SMA and Critical Areas · SMP. Critical area regulations (new or revised from existing) 1....
Transcript of SMA and Critical Areas · SMP. Critical area regulations (new or revised from existing) 1....
SMA and Critical Areasand
Update on SMA periodic review rules
Tim Gates, AICPShoreline Policy Lead
Department of EcologyFall 2016 Moses Lake
Local Shoreline Master Program
Like a “subarea plan” for shorelines where state interests apply
Policies
Regulations
Permit/appeal Procedures
Environment Designations (overlay on zoning)
&
• Ecology reviews SMPs for consistency with SMA & Guidelines• Comprehensive updates statewide (2005-2017-ish)
County CAO SMP
SMP covers larger streams, lakes over 20 acres
Shorelines and critical areas
Critical area protections “transfer” to updated SMPs
2003 law, clarified by Legislature in 2010 :
Updated SMPs are to provide “sole” regulation of critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction.
Ecology’s test for adequacy of critical area regulations is whether they achieve “no net loss of functions”
• Statute on CAOs/SMPs: RCW 36.70A.480 RCW 90.58.610• SMP guidelines: WAC 173-26-191(2)(b), -221(2)
EHB 1653
Typical Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas protections
Apply to “Waters of the state”
Vegetative Buffers
Requirements for habitat assessments
Performance standards requiring mitigation for alterations
Restrictions on clearing & grading
Subdivision restrictions preventing new parcels fully encumbered by critical areas and buffers
Requirements for notice on title
Two options for regulating critical areas in SMPs
2. Incorporate specific, dated CAO by reference
WAC 173-26-191(2)(b)
SMP
Critical area regulations
(new or revised from existing)
1. Integrate critical area provisions into SMP
SMP
“Critical areas provisions of Ordinance # 07-11,
dated August 4, 2007, are hereby incorporated by
reference, with the following exceptions…”
CAO (Appendix)
Ordinance # 07-11 August 4, 2007
How to integrate CAO: “Applicability” section
1. Subject to exceptions below, the critical areas provisions of Ordinance # 07-11, dated August 4, 2007, are incorporated by reference, except that:
• Reasonable Use Exceptions• Appeal, and • Enforcement decisions
within shoreline jurisdiction shall be governed by this Program and not the Critical Areas Ordinance.
2. In the event standards in the Critical Areas Ordinance are inconsistent with standards and requirements in this Program, this Program shall govern.
• List sections that don’t apply (e.g, exemptions for small wetlands)
Some proceduresmust follow SMA requirements. (e.g., must use Ecology Variance to address “reasonable use”)
Standards can vary within shorelines (e.g., to allow for water-dependent uses, or to meet “no net loss” test)
WAC 173-26-201
“Inventory-based” fish and wildlife habitat buffers
• Tailored buffers based on existing conditions and anticipated development• Can use environment designations and/or use regulations to vary buffers• Option for areas with constrained lots
SMA procedures: notice, construction hold
RCW 90.58.140, 143
Permits: “construction pursuant to a permit will not begin or be authorized until 21 days from the date the permit decision was filed”
CUP & Variance: Ecology approval
Ecology SMA rule-making update
10
1995 2005 2015 2025
Legislature orders new SMP guidelines
2003 guidelines update
202020102000
SMP guidelines:
• Negotiated settlement
• Legislature: schedule and money
Comprehensive updates
• One-time overhaul of ~260 SMPs.• Integrate with GMA • Regulations to achieve “No Net
Loss”
Review2019-22
Review2027-30
• Implement• Keep SMPs current
Ecology rulemaking: 30-year context
2017rule update
12
Rule update process
July July201820172016
Local “Sounding Board”
WSAC/AWC
Ecology grant cycle: begins two years before first periodic review due
Preliminary draft rule for public comment
Formal rule proposal and
adoption
June 2019: first SMP reviews due
Rule effective
2019July July July
Rule-making
announced
Periodic review: purpose
The Legislative mandate is to “review and if necessary, revise…”
to assure the SMP:
1) Complies with applicable laws and Ecology rules
2) Remains consistent with the comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted under the Growth Management Act
Ecology proposal:• Scope = statutory
purpose• “applicable laws and
rules” are those that were not in effect the last time the SMP was amended)
• existing SMPs are presumed adequate
• no requirement to re-do inventories
• Identifies optional elements
Review:Evaluate need
for amendments, in a public
process
Checklist: Laws/Rules
Legislative action:Adopt Amendments
Revise:SMP local
public process
Ecology Approval *
Amendment needed
Legislative action:Finding of Adequacy
No amendment
needed
Periodic review: public process
* Triggers appeal period.
Based on GMA periodic review rule. Starts with public participation plan.
New option: “Joint review” of SMP amendments
Problem: Existing rules require both local and state comment periods for every SMP amendment• Improvements slowed by 2 – 6 months• Procedural steps draw staff from implementation
Proposed solution: New optional process for future amendments: • “Joint review” combine state and local comment period • Consolidates but doesn’t reduce public process
Prepare SMP amendments: consult with interested parties,
Planning Commission review
Ecology sends comments to local government
Local action
Ecologyaction
Joint action
Legend
Local notice: (GMA review, SEPA, newspaper ad)
State Notice
Local comment period & hearing
Ecology comment period and (optional) hearing
Local response to comments
Local government consult w/Ecology (encouraged)
Local government adopts SMP, complete submittal to Ecology
Figure 1. Existing process
Ecology review & final action
Ecology review for completeness
Ecology initial determination whether amendments comply
Ecology review & final action
Joint notice: (GMA review, SEPA, newspaper ad)
Joint local/state comment period & hearing
Local government consult w/Ecology (required)
Prepare SMP amendments: consult with interested parties,
Planning Commission review
Local government adopts SMP, complete submittal to Ecology
Figure 2. Optional Joint Review
Ecology review for completeness
Local response to comments
Added step to improve
transparency. Initial Ecology
response before local
adoption
What’s next
Formal rules will be proposed Winter.
Comment period and 4 hearings across the state
17
For information:Visit Ecology’s WebsiteJoin the Listserv
Contact:Michelle [email protected]