 P 0 P 0 P 0

5.3.1 Agriculture

Few areas of agricultural use occur on County shorelines. The only areas of shoreline jurisdiction that contain existing agricultural uses are adjacent to Franz Lake in south Skamania County and to the Wind River in central Skamania County.

Applicability In accordance with the provisions of WAC 173-26-241(3)(a)(ii), this SMP should not modify or limit ongoing agricultural activities occurring on agricultural lands. The

Attachment 2 4

provisions of this section apply to new agricultural uses proposed on land not currently used for agricultural purposes and to conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural purposes. A change to a different agricultural crop for an ongoing operation does not constitute a conversion to a new use.

Policies 1. Appropriate vegetation management and BMPs as recommended by the USDA-

NRCS should be used to avoid and minimize water quality impacts from agricultural practices.

2. New agricultural use and development should preserve and maintain native vegetation or other soil erosion control measures between tilled lands and adjacent water bodies within setback areas specified by this SMP.

3. New confinement feed lots, feeding operations, lot wastes, manure storage or stockpiles, manure application should not occur within shoreline setback areas and should use BMPs.

4. New and existing agricultural owners/operators are encouraged to implement BMPs in runoff controls and animal watering stations.

Regulations 1. New agricultural uses shall meet setback standards as specified in this SMP. Existing

native vegetation within the setback area shall be preserved in compliance with section the policies and regulations in section 3.7 of this SMP.

2. Fencing shall be used to prevent animals from damaging vegetation, stream slopes, and other sensitive natural features in the shoreline setback area.

3. Stock watering facilities shall be provided so that livestock do not need to access streams or lakes for drinking water.

4. Newly proposed confinement lots, feeding operations, lots wastes, manure storage or stockpiles, and storage of noxious chemicals shall submit a site plan that indicates:

a. Location of all existing and proposed uses including confinement lots, feeding operations, lot wastes, manure storage, chemical storage, fencing, and runoff storage ponds within proximity to the shoreline and waterbodies;

b. Maximum number and type of livestock to be kept on the site;

c. Existing and proposed contour of the land and topographic features;

d. Groundwater profiles, streams and drainage ways;

e. Soil types;

f. Waste disposal facilities, including site runoff storage ponds, location of manure stockpiles, holding tanks and ponds, and ultimate manure disposal sites;

g. Fencing for control of animals;

Attachment 2 5

h. Other use areas, such as feed storage, animal movement routes, and animal pens.

5. New agricultural uses, including the conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural use, must be consistent with the environment designations in which they are located, be located and designed to assure no net loss of ecological functions and not have a significant adverse impacts on other shoreline resources and values.

6. New agricultural uses shall implement stormwater and agricultural runoff control BMPs consistent with Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2014 or as amended).

5.3.2 Aquaculture Several aquaculture facilities exist on Skamania County’s shorelines. Two fish hatcheries are operated by the WDFW and both are located in the Washougal watershed. In addition, national fish hatcheries are located along the Wind River, the Little White Salmon River, and the Columbia River.

Applicability The following provisions apply to the culture or farming of fish or aquatic plants within shoreline waterbodies in Skamania County.

Upland finfish rearing facilities as defined in Chapter 7 of this document meet the definition of “agricultural activities.” Nevertheless, these facilities are regulated by the provisions of this section and not section 5.3.2.

Policies 1. Aquaculture is a preferred, water-dependent use. When consistent with control of

pollution and prevention of damage to the environment, aquaculture is a preferred use of the water area.

2. Applicants for new, expanded, or modified aquaculture facilities should provide information on local ecological conditions. The County should evaluate this information to provide limits and conditions to assure appropriate compatible types of aquaculture for the local conditions as necessary to assure no net loss of ecological functions.

3. The selection of potential locations for aquaculture facilities should take into account specific requirements for water quality, temperature, flows, oxygen content, and adjacent land uses, wind protection, and commercial navigation.

4. Aquaculture should not be permitted in areas where it would result in a net loss of ecological functions or significantly conflict with navigation and other water-dependent uses.

5. Aquaculture facilities should be designed and located so that they do not spread disease to native aquatic life, establish new nonnative species which cause significant ecological impacts, or impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline significantly. Because the technology associated with some forms of aquaculture is undergoing

Attachment 2 6

Attachment 3 Page 1 of 4

AQUATIC Purpose

The purpose of the Aquatic Environment is to protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM).

Location Criteria

1. The Aquatic SED may only apply to lands waterward of the OHWM. 2. The Aquatic SED may apply independently or in conjunction with the SED applied to

adjacent shorelands. Management Policies

1. Allow new overwater structures only for water-dependent uses, public access, or ecological restoration.

2. Limit the size of new overwater structures to the minimum necessary to support the structure’s intended use.

3. Encourage multiple use of overwater facilities to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources.

4. Locate and design all developments and uses on navigable waters or their beds to i) minimize interference with surface navigation, ii) consider impacts to public views, iii) allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration.

5. Limit uses that adversely impact the ecological functions of critical freshwater habitats, except where necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, and then only when their impacts are mitigated according to the sequence described in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) as necessary to assure no net loss of ecological functions.

6. Design and manage shoreline uses and modifications to prevent degradation of water quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions.

7. Reserve shoreline space for preferred uses. Such planning should consider upland and in-water uses, water quality, navigation, presence of aquatic vegetation, existing shellfish protection districts and critical habitats, aesthetics, public access and views.


NATURAL Purpose

The purpose of the Natural Environment is to protect those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline funcitons intolerate of human use. These systems require that only very low intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. Consistent with the policies of this designation, the City should include planning for restoration of degraded shorelines within this environment.

Location Criteria

1. The Natural SED may apply to shorelands that: a. Are ecologically intact and therefore currently performing an important, irreplaceable

function or ecosystem-wide process that would be damaged by human activity; b. Is considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of particular scientific

and educational interest; or c. Is unable to support new development or uses without significant adverse impacts to

ecological functions or risk to human safety. d. Such shoreline areas include largely undisturbed portions of shoreline areas such as

wetlands, unstable bluffs, and ecologically intact shoreline habitats. e. As used in this section, Ecologically Intact Shorelines means those shoreline areas that

retain the majority of their natural shoreline functions, as evidenced by the shoreline configuration and the presence of native vegetation. Generally, but not necessarily, ecologically intact shorelines are free of structural shoreline modifications, structures, and intensive human uses. In forested areas, they generally include native vegetation with diverse plant communities, multiple canopy layers, and the presence of large woody debris available for recruitment to adjacent water bodies. Recognizing that there is a continuum of ecological conditions ranging from near natural conditions to totally degraded contaminated sites, this term is intended to delineate those shoreline areas that provide valuable functions for the larger aquatic and terrestrial environments which could be lost or significantly reduced by human development. Whether or not a shoreline is ecologically intact is determined on a case-by-case basis, and the term may apply to all shoreline areas meeting the above criteria ranging from larger reaches that may include multiple properties to small areas located within a single property.

2. The Natural SED may not apply to shorelands with significant existing agricultural lands, except where the existing agricultural operations involve very low intensity uses where there is no significant impact on natural ecological functions, and where the intensity or impacts associated with such agriculture activities is unlikely to expand in a manner inconsistent with the Natural SED.

Management Policies

1. Allow new overwater structures only for water-dependent uses, public access, or ecological restoration.

2. Limit the size of new overwater structures to the minimum necessary to support the structure’s intended use.

3. Encourage multiple use of overwater facilities to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources.

4. Locate and design all developments and uses on navigable waters or their beds to i) minimize interference with surface navigation, ii) consider impacts to public views, iii) allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration.

5. Limit uses that adversely impact the ecological functions of critical freshwater habitats, except where necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, and then only when their impacts are mitigated according to the sequence described in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) as necessary to assure no net loss of ecological functions.

6. Design and manage shoreline uses and modifications to prevent degradation of water quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions.

7. Reserve shoreline space for preferred uses. Such planning should consider upland and in-water uses, water quality, navigation, presence of aquatic vegetation, existing shellfish protection districts and critical habitats, aesthetics, public access and views.


SHORELINE RESIDENTIAL Purpose

The purpose of the Shoreline Residential Environment is to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this WAC 173-26. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.

Location Criteria

1. The Shoreline Residential SED may apply to shorelands that have predominantly single-family or multi-family residential development or are planned and platted for residential development.

Management Policies

1. Set standards for density or minimum frontage width, setbacks, lot coverage limitations, buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality shall be set to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and services available, and other comprehensive planning considerations.

2. Require multifamily and multilot residential and recreational developments to provide public access and joint use for community recreational facilities.

3. Ensure access, utilities, and public services are available to serve existing needs and/or planned future development.

4. Limit commercial development to water-oriented uses.


URBAN Purpose

The purpose of the Natural Environment is accommodate water-oriented commercial, transportation, recreation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions of open space and other sensitive lands and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded.

Location Criteria

1. The Urban SED may apply to shorelands that are appropriate and planned for commercial, transportation, recreation, and industrial development that is compatible with maintaining or restoring of the ecological functions of the area.

Management Policies

1. Prefer uses that preserve the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open spaces and sensitive lands, either direction or over the long term. Allow uses that result in restoration of ecological functions if the use is otherwise compatible with the purpose of the environment and the setting.

2. Give priority to water-oriented uses when regulating uses in the Urban SED. For shoreline areas adjacent to commercially navigable waters, give highest priority to water-dependent uses.

3. Prohibit nonwater-oriented uses, except: a. As part of mixed use development; b. In limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water-

oriented uses; c. On sites where there is no direct access to the shoreline; d. As part of a proposal that result in a disproportionately high amount of restoration of

ecological functions. 4. Assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions as a result of new development through

shoreline policies and regulations. Where applicable, new development shall include environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline to comply in accordance with any relevant state and federal law.

5. Require public visual and physical access and implement public recreation objectives whenever feasible and where significant ecological impacts can be mitigated.

Skamania County GIS; by R. Hollatz; 4/6/2015

CO LUMB IAR I V E R

Rock Cove

Rock Creek

Rock Creek

WASHINGTON

OREGON

Juristiction

Extends to

State Bndy

Rock

Cree

kD

rive

SR 14

Rock Creek DriveCascade Avenue

SR 14

Ryan Al le

nRo

ad

6

5

2 34

1

7

A

D

CB

E

FG

H I

J K

F

L E G E N D

!P

<< Skamania County& Stevenson

0 1,000200 400 600 800 Feet

Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on the map are approximate.They have not been formally delineated or surveyed and are intended forplanning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation may be neededto confirm or modify the information shown on this map. Shorelinejuristiction will be determined at time of project review using the bestavailable site-specific information.

$ 1 in = 875 ftRelative Scale:

1:10,500Absolute Scale:

L E G E N D

Armored

Not armored

DocksPiers

Quantities by type:Length % of Total

20,260 ft31,994 ft52,254 ft

39%61%

100%

ArmoredNot armoredTotal shoreline:

* Island is not within City Limits or the Urban Area.

3,851 ft 166,316 sq ftTotal:

Island dimensions:Perimeter Area

133 ft 731 ft 563 ft1010 ft 681 ft 127 ft 606 ft

1,098 sq ft 31,884 sq ft 20,520 sq ft 50,895 sq ft 32,395 sq ft 1,091 sq ft 28,433 sq ft

123456

7*

9,647 sq ftTotal:

Docks / Piers:Description AreaPrivateCommunalCommunalPrivateCommunalCommunalCommunalCommunalCommunal (seasonal)PrivatePrivate

1,100 sq ft 185 sq ft 787 sq ft1,395 sq ft3,491 sq ft

81 sq ft 81 sq ft

730 sq ft1,012 sq ft 615 sq ft 170 sq ft

ABCDEFGHIJK

Type

FIGURE 15:Armoring /Stabilization

Directions-.1-Take a moment to review therecommendations from the Inventory &Characterization Report, and the mapsabout existing land cover, existing landuse, and current zoning..2- Review the draft purpose, locationcriteria, and management policies of theAQUATIC, NATURAL, SHORELINERESIDENTIAL, and URBAN shorelineenvironments..3- Use your colored markers to highlightwhere you believe the 4 draft ShorelineEnvironment Designations should apply..4-Prepare to report to the full group onwhere and why you have applied certaindesignations. It may be useful to employthe PRES method during your report bydelivering your POINT, your REASON, anEXAMPLE, and a SUMMARY of yourproposal.

SHORELINEENVIRONMENTDESIGNATION

EXERCISE MAP

Attachment 4 1

City of Stevenson Shoreline Master Program Second Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report October 2017

Page 95

Table 6.0-1 – Reach Summary and Recommended Shoreline Environment Designations

Waterbody Reach

Factors Used to Recommend Designations Recommended Shoreline Environment Designations Existing Land Use Future Land Use Existing Zoning Ecological

Functions

1973 Shoreline Environment Designation

Columbia River

CR-1 East Urban Area (predesignated)

Public, Residential LIT, LDR CCO Poor (Very Poor to Good)

Urban Shoreline Residential (residential areas), Urban Conservancy (all other areas)

CR-2 Downtown Stevenson

Public, Commercial, HIT, LIT, HDR CO, ID, R3 Very Poor (Very Poor to Good)

Urban High Intensity (CO & ID areas), Shoreline Residential (R3 areas)

CR-3 West Urban Area (predesignated)

Public, Undeveloped, Resource

LIT, HIT ID, CR Very Poor(Very Poor to Poor)

Urban High Intensity (ID areas), Urban Conservancy (all other areas)

Rock Creek

RC-1 Lower Rock Creek & Upper w/i city

Public, Residential, Undeveloped LDR, HIT, LIT PR, SR, R3, CO Poor

(Very Poor to Fair) Natural, Conservancy, Urban

High Intensity (CO & PR areas), Natural (conservation covenant & hazard areas) Shoreline Residential (all other areas)

RC-2 Upper Rock Creek w/i county (predesignated)

Undeveloped,Residential, Public LDR, HIT R1 Excellent

(Fair to Excellent) Natural, Conservancy

Natural (Hazard areas), Shoreline Residential (all other areas)

Rock Cove Commercial, Undeveloped, Public

LIT PR, CR, SR, R3 Good (Poor to Good)

Urban High Intensity (CR areas), Shoreline Residential (R3 areas), Natural (islands)

Ashes Lake Undeveloped, Resource LIT CR, ID Very Poor

(Very Poor to Good) Conservancy Urban Conservancy

Key: Future Land Use Existing Zoning LDR-Low Density Residential HDR-High Density Residential SR-Suburban Residential R1-Single-Family Residential LIT-Low Intensity Trade HIT-High Intensity Trade PR-Public Use & Recreation CCO-Community Commercial

CR-Commercial Recreation CO-CommercialID-Manufacturing

Attachment 4 2

Skamania County GIS; by R. Hollatz; 4/6/2015

CO LUMB IAR I V E R

Rock Cove

Rock Creek

Rock Creek

WASHINGTON

OREGON

Juristiction

Extends to

State Bndy

Rock

Cree

kD

rive

SR 14

Rock Creek DriveCascade Avenue

SR 14

Ryan Al le

nRo

ad

F

Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on the map are approximate.They have not been formally delineated or surveyed and are intended forplanning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation may be neededto confirm or modify the information shown on this map. Shorelinejuristiction will be determined at time of project review using the bestavailable site-specific information.

$0 1,000200 400 600 800 Feet

1 in = 875 ftRelative Scale:


Heritage tree note:A review of WA Natural Heritage Programpublic GIS data (Feb, 2015) did not indicatethe presence of any heritage species in theshoreline juristiction area.

Approximate Location of OHWM

Landcover TypeForest

Shrub

Grass

NonVeg

Water

!P


L E G E N D

Quantities by type*:Acres % of Total89.725.039.549.8

43.9%12.3%19.4%24.4%

ForestShrubGrassNonVeg

Total:

Type

204.0 100.0%

* Water area is not included in the abovequantities and percentages. The totalacreage of water in the preliminaryjurisdiction area is 858.2 acres, which is80.8% of the total area.

FIGURE 2:

Land Cover

Attachment 4 3

O

LEAVENS

ST

KASPAR RD

CAMERO

N

LN

RD

THOMAS RD

EL PASO

HO

LLY

ST

VALH

ALLA

DR

KEVIEW

D

OA

KST

DUDRANCH RD

BOUNTYWAY

CH

ER

ILN

KUSKIE ST

JEAN RD

CARRICK RD

FRE

ED

OM

CO

UR

T

LUCASST

LOTZRD

WA

CH

TER

D E

XT

COLUMBIA

AVE

LEAVENS ST

MARKSRD

COLUMBIA AVE

CR

EW

SR

D

JAYDEN

LN

FIR STWHITERD

GROPPER RD

DE

LBR

IDG

ER

D

DEL-REY

AVE

WIN

DS

ON

GC

OU

RT

ELIZABETH

REDBLUFF RD

SPRU

CE

ST

IMPA

LADR

STILLCOVE LN

PIN

E S

T

JORDAN ST

GRAYRD

HOM

EWARD

ST

COLUMBIAVIEW AVE

ARM

STRONG

RD

SEYMOUR

ST

VISTA DR

GROPPER

PARK LOOP

NICKLAUS CT

GALE ST

MAP

LEAL

AMED

A

NELSON

CREEKLN

ASH

LAKE RD

MAJO

RS

T

BU

TT ON

RD

QU

OSS

RD

NEYL

AND

RD

ROSELAWNAVE

VIEWPOINTRD

GUIDE-M

ERIDIAN

RD

BRIGGS RD

LOOP RD

WIL

LAR

DS

T

PIPE

R R

D

CAZARELN

BULLDOG DR

SNUGHARBOR DR

MC

KIN

LEY

ST

MCEVOY LN

HILLCREST AVE

LASHER ST

TARI LN

PASSA GE

WAY

FIRST FALLSVIEW RD

HAZEL ST

SHEPARD AVE

RIDGECREST DR

JEFFERSON AVE

MONTELLTERRACE

ATTW

ELL

RD

LUTH

ERAN

CHUR

CHRD

KAN

AKA

CREEK

UND

ERPA

SS

RUSSELL AVE

LOST BEAR RD

BON

E R

D

RU

ELLENR

D

CH

ES

SER

ST

OSPREY

RIDGE LN

WISTERIA WAY

RO

OS

EVE

L TS

T

NELSON

CREEK RD

FRA

NK

J OH

NS

RD

TRA

NS

FER

SITE R

D

MA

PLE

WAY

RD

KANAKA

CREEKRD

LOOP RD

HOT SPRINGS

ALAMEDA

MAL

LICO

TTR

D

SKAMANIA

LODGE DR

FAIRGRO

UNDS

AALVIK RD

ANGEL HEIGHTS RD

MONDA RD

IMAN LOOP RD

FOSTERCREEK RD

CASCADE AVE

SCH

OO

L S

T

IMA

NC

EM

ETE

RY

RD

VANCOUVER AVE

SECOND ST

FIRST STRYAN-ALLENRD

ROCK CREEK DRIVE

SR 14

150

151

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Source: Skamania County

LE GEN D

La nd U s e

S H O R E L I N E S

!P


BergerABAM; 6/5/2015

$0 1,000200 400 600 800 Feet



Skamania / Stevenson Land UseSingle Family

Multi-Family

Manufacturing; 82

Utility-Trans

Services

Culture-Recreation

Parks

Private/Comercial Forest

Undeveloped

Open Space

Stevenson City Limits

State Border

Parcel

Public Roads

Rail Road

A River Miles

Attachment 4 4

Columbia River

Rock Creek

AshesLake

KASPARRD

CEDARST

BELAIREST

THOMASRD

O

HO

LLY

ST

VALHALLA

DR

OAK ST

DUDRANCH RD

BOUNTYWAY

CH

ERI

LN

KUSKIE ST

JEAN RD

CARRICKRD

FREE

DO

MC

OU

RT

LUCAS ST

LOTZRD

LEAVENS ST

MARKS RD

COLUMBIA

AVE

CR

EWS

RD

EL PASO

FIR ST

RD

WHITERD

REDBLUFF RD

GROPPER RD

DEL

BRID

GE

RD

DEL-REY

AVE

WAC

HTE

RD

EXT

WIN

DSO

NG

CO

UR

T

SPRUCE

ST

STILLCOVE LN

ELIZABETH

PIN

E ST

JORDANST

GRAY R

D

HOM

EWARD ST

COLUMBIAVIEW AVE

ARMSTRO

NG

RD

SEYMOUR

ST

VISTA DR

WIL

LARD

ST

GROPPER

PARK LOOP

SH

LA

KE RD

NICKLAUSCT

GALE ST

MAP

LEAL

AMED

A

NELSONCREEK LN

MAJO

R ST

BUTTO

NRD

QU

OS S

RD

NEYL

AND

RD

ROSELAWNAVE

BRIGGS RD

LOOP RD

WIL

LAR

D S

T

PIPERR

D

CAZARE LN

BULLDOG DR

MCEVOY LN

HILLCREST AVE

LASHER ST

TARI LN

PASSAGE

WAY

FIRST FALLSVIEW RD

HAZEL ST

SHEPARD AVE

RIDGECREST DR

JEFFERSON AVE

ATTW

ELL RD

LUTHERAN

CHURCHRD

MONTELL

TERRACE

LOST BEAR RD

KANA

KACR

EEK

UNDE

RPAS

S

RUSSELLAVE

RUELLEN RD

CH

ESSE

R S

T

OSPREY

RIDGE LN

BON

E R

D WISTERIA WAY

RO

OSE

VELT

ST

FRAN

KJO

HN

SR

D

NELSON

CREEKRD

TRANSFERSITE

RD

MAP

LE W

AY R

D

KANAKA

CR

EEKR

D

LOOP RDM

ALLI

COTT

RD

HOT SPRINGS

ALAMEDA

SKAMANIA

LODGE DR

FAIRGROUNDS

AALVIK RD

ANGEL

HEIGHTSRD

MONDA RD

IMAN

LOOP RD

FOSTER

CREEKRD

CASCADE AVE

SCH

OO

L ST

IMAN

CEM

ETER YR

D

VANCOUVER AVE

SECOND STFIRST ST

RYAN

-ALL

ENRD

RO

CK

CRE E

KD

RIV

E

SR14

MG

CR

CR

R1R1

R1R1

CC

R3

R2

SR

SR

R3

PR

PR PR

PR

CR

M1

C1

C1

C1

R3

R3

PR

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Stevenson City Limits

State Border

Parcel

Public Roads

Rail Road

Source: Skamania County Zoning by Skamania County GIS department

LE GEN D

Zon ing

S H O R E L I N E S

!P


BergerABAM; 6/5/2015

$0 1,000200 400 600 800 Feet



Skamania / Stevenson ZoningSkamania County (Zoning)

Residential 1 (R1)

Residential 2 (R2)

Community Commercial (CC)

Commercial Rec. (CR) (SkaCo)

Industrial (MG)

City of Stevenson

Commercial (C1)

Commercial Recreation (CR) (Stev)

Light Industrial (M1)

Public Use and Recreation (PR)

Rock Cove Public Use & Rec. (PR)

Single Family Residential (R1)

Two Family Residential (R2)

Multi-Family Residential (R3)

Multi-Family Residential Overlay (R3)

Suburban Residential (SR)

Attachment 4 5

of 2



TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Ben Shumaker, Planning Director

DATE: October 9th, 2017

SUBJECT: Work Plan for 2018

Introduction

This memo presents the Planning Commission with a tentative schedule for projects and meetings in 2018 and asks the Planning Commission to prioritize projects for action.

First-Tier Projects for 2018

Shorelines Management Program Update (http://ci.stevenson.wa.us/shorelines/): The City will have completed a first draft Shoreline Management Program by 2018 and will be working on development of the Shoreline Restoration Plan, No Net Loss Report, and revisions to the draft SMP. This project is anticipated to be covered at 2 Planning Commission meetings in 2018 and will take moderate to substantial staff time during the early part of the year.

Critical Areas Ordinance Update (http://ci.stevenson.wa.us/government/planning-department/critical-areas-ordinance/): The City has reviewed 4 of the 5 critical area types (Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, Frequently Flooded Areas, Fish & Wildlife Habitat Areas, Wetlands) and determined the need for amendments. Draft amendments have been developed for 2 of those critical area types. Draft amendments for Fish & Wildlife Habitat and Wetland areas will be partially covered in the Shoreline Management Program Update. Geologic Hazard Areas must still be reviewed, and if necessary, updates will need to be prepared. The City has an update deadline of June 30th, 2018. This project is anticipated to be covered at 2-3 Planning Commission meetings in 2018 and will take moderate to substantial staff time during the first half of the year.

Clean Water Facility Upgrades (http://ci.stevenson.wa.us/cleanwater/): Planning staff has been working closely with the Public Works Department to develop a plan and funding strategy for the necessary improvements to the City’s sewer system. The first phase of this project should be complete by 2018, however additional work will be needed to develop grant proposals in the early part of 2018. This project will not require Planning Commission meeting time, but will take moderate staff time in the early part of the year.

Transportation Plan: The Planning Department has been asked to work on transportation issues related to parking standards and private road standards, and the Planning Commission has expressed the desire to deal with these issues in the broader context of the City’s overall transportation system. A scope of work for the resulting transportation plan has not yet been prepared, but as with most planning processes, it will involve analyzing and understanding existing conditions, visioning to establish more desirable future conditions, and developing new and amending existing policies and programs designed to achieve those

http://ci.stevenson.wa.us/shorelines/

http://ci.stevenson.wa.us/government/planning-department/critical-areas-ordinance/

http://ci.stevenson.wa.us/government/planning-department/critical-areas-ordinance/

http://ci.stevenson.wa.us/cleanwater/

of 2

future conditions. The Planning Commission may be asked to review a draft scope of work in 2017 or early 2018, and then act as the primary public forum for the planning process. Expect at least 6 Planning Commission meetings to deal with this issue throughout 2018. With consultant support, this would involve minimal to moderate staff time, with substantial staff time front-loaded in the early project phases.

Conditional Use Reviews: The Planning Commission has been attaching review periods to approved Conditional Use Permits. These reviews are scheduled to occur after a sufficient amount of time has passed for the impacts of the project to be assessed by the neighborhood, the community, and the City. These reviews occur during even-numbered years beginning in October. Expect 1 to 2 Planning Commission meetings and minimal staff time for preparation.

Second-Tier Projects

Marijuana Buffer Reductions: See attached letter from a community member.

Zoning Code Reformat, Phase 2: The previous reformat took the existing content and reorganized it while attempting to avoid policy changes which could’ve been considered. Past Planning Commission Use Interpretations, expanded graphics for density and dimensional concepts, and other issues could be considered as part of a second effort to clean up the Code.

Residential Density, Phase 2: Ideas for tiny homes and other issues came up for consideration during the last Zoning Code update without being resolved. A second phase to the update could focus on these single issue projects.

New Projects from Comprehensive Plan: The 2013 Comprehensive Plan calls out numerous projects that the Planning Commission could consider implementing in 2018.

Key Completed Projects from 2017

Zoning Code Reformat, Residential Density Update.

Prepared by,

Ben Shumaker

Attachments:

- Citizen Project Suggestion - Comprehensive Plan Monitoring Report (2017) - Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3

MLC Buffer Reduction Proposal Page | 1

Monday, October 09, 2017

CITY OF STEVENSON PLANNING COMMITTEE:

RE: Request to reduce the Marijuana License Buffer Zone to 300 feet.

Both Carson & North Bonneville are benefiting from a profitable Licensed Marijuana Retail store. I am asking to the City of Stevenson to consider reducing the buffer zone from 1,000 feet to 300 feet to allow this type of business entity to exist within Stevenson’s City Limits. The building located at 25 NE 2nd street would be a good location for a Licensed Cannabis Store. Currently Washington State has allowed local governments the ability to reduce the 1000-foot buffer requirements to 100 feet around all entities except elementary and secondary schools and public playgrounds. The WSLCB requires a signed and dated ordinance from the City of Stevenson planning department confirming a change in the buffer size before a Licensed Cannabis Retail Store can rent retail space.

Distance from Restricted Entities Per RCW 69.50.331(8) the board shall not issue a new marijuana license if the proposed licensed business is within one thousand feet of the following entities. The distance will be measured as the shortest straight line between the property line of the potential location to the property line of the grounds of the entities listed below:

Elementary or secondary school; Playground; Recreation center or facility; Child care center; Public park; Public transit center; Library; or Any game arcade (where admission is not restricted to persons age twenty-one

or older). https://lcb.wa.gov/mjlicense/distance_from_restricted_entities

https://lcb.wa.gov/mjlicense/distance_from_restricted_entities

MLC Buffer Reduction Proposal Page | 2

Here are some statistics pulled from the i502 data site. I wanted you to have a good

picture of what Stevenson might gain in taxes from having a shop in the area.

If we use The Cannabis Corner in North Bonneville as an example, we can gather that

this shop has contributed over $30,000 in taxes to Skamania County alone. ($30,306)

Almost a million dollars ($924,761) from this small shop has been gathered in

excise tax and an additional $164,157 in state sales tax has been collected.

Unfortunately I do not have local tax numbers; however North Bonneville has

seen an increase in monthly revenue since the store has opened.

Not only are significant new tax dollars being generated but the shop has spent

upwards of $100,000 in property improvements; generated 6 full-time positions to

include benefits; 10 total positions with an average salary of about $30,000/year;

and has never had a negative report from LCB inspectors.

Hopefully this is enough information to vote to change the buffer zone from 1,000 feet

to 300 feet to allow a cannabis retail store to operate within the City of Stevenson at 25

NE Second Street.

Thank you!

Terese Stacy

PO Box 464

Stevenson, WA 98648

360-904-24585

Name County CitySep Excise

Tax

Total

Excise Tax

Sep Retail

Sales

Total Retail

Sales

MARGIES'S POT SHOP LLC KLICKITAT BINGEN $48,348 $1,376,166 $130,669 $3,805,359

BUD HUT KLICKITAT LYLE $31,845 $657,913 $86,067 $ 1,786,53

THE CANNABIS CORNER SKAMANIA NORTH BONNEVILLE

$30,987 $924,761 $83,748 $2,525,486

FORBIDDEN CANNABIS CLUB SKAMANIA CARSON $7,458 $7,458 $20,158 $20,158

COMPREHENSIVE PROGRESS

PLAN REPORT

Purpose: Comprehensive Plan Progress Reports allow the City Council to monitor implementation of the City’s

Comprehensive Plan. This template allows the City’s department heads to assess their department’s

progress on the Objectives & Tactics for which they bear responsibility. The Council expects that

reports will be prepared and submitted on an annual basis, prior to adoption of the next year’s budget.

Format: The reporting template anticipates that the Comprehensive Plan’s Objectives and Tactics will fall into at

least four categories: 1) Those that have been completed since the Comprehensive Plan’s adoption,

2) those in process of being completed during the progress reporting period, 3) those for which the

department has taken no action, and 4) those that have been made obsolete due to some anticipated

or unanticipated action.

This form contains a space to list the Objectives & Tactics falling into each category, a space to describe

why the Objective & Tactics have been listed under that category, and extra space if necessary.

Department:_____________________________________________ Year:___________________________

No Action Objectives/Tactics Description

Objectives/Tactics in Process Description

Completed Objectives/Tactics Description

Page of

Obsolete Objectives/Tactics

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

Type: Description

Page of

Type: Description

Type: Description

Type: Description

Description

Stevenson Comprehensive Plan

April, 2013

APPENDIX E–IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING This appendix is intended to be used as an easy reference for the Objectives and Tactics used in this plan. The tables below are organized first by the priority order in which each Objective should be undertaken and then by the City department responsible for initiating the Objective or Tactic. Following these tables is a template for each department to use when monitoring their implementation of the Comprehensive Plan’s Objectives & Tactics and a schematic to show future progress on plan implementation.

121

Ongoing Priorities

Building Department

City Administration

Planning Department

Public Works Department

1.3 1.1, 1.1-1 1.3 1.3

2.12 1.2, 1.2-1 1.5 2.10, 2.10-1

2.14 1.3 1.6, 1.6-1 2.14

8.1 1.4 1.7, 1.7-1 4.7

- 1.6, 1.6-1 2.1 4A.3, 4A.3-1, 4A.3-2, 4A.3-3

- 1.8, 1.8-1 2.7, 2.7-1, 2.7-2, 2.7-3, 2.7-4, 2.7-5 6.6

- 1.10 2.10, 2.10-1 7.2

- 1.11 2.11 7.6, 7.6-1, 7.6-2

- 1.13 2.12 7.8

- 2.7, 2.7-1, 2.7-2, 2.7-3, 2.7-4, 2.7-5 2.14 7.11

- 2.14 2.15 8.1

- 3.4, 3.4-1 3.5, 3.5-1 8.3

- 3.5, 3.5-1 3.7, 3.7-1, 3.7-2 8.7

- 4.4 3.8, 3.8-1 8.9, 8.9-1, 8.9-2

- 5.2, 5.2-1, 5.2-2, 5.2-3, 5.2-4, 5.2-5

4.3, 4.3-1, 4.3-2, 4.3-3, 4.3-4 8.10

- 5.3, 5.3-1, 5.3-2 4.5 8.11

- 5.4 4A.3, 4A.3-1, 4A.3-2, 4A.3-3 8.15

- 5.5 4A.6 8.16

122

Appendix E Implementation & Monitoring

Ongoing Priorities, Continued

Building Department

City Administration

Planning Department


- 5.6 5.8, 5.8-1, 5.8-2 9.3

- 5.7 8.1 9.6, 9.6-1, 9.6-2, 9.6-3

- 6.1 8.7 -

- 6.2, 6.2-1 8.9, 8.9-1, 8.9-2 -

- 6.3, 6.3-1, 6.3-2, 6.3-3, 6.3-4 8.16 -

- 6.4, 6.4-1 9.10, 9.10-1, 9.10-2, 9.10-3, 9.10-4 -

- 6.7 - -

- 8.1 - -

- 8.2 - -

- 8.3 - -

- 8.4 - -

- 8.6 - -

- 8.8, 8.8-1, 8.8-2, 8.8-3 - -

- 8.14 - -

- 8.15 - -

8.18

- 8.19, 8.19-1 - -

- 9.7, 9.7-1, 9.7-2, 9.7-3 - -

- 9.8 - -

- 9.10, 9.10-1, 9.10-2, 9.10-3, 9.10-4 - -

Stevenson Comprehensive Plan

April, 2013

123

Short-Term Priorities

Building Department

City Administration

Planning Department


- 1.9 2.2, 2.2-1, 2.2-2, 2.2-3,

2.2-4, 2.2-5, 2.2-6, 2.2-7, 2.2-8

1.17, 1.17-1, 1.17-2, 1.17-3

- 1.14 2.4, 2.4-1, 2.4-2 4.8

- 2.2, 2.2-1, 2.2-2, 2.2-3,

2.2-4, 2.2-5, 2.2-6, 2.2-7, 2.2-8

2.6, 2.6-1, 2.6-2, 2.6-3, 2.6-4 4A.1, 4A.1-1

- 3.6 2.7, 2.7-1, 2.7-2, 2.7-3, 2.7-4, 2.7-5 4A.4, 4A.4-1, 4A.4-2

- 4.6 2.8, 2.8-1 4A.8

- 4.11 2.9, 2.9-1, 2.9-2 6.8

- 4A.2, 4A.2-1, 4A.2-2, 4A.2-3 3.1 7.1, 7.1-1, 7.1-2, 7.1-3,

7.1-4, 7.1-5

- 4A.4, 4A.4-1, 4A.4-2 3.2, 3.2-1, 3.2-2 7.7

- 5.1, 5.1-1, 5.1-2, 5.1-3 3.3, 3.3-1 7.9

- 8.5 3.6 7.12, 7.12-1

- 9.1, 9.1-1 4.2, 4.2-1 7.13

- - 4.8 8.5

- - 4A.2, 4A.2-1, 4A.2-2, 4A.2-3 8.12, 8.12-1

- - 4A.4, 4A.4-1, 4A.4-2 8.17, 8.17-1, 8.17-2

- - 5.1, 5.1-1, 5.1-2, 5.1-3 -

Mid-Range Priorities

- 1.12, 1.12-1, 1.12-2, 1.12-3, 1.8-4, 1.8-5

1.12, 1.12-1, 1.12-2, 1.12-3, 1.8-4, 1.8-5

2.3, 2.3-1, 2.3-2, 2.3-3, 2.3-4

- 2.5, 2.5-1, 2.5-2, 2.5-3, 2.5-4

1.15, 1.15-1, 1.15-2, 1.15-3 4.9

- 6.5 1.16, 1.16-1, 1.16-2 4.10, 4.10-1, 4.10-2

124

Appendix E Implementation & Monitoring

Mid-Range Priorities, Continued

Building Department

City Administration

Planning Department


- 8.13-1 2.5, 2.5-1, 2.5-2, 2.5-3, 2.5-4 7.3, 7.3-1, 7.3-2

- 8.20 2.13, 2.13-1 7.4, 7.4-1, 7.4-2

- 9.4 4.1, 4.1-1, 4.1-2 7.5

- - 4.10, 4.10-1, 4.10-2 9.5, 9.5-1, 9.5-2, 9.5-3

- - 5.9 -

- - 9.5, 9.5-1, 9.5-2, 9.5-3 -

- - 9.9 -

Long-Term Priorities

- 4A.7 4A.5 7.10

- 9.2, 9.2-1, 9.2-2, 9.2-3 9.2, 9.2-1, 9.2-2, 9.2-3 -

of 1



TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Ben Shumaker, Short Plat Administrator

DATE: October 9th, 2017

SUBJECT: Proposed Atwell Road Short Plat Distribution (SP2017-03)

Introduction

The Planning Department has received a short plat application for a proposal located on Atwell Road near Rock Creek Drive. Owned by James and Linda Severs and currently developed with one stick built and one manufactured home (307 SW Atwell Road). The parcel number for this property is 02-07-02-4-1-0600. Per the city code, the Planning Commission is to be notified and given the opportunity to review the application.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission bypass its review of the short plat and entrust the decision on the application to the Short Plat Administrator.

Relevant City Policies

SMC 16.02.110(C): After the short plat administrator determines that the proposed short plat application and map contain the required information and data, the short plat administrator shall distribute copies of the short plat application and map to the following as is necessary:… 4. City Planning Commission.

SMC 16.02.120(F): The Planning Commission may submit any findings and recommendations to the administrator for any short plat applications it has decided to review.

Prepared by,

Ben Shumaker

Attachments

• Proposed plat map

planning commission meeting agenda monday,...

Documents