HomeMy WebLinkAboutGap Analysis_TWC_01162019_Clean
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program
Gap Analysis Report
Prepared on behalf of:
City of Federal Way
Community Development Department
33325 8th Ave S
Federal Way, WA 98003
Prepared by:
January 2019
The Watershed Company Reference Number:
180415
i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. Consistency with State Laws ................................................................................................... 3
3. Integration of Current Critical Areas Regulations ................................................................. 12
4. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan & Other Development Regulations ........................ 16
5. Other Issues to Consider ....................................................................................................... 17
6. References ............................................................................................................................ 23
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Abbreviations used in this document. ..................................................................... 2
Table 2-1. Summary of consistency with amendments to state laws and potential revisions. 3
Table 3-1. Summary of gaps in consistency with current critical areas regulations and
associated recommended SMP revisions. ............................................................. 12
Table 3-2. Wetland buffer widths (in feet) under FWRC Chapter 19.145 and under Ecology’s
most recent guidance (Ecology 2018). .................................................................. 14
Table 3-3. Wetland buffer impact minimization measures (Ecology 2016). .......................... 14
Table 4-1. Summary of recommended SMP and FWRC revisions to improve consistency. .. 16
Table 5-1. Other issues that could be addressed to produce a more effective SMP. ............ 17
The Watershed Company
January 2019
1
1 . Introduction
In accordance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, local jurisdictions with
“Shorelines of the State” are required to conduct a periodic review of their Shoreline Master
Programs (SMPs) (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-26-090). The periodic review is
intended to keep SMPs current with amendments to state laws, changes to local plans and
regulations, changes in local circumstances, and new or improved data and information.
Shorelines of the State in the City of Federal Way (City) include: the Puget Sound, North Lake,
Steel Lake, and the northwestern portion of Lake Killarney, with Star Lake, Lake Dolloff, Lake
Geneva, Five Mile Lake, and the remainder of Lake Killarney all existing in potential annexation
areas, outside City limits.
The City’s most recent update of its SMP took place in 2011 (Ordinance No. 11-705), establishing
regulations under Title 15 Shoreline Management within the Federal Way Revised Code
(FWRC) and adding a new chapter, Chapter 11 to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City’s
SMP, Chapter 11, outlines goals and policies for the shorelines of the City. The City’s current
SMP has its own critical areas regulations under Chapter 15.10 which were adopted together
with the SMP in 2011.
Since adoption of the SMP, the City-wide critical areas regulations were amended by Ordinance
No. 15-797 [2015]. The City-wide critical areas regulations are currently codified as FWRC
Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas. The City anticipates referencing the most recent
version of the City-wide critical areas regulations in the updated SMP.
As a first step in the periodic review process, the City’s current SMP was reviewed by City staff
and consultants. The purpose of this Gap Analysis Report is to provide a summary of the
review and inform updates to the SMP. This report is organized into the following sections:
Section 2 identifies gaps in consistency with state laws. This analysis is based on a list of
amendments between 2007 and 2017 as summarized by the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) in its Periodic Review Checklist.
Section 3 identifies issues with integrating the City’s most recent (2015) critical areas
regulations into the updated SMP.
Section 4 identifies gaps in consistency and implementation between the updated SMP
and the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.
Section 5 identifies other issues to consider as part of the periodic update process to
produce a more effective SMP.
This report includes several tables that identify potential revision actions. Where potential
revision actions are identified, they are classified as follows:
City of Federal Way SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
2
“Mandatory” indicates revisions that are required for consistency with state laws.
“Recommended” indicates revisions that would improve consistency with state laws,
but are not strictly required.
“None Necessary” indicates no change to the SMP is required.
This document attempts to minimize the use of abbreviations; however, a select few are used to
keep the document concise. These abbreviations are compiled below in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Abbreviations used in this document.
Abbreviation Meaning
City City of Federal Way
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
FWRC Federal Way Revised Code
RCW Revised Code of Washington
SMP Shoreline Master Program
WAC Washington Administrative Code
The Watershed Company
January 2019
3
2 . Consistency with State Laws
Table 2-1 summarizes potential revisions to the City’s SMP based on a review of consistency
with amendments to state laws identified in the Periodic Review Checklist provided by
Ecology. Topics are organized broadly by SMP subject area.
Only a limited number of revisions in Table 2-1 are classified as “mandatory.” Further, the
revisions classified as “mandatory” are anticipated to be minor in effect.
Table 2-1. Summary of consistency with amendments to state laws and potential revisions.
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s) 1, 2 Review & Action
Applicability
1 Legislature raised the cost
threshold for requiring a
Substantial Development
Permit for replacement
docks on lakes to $22,500
(from $10,000) and $11,200
for all other docks
constructed in fresh waters.
This is effective November 4,
2018 per the Ecology letter to
City Shoreline Administrators
to adjust for inflation. (2018)
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.150 Shoreline
Substantial Development
Permit
Review:
The SMP references the Substantial
Development Permit exemptions in WAC
173-27-040 as amended, which include this
revised exemption language.
Action:
None necessary: As an option, dollar
figures can be added for code readability.
2 Office of Financial
Management adjusted the
cost threshold for substantial
development to
$7,047. (2017)
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.150 Shoreline
Substantial Development
Permit
Review:
In FWRC 15.05.150, the SMP references an
outdated cost threshold ($5,718) for
substantial development; however, the
SMP indicates that the cost threshold is
updated every five years.
Action:
Recommended: Update the language in
FWRC 15.05.150 to reference the RCW
90.58.030.(3)(e) development exemption
for development not meeting the cost
threshold and the location where the cost
threshold can be found.
City of Federal Way SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
4
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s) 1, 2 Review & Action
3 Ecology permit rules clarified
the definition of
“development” does not
include dismantling or
removing structures. (2017)
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.030 -
Additional definitions
Review:
The SMP does not clarify that removing
structures does not constitute
development.
Action:
Recommended: Revise definition of
“Development” to clarify that removing
structures does not constitute
development. Proposed language is as
follows,
“Development” does not include
dismantling or removing structures
landward of the OHWM if there is no other
associated development or re-
development. (Note: City can opt to amend
the existing definition of development
recently adopted under the floodplain
ordinance 18-856 (FWRC 19.142.040
Definitions) and refer to this definition
under FWRC 15.05.030 – Additional
definitions.)
4 Ecology adopted rules
clarifying exceptions to local
review under the Shoreline
Management Act. (2017)
Current SMP:
Article III. Administrative
Procedures, FWRC
15.05110 – 15.05.240
Review:
The SMP does not refer to exceptions to
local review under WAC 173-27-044 or -
045 (though it does refer to exemptions
under WAC 173-27-040).
Action:
Recommended: Create a new section that
clearly sets forth exceptions to local
review. Exemptions listed include remedial
hazardous substance cleanup, boatyard
stormwater improvements, and WSDOT
maintenance and safety projects. Example
language from Ecology is available.
5 Ecology amended forestry
use regulations to clarify that
forest practices that only
involves timber cutting are
not Shoreline Management
Act “developments” and do
not require Substantial
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.070 –
Summary of uses,
approval criteria, and
process
Review:
The SMP indicates that forest practices are
prohibited and contains no provisions
specific to forest practices.
Action:
None necessary: This change is not
The Watershed Company
January 2019
5
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s) 1, 2 Review & Action
Development Permits. (2017) applicable to Federal Way, as forest
practices are prohibited by the SMP.
6 Ecology clarified the
Shoreline Management Act
does not apply to lands under
exclusive federal jurisdiction.
(2017)
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.020
Jurisdiction.
Review:
The SMP does not address lands with
exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Action:
None Necessary: No Federal lands exist
within the City’s UGA.
7 The Legislature created a new
shoreline permit exemption
for retrofitting existing
structure to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities
Act. (2016)
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.130 Shoreline
exemption.
Review:
The SMP references the Substantial
Development Permit exemptions in WAC
173-27-040 as amended, which include this
revised exemption language.
Action:
None necessary: Because the SMP
references the exemptions in the WAC as
amended, the SMP already reflects this
revised exemption language.
8 The Legislature clarified
options for defining
"floodway" as either the area
that has been established in
Federal Emergency
Management Agency maps,
or the floodway criteria set in
the Shoreline Management
Act. (2007)
Current SMP:
Ord 11-705 is now FWRC
Chapter 19.142.040, Ord
18-856.
Review:
The definition of “floodway” in the SMP is
based on the floodway criteria set in the
Shoreline Management Act. This definition
is essentially a biological definition.
Action:
Recommended: Consider revising the
definition of “floodway” to reflect the most
recent Federal Emergency Management
Agency maps. Example language from
Ecology is available. (Note: While the City
anticipates amending the current
“floodway” definition in FWRC 19.142.040
as the area established in Federal
Emergency Management Agency Maps,
there are no FEMA mapped floodways
currently documented in the City.)
9 Ecology amended rules to
clarify that comprehensively
updated SMPs shall include a
list and map of streams and
lakes that are in shoreline
Current SMP:
Section 11.1 Shoreline
Jurisdiction in the
Comprehensive Plan (page
8) of Appendix A within
Review:
Section 11.1 Shoreline Jurisdiction (page 8)
within Appendix A of Ordinance No. 11-
705 identifies all SMP waterbodies.
Action:
City of Federal Way SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
6
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s) 1, 2 Review & Action
jurisdiction. (2007) Ordinance 11-705. None necessary: A list and corresponding
map of all lakes and marine shoreline is
shown within Appendix A of Ordinance 11-
705.
10 Ecology’s rule listing
statutory exemptions from
the requirement for a
Substantial Development
Permit was amended to
include fish habitat
enhancement projects that
conform to the provisions of
Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) 77.55.181. (2007)
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.130(2)
Review:
The SMP references the Substantial
Development Permit exemptions in WAC
173-27-040 as amended, which include this
revised exemption language.
Action:
None necessary: Because the SMP
references the exemptions in the WAC as
amended, the SMP already reflects this
revised exemption language.
Use and Development
11 Ecology updated wetlands
critical areas guidance
including implementation
guidance for the 2014
wetlands rating system.
(2016)
Current SMP critical areas
regulations (2011):
FWRC 15.10.240
Proposed SMP critical areas
regulations:
FWRC 19.145.420(1)
Review:
FWRC section 15.10.240 refers to the
March 1997 Washington State Wetlands
Identification and Delineation Manual,
Ecology Publication No. 96-94 which also
references a WAC section which no longer
exists (WAC 173-22-080). The correct
reference is found under FWRC
19.145.420(1) which correctly references
the most recent 2014 Ecology rating
system with updates as needed.
Action:
Mandatory: Repeal FWRC 15.10, Critical
Areas to reference the current Critical
Areas Ordinance found under FWRC
section 19.145, Environmentally Critical
Areas.
12 The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for
floating on-water residences
legally established before
7/1/2014. (2014)
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.030
Additional definitions.
Review:
City has no floating homes. Residential
development is prohibited over water.
Moorage of floating homes is prohibited.
FWRC 15.05.050(k).
Action:
Recommended: Expand the “residential
development” definition to prohibit “tiny
The Watershed Company
January 2019
7
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s) 1, 2 Review & Action
home” temporary or transient floating
homes. In addition, boats mooring or
dropping anchor within City shoreline
jurisdiction should have a clear time limit
for transient habitation of a small cabin
located under a boat’s hull.
13 Ecology adopted a rule
requiring that wetlands be
delineated in accordance
with the approved federal
wetland delineation manual.
(2011)
Current SMP critical areas
regulations (2006):
FWRC 15.10.240
Proposed SMP critical areas
regulations:
FWRC 19.145.420(1)
Review:
Refer to FWRC 19.145.410(1) within the
updated CAO which refers to this update.
Action:
Mandatory: Repeal FWRC 15.10, Critical
Areas to reference the Critical Areas
Ordinance FWRC section 19.145,
Environmentally Critical Areas.
14 Ecology adopted rules for
new commercial geoduck
aquaculture. (2011)
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.050.030
Additional definitions.
Review:
The new Ecology definition clarifies that
aquaculture does not include wild geoduck
harvest.
Action:
None necessary: Aquaculture is a
prohibited use in all shoreline
environments according to FWRC
15.05.070.
15 The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for
floating homes permitted or
legally established prior to
January 1, 2011. (2011)
Current SMP:
Not listed under FWRC
15.05.070 Summary of
uses, approval criteria,
and process.
FWRC 15.05.030
Additional definitions.
Review:
The term “floating home” is not used in
the SMP.
Action:
Recommended: Add the “floating home”
definition to address ambiguities and steer
future development away from this
development type through explicitly
prohibiting this development type under
FWRC 15.05.070. Example language from
Ecology is available. See #12 above for a
discussion of temporary floating
residences.
16 The Legislature created new
“relief” procedures for
instances in which a
shoreline restoration project
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.050 Shoreline
Modifications.
Review:
The SMP does not address such relief
procedures.
City of Federal Way SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
8
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s) 1, 2 Review & Action
within an Urban Growth
Area creates a shift in
Ordinary High Water Mark.
(2009)
Action:
Recommended: Incorporate Ecology’s rule
to provide relief for shoreline restoration
projects, referencing WAC 173-27-215 as
the parameters for granting such a
request.
17 Ecology adopted a rule for
certifying wetland mitigation
banks. (2009)
Current SMP critical areas
regulations (2011):
FWRC 15.10.260
Proposed SMP critical areas
regulations:
FWRC 19.145.430(4)(b)
Review:
The current critical areas regulations allow
the use of mitigation banks and requires
that they be certified.
Action:
Required: Reference the Critical Areas
section which incorporates the
certification requirement for mitigation
banks.
Nonconformance
18 Ecology clarified “default”
provisions for nonconforming
uses and development.
(2017)
Current SMP:
Section 7 – SMP
Definitions Resolution 10-
597, page 2
FWRC 15.05.030
Additional Definitions
Review:
The SMP meets the definition except for
the addition where, “Development” does
not include dismantling or removing
structures if there is no other associated
development or re-development.
Action:
Recommended: Code definitions for
Nonconforming development,
nonconforming lot and nonconforming
structure added to SMP. Provide a
provision under FWRC 15.05.220(1), where
minor repairs to non-conforming
structures under the monetary threshold
can apply for a shoreline exemption.
19 SMPs may classify legally
established residential
structures and appurtenant
structures as conforming
even if they do not meet
dimensional or bulk
standards. Redevelopment,
expansion, and replacement
consistent with the SMP
would be allowed. (2011)
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.220
Replacement, alteration,
or reconstruction of
nonconforming use or
development
Review:
The SMP does not currently exercise this
option.
Action:
Recommended: The City will adopt these
Ecology provisions and classify past
permitted non-conforming structures as
conforming. Unpermitted non-conforming
structures can be enforced upon
The Watershed Company
January 2019
9
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s) 1, 2 Review & Action
accordingly.
Administration
20 Ecology amended rules
clarifying permit filing
procedures consistent with a
2011 statute. Filing replaces
date of receipt for shoreline
permits sent to Ecology.
(2017)
Current SMP:
Article III. Administrative
Procedures - FWRC
15.05.110 - Shoreline
management permits and
enforcement procedures
Review:
The SMP does not describe the filing
process, but indicates that filing with
Ecology shall be done pursuant to WAC
173-27-130.
Action:
None necessary: SMP consistent with
statute.
21 Ecology adopted a new rule
creating an optional SMP
amendment process that
allows for a shared
local/state public comment
period. (2017)
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.240
Amendments to this
chapter.
Review:
The SMP does includes language regarding
the process for SMP amendments through
referencing WAC 176-26-110 and 176-26-
120.
Action:
None necessary: If the City anticipates
using the optional SMP amendment
process for joint state and local public
comment, no code amendment is required
to exercise this option. Therefore, no
action will be taken by the City.
22 Ecology adopted rule
amendments to clarify the
scope and process for
conducting periodic reviews.
(2017)
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.240
Amendments to this
chapter.
Review:
The SMP does not include language
specific to conducting periodic review of
the SMP pursuant to RCW 90.58.080 and
WAC 173-26-090.
Action:
None necessary: Description of the scope
and process for conducting periodic
reviews is not required in SMP.
23 Submittal to Ecology of
proposed SMP amendments.
(2017)
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.240
Amendments to this
chapter.
Review:
SMP already references a description of
the SMP amendment submittal process.
Action:
None necessary: FWRC 15.05.240
Amendments to this chapter correctly
references WAC 176-26-110 and WAC 176-
26-120 where amendments are proposed.
City of Federal Way SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
10
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s) 1, 2 Review & Action
24 The Legislature adopted a 90-
day target for local review of
Washington State
Department of
Transportation projects.
(2015)
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.110 Shoreline
management permit
enforcement procedures,
adoption by reference.
Review:
The SMP does not address this target.
Action:
Recommended: Add a reference to WAC
173-27-125 under FWRC 15.05.110 to
include these target review timelines.
25 The Legislature amended the
Shoreline Management Act
to clarify SMP appeal
procedures. (2012)
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.200 Appeals.
Review:
The SMP does not address SMP appeal
procedures (the SMP addresses appeals of
shoreline permit decisions, but not the
SMP itself).
Action:
None necessary: A Description of SMP
appeal procedures is not required in SMP,
therefore no change is needed.
26 The Legislature adopted
Growth Management Act –
Shoreline Management Act
clarifications. (2010)
The City has already
previously updated its CAO
and the SMP and therefore
addressed the issue of
overlapping critical area
regulations. The City’s SMP
also includes no net loss
provisions.
However, the SMP does not
indicate the 14-day rule for
Ecology approval.
Current SMP (no net loss
statement):
FWRC 15.05.040 General
development standards.
Review:
The SMP indicates that critical areas in
shorelines must be regulated to assure no
net loss of shoreline ecological function.
Action:
Recommended: Update SMP to indicate
that it is effective 14 days after Ecology’s
approval letter.
27 The Legislature added
moratoria authority and
procedures to the Shoreline
Management Act. (2009)
Current SMP:
FWRC 15.05.110 -
Shoreline management
permit and enforcement
procedures
Review:
The SMP does not address moratoria.
Action:
None necessary: Moratoria procedures not
required to be included in SMP. City may
rely on statute: WAC 173-27-085.
1 This column attempts to capture the primary relevant location(s) of content related to the item described in
the Summary of Change column; however, due to length of the SMP, all relevant locations may not be listed.
2 Locations in italics indicate that the location does not actually address the specific content described in the
The Watershed Company
January 2019
11
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s) 1, 2 Review & Action
Summary of Change column; these locations are listed to indicate where generally related content is found.
City of Federal Way SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
12
3 . Integration of Current Critical Areas Regulations
The City’s current SMP incorporates the City-wide critical areas and flood damage prevention
regulations of Ordinance No. 11-705 (2011) through chapter subsections 15.10 and 15.15,
respectively. Since adoption of the SMP, the City-wide critical areas regulations have been
amended most recently in 2015 by Ordinance No. 15-797. Flood Damage Prevention FWRC
Chapter 15.15 was recently amended in on November 6th, 2018, under Ordinance 18-745 to
reference FWRC 19.142, removing its duplicate code. The critical areas regulations are codified
as FWRC Chapter 19.145 Critical Areas are more current than ones listed within SMP subsection
15.10. Therefore, the City’s current SMP includes critical areas regulations that are out of date
and no longer consistent with the critical areas regulations that currently apply in non-shoreline
areas of the City.
Accordingly, the City anticipates referencing the current City-wide critical areas and
regulations in the updated SMP. However, as with the 2015 critical areas regulations, these
critical areas regulations include some regulations that are inconsistent with recent Department
of Ecology guidance. The inconsistent regulations need to be identified and resolved as part of
the periodic SMP update process.
Table 3-1 below summarizes issues to be resolved both guidance-wise and referencing the
City’s current critical areas regulations into the updated SMP. The table is organized by critical
areas regulations subject area.
Table 3-1. Summary of gaps in consistency with current critical areas regulations and associated
recommended SMP revisions.
# Issue Relevant Location(s) Review & Action
Applicability
1 Critical Areas Chapters FWRC 15.10 and
FWRC 19.145 Critical
Areas
Review:
FWRC 15.10 can be deleted and cross-
referenced to capture the critical areas
regulations within the FWRC chapter
19.145.
Action:
Recommended: delete language in FWRC
15.10 and cross reference to FWRC 19.145,
Critical Areas.
2 Critical Areas - Wellhead
capture zone
Zoning Code:
FWRC 19.145.070, FWRC
19.145.460 Classification
of wellhead capture zones
(FWRC 15.10.290 to be
removed).
Review:
The current code exclusively calls out the
capture zones, or wellhead protection
areas (WHPAs), associated with Lakehaven
wells, but at the same time, .460 refers to,
“the city’s public water source wells”.
There are more public water systems than
The Watershed Company
January 2019
13
# Issue Relevant Location(s) Review & Action
what is listed in code.
Action:
Recommended: Revise “the city’s public
source wells” to “Group A and Group B
public water supplies” and reference WAC
365-196-485(1)(d) under FWRC 19.145.460
to capture all water systems subject to
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs)
regulations. In addition, the Washington
State Department of Health Source Water
Assessment Program Map is an
appropriate citation for providing an
inventory of WHPAs over the Lakehaven
Utility District capture zone map cited in
19.145.070(4)(b).
Wetlands
3 Wetland buffer table
change.
Current critical areas
regulations:
FWRC 19.145.420(2),
Wetland rating and
buffers
Review:
Department of Ecology provided revised
wetland buffer guidance in July of 2018.
The revised guidance indicates that
wetlands scoring of 5 habitat points may
use the same standard buffer width as
wetlands scoring 3-4 habitat points.
Action:
Recommended: Consider revising the
existing wetland buffer provisions in FWRC
19.145.420(2) of the critical areas
regulations for consistency with Ecology
guidance, related to habitat scores and
wetland buffers. A discussion is provided
below.
Continuing discussion on item #3 in Table 3-1, newly recommended wetland buffer widths are
based upon review of wetland category and habitat score, reflecting best available science by
Department of Ecology. In a survey of reference wetlands, Ecology determined more were
similarly distributed to scoring between 3-5 points for habitat score than 3-4 points as the
original low habitat break point (Ecology 2018). Therefore, the breaks and revised wetland
buffer table are as follows below under Table 3-2 below.
Wetland buffer impact minimization measures can also be used in allowing buffer averaging for
development. The following minimization measures under Table 3-3 allow buffer averaging to
no less than 75% of the original buffer requirement (Ecology 2016). A request for buffer
averaging requires a wetland report by a qualified professional detailing no net loss of wetland
City of Federal Way SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
14
functions. In addition to applying all minimization measures, if a conservation easement
corridor connects WDFW priority habitats within a wetland buffer with moderate habitat
scores, a buffer reduction to 110 feet is allowed (Ecology 2018). This change is shown in Table 3-
2 below.
To align with the updated guidance, we recommend adopting the revised wetland buffers listed
in Table 3-2 below under FWRC 19.145.420 to avoid inconsistent buffer application for future
development proposals.
Table 3-2. Wetland buffer widths (in feet) under FWRC Chapter 19.145 and under Ecology’s most recent
guidance (Ecology 2018).
Existing FWRC Chapter 19.145 Proposed Per 2018 Ecology Guidance
Category
Habitat Scores Without minimization measures With minimization measures
3-4 5 6-7 8 Habitat Score Habitat Score
Minimum Buffer
Width Low Moderate High Low Moderate High
1* 190 190 190 225 250 250 300 190 190 225
1^ 75 105 165 225 100 150 300 75 110 225
2 75 105 165 225 100 150 300 75 110 225
3 60 105 165 225 80 150 300 60 110 225
4 40 40 40 40 50 40
*Bogs and wetlands of high conservation value. ^Forested and based on function score
Table 3-3. Wetland buffer impact minimization measures (Ecology 2016).
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights Direct lights away from wetland
Noise Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland
If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings
adjacent to noise source
For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive
noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10’
heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland
buffer
Toxic runoff Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring
wetland is not dewatered
Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetland
Apply integrated pest management
Stormwater runoff Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing
adjacent development
Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer
Use Low Intensity Development (LID) techniques where appropriate (for
The Watershed Company
January 2019
15
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
more information refer to the drainage ordinance and manual)
Change in water regime Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from
impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human disturbance Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge
and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the
ecoregion
Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a
conservation easement
Dust Use best management practices to control dust
City of Federal Way SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
16
4. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan & Other
Development Regulations
Table 4-1 below summarizes recommended revisions to the City’s SMP based on a review of
consistency with FWRC Title 19 of the zoning code, outside of Critical Areas Regulations,
Section 19.145. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the SMP as it adopts the
goals and policies and places them in the Shoreline Element, Chapter 11 of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Table 4-1. Summary of recommended SMP and FWRC revisions to improve consistency.
# Topic Relevant Location(s) Review & Action
1 Impervious Surfaces within
shoreline setbacks.
Maximum footprint of 150
square feet per structure;
300 square feet total per lot
Zoning Code:
FWRC 15.05.070(6)
Standards table.
FWRC 15.05.030
Review:
It is unclear if pavers and other types of
impervious surfaces (i.e. gravel paths,
paths, concrete steps etc.) should be
counted towards maximum “footprint”.
Action:
Recommended:
Add to definition of structure in FWRC
19.05, to include access pathways. Include
a definition for footprint under section
FWRC 15.05.030 referencing impervious
surfaces as pavers, gravel paths, and
concrete steps. In addition, make note that
grass-grid pavers are 100% lot coverage
and still count against the maximum
footprint of 300 square feet per lot under
FWRC 15.05.070(6).
The Watershed Company
January 2019
17
5 . Other I ssues to Consider
In addition to the issues discussed in the previous sections of this report, several other issues in
the current SMP could be addressed as part of the periodic update process to produce a more
effective SMP. These other issues are described in Table 5-1 below.
Table 5-1. Other issues that could be addressed to produce a more effective SMP.
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
General
1 Amendments to SMP Zoning Code:
FWRC 15.05.240
Amendments to this
chapter
Review:
Incorrect WAC reference. Should be WAC
173-26-110 and 173-26-120.
Action:
Required: Change reference to WAC 173-
26-110 and 173-26-120.
Use and Development
2 Archaeological and historic
resources. It is unclear
when the City routes to
Department of Archeology
and Historic Preservation
(DAHP) to require an
archeologic study.
Zoning Code:
FWRC 15.05.040(6)
General development
standards, Archaeological
and historic resources.
Review:
In the instance where one or more items of
archeological significance are located, a
professional archeologist shall be obtained
to provide an inadvertent discovery plan.
Action:
Recommended: Provide a code
requirement for the applicant to apply for
an Archeological Excavation and Removal
Permit if archeological items are found
during excavation, referencing the process
in WAC 25-48.
3 Shoreline Modifications.
Address height of bulkheads
for bluff development.
Can there be a more
streamlined process for
bulkhead development
applications?
Zoning Code:
FWRC 15.05.050 Shoreline
modifications.
Review:
Existing bulkheads on many shoreline
properties are taller than the bulkhead
height maximum of 1 foot above mean
higher high water mark. Therefore, all
resulting expansions in height will require a
variance. The permitting process also
requires a conditional use permit for newly
constructed bulkheads in urban
conservancy shoreline designations.
This scenario was observed in a past
shoreline variance decision (Pallisades
Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access
City of Federal Way SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
18
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
Stair Shoreline Variance, Conditional Use
and Substantial Development Permit).
Bulkhead height needed to exceed the
height maximum to account for “king”
tides in the Puget Sound which have
otherwise matched the height of the pre-
existing bulkhead.
Action:
Recommended:
The intent is to remove the variance
requirement which would otherwise be
required for slight increases in bulkhead
height. Changing bulkhead maximum
height from 1 foot above mean higher high
water mark to minimum necessary for
protection of upland structures will help
avoid unnecessary variances. Minimum
necessary requirements can be supported
by recorded tidal events and geotechnical
documentation.
4 Vegetation Conservation
Areas
Zoning Code:
FWRC 15.05.070(6)
Standards table. FWRC
19.120.130 Tree and
vegetation retention
standards.
Review:
Vegetation Conservation Areas do not
have clear standards referenced for
submittal requirements to demonstrate
compliance as part of a development
proposal.
Action:
Recommended:
In addition to the standards listed in FWRC
15.05.070(6), the City should consider
referencing Tree revegetation standards
under FWRC 19.120.130 for development
proposals which may affect vegetation
retention standards in the shoreline
setback.
In addition, the City should consider a tree
management and vegetation in shoreline
setback set of standards in an effort to
capture no-net-loss requirements of the
SMP.
5 Enforcement of Vegetation Zoning Code: Review:
The Watershed Company
January 2019
19
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
Conservation Areas FWRC 15.05.070(6)
Standards table, FWRC
19.120.130 Tree and
vegetation retention
standards, and FWRC
19.120.220 Revegetation.
It is unclear if over time when folks have
cleared the vegetation conservation area
whether they need to rehab the area or
not as the City does not monitor the
shoreline. It’s a question of legal
nonconformances.
Action:
Recommended:
As a shoreline process advisement,
Vegetation Conservation Area
requirements can be enforced during
development proposals. Using aerials from
2011-12 (SMP Adoption year) as a
benchmark for City review, development
proposals shall provide a vegetation
inventory, referencing tree and vegetation
standards prescribed under FWRC
19.120.130 as a footnote beside
Vegetation conservation area column
within the Shoreline Environment
Standards table (FWRC 15.05.070(6)). For
sites where vegetation removal has been
observed within shoreline setbacks since
SMP adoption, development applications
shall demonstrate rehabilitation efforts
consistent with revegetation provisions
FWRC 19.120.220 to restore lost
vegetation to the retention percentages
prescribed under FWRC 15.05.070(6).
6 Setbacks.
Marine shorelines require a
setback of 50 feet from
OHWM whereas freshwater
require a stringline setback
or 50 foot setback,
whichever is greater.
Consider use of a stringline
setback on marine
shorelines.
Zoning Code:
FWRC 15.05.080(5)
Review:
The intent of the stringline setback is to
prevent future development from
encroaching into previously undisturbed
areas and to affect views from neighboring
properties and preserving the no-net-loss
goals of the SMP. There are far less marine
vacant parcels according to the SMP
Cumulative Impact Analysis, so the use of
stringline provisions along the marine
shoreline may be more effective during re-
development scenarios rather than new
development.
Action:
City of Federal Way SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
20
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
Recommended:
At the City’s discretion, the stringline
requirement can be added and can be used
if it is greater than the 50-foot buffer from
marine shorelines to be consistent with all
shorelines of the state within City limits,
adjusting this provision under FWRC
15.05.080(5)(C). This provision assists with
preserving view impacts associated with
new construction along the shoreline.
7 Shoreline Exemption
Application submittal
requirements are unclear.
Zoning Code:
FWRC 15.05.070 Summary
of Uses, approval criteria,
and process, FWRC
15.05.130 Shoreline
Exemption, FWRC
15.05.140 Application
Requirements.
Review:
The criteria requirements for a complete
application to submit for a shoreline
exemption are not readily identified for
the single-family homeowner. While
prescribed in WAC 173-27-040, no
checklist exists to identify whether a
project is exempt. Exemptions must also
demonstrate consistency with FWRC
15.05.070, specifically FWRC 15.05.070(5)
and FWRC 15.05.070(6) Permitted use
table and standards table respectively.
Action:
Recommended:
The City could provide application
requirements as a qualitative list for an
applicant to check off each WAC 173-27-
040 exemption requirement, the
applicable use listed (FWRC 15.05.070) and
provide the necessary documentation for
siting, design and dimensional
requirements (FWRC 15.05.070(6)). This
could be done through a separate checklist
provided by City staff. The City could also
codify scaled site plan requirements under
FWRC 15.05.130(2) to document the
proposal meets use, setback, vegetation
conservation area, height, footprint, and
specific design requirements per FWRC
15.05.070(6). (Note: City does not plan to
codify submittal requirements for
shoreline exemptions.)
Furthermore, providing a clear definition
The Watershed Company
January 2019
21
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
of appurtenant structures for single family
accessory structures will reduce the
ambiguity when applying for an
exemption. An example is as follows,
“Appurtenance, residential” means an
improvement necessarily connected to the
use and enjoyment of a single-family
residence when located landward of the
OHWM, the perimeter of a wetland and
outside their corresponding required
buffers. Appurtenances may include, but
are not limited to, a garage; driveway;
utilities; water craft storage (upland);
swimming pools; hot tubs; shoreline
stabilization; retaining walls; fences; yards;
saunas; cabanas; antennas; decks;
walkways; and grading which does not
exceed 250 cubic yards and which does not
involve placement of fill in any wetland or
waterward of a marine or freshwater
OHWM. Appurtenances do not include
secondary sleeping areas and accessory
dwelling units, which undergo a separate
review and are considered exempt from the
shoreline substantial development permit.
The terms “appurtenant” and “accessory”
are synonymous.
8 Application Requirements.
It is unclear as to when is a
Habitat Assessment
necessary.
Zoning Code:
FWRC 15.05.140 Application
requirements.
Review:
This requirement stems from whether a
shoreline project intersects with a WDFW-
defined priority habitat species (PHS)
mapped location. The requirement for a
Habitat Assessment is specifically
identified under FWRC 15.05.140(10).
Action:
Recommended:
Development proposals which expand into
critical habitats, as identified by WDFW
PHS maps, should provide a Habitat
Assessment Plan. Therefore, under FWRC
15.05.140, complete application
requirements, subsection (10), consider
adding a reference to FWRC 19.142.060
City of Federal Way SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
22
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
which will subsequently reference WDFW
PHS mapping, and the applicable sections
of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas section of the critical
areas regulations (FWRC 19.145.260,
19.145.390, and 19.145.400), which refer
to actions which trigger a Habitat
Assessment study. The City should
ultimately confirm whether a Habitat
Assessment is needed, utilizing WDFW PHS
mapping as a SMP code-identified source.
9 Routing Application to
Ecology
It is unclear when a
shoreline decision is routed
to Ecology.
Zoning Code:
FWRC 15.05.180 Final
approval of shoreline
permits.
Review:
Ecology reviews shoreline conditional use
and variance permit applications; these
should be forwarded within five days of
the City’s decision. As a best practice for
benefit of the applicant, it is beneficial to
route both shoreline conditional use and
shoreline variance applications to Ecology
for advance review so that they may
review during the notice of application
process.
Action:
Recommended:
Change wording to, ‘notify and forward’
from ‘notify’ for routing the decision to
Ecology under FWRC 15.05.180(1). Routing
shoreline conditionals use and variance
applications for review can occur at notice
of application.
1 This column attempts to capture the primary relevant location(s) of content related to the item described in
the Summary of Change column; however, due to length of the SMP, all relevant locations may not be listed.
In addition to the gaps provided by City staff under this section, the issue concerning
nonconforming structures in shoreline management areas was introduced. While methods exist
to trigger structure conformance, these changes must be weighed in-balance between property
owner rights and no-net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
One possible method includes setting an assessed value threshold for redevelopment, where
over a certain threshold, the entire structure shall conform with the current SMP. While the City
has chosen an approach of allowing non-conforming structures to become legally conforming
(see page 7, Section 2: #19), structure redevelopment may give the City an opportunity to
The Watershed Company
January 2019
23
require current SMP regulations be met. Options for addressing nonconforming structures
within SMP jurisdiction will be discussed further as the City proceeds with its recommended
code amendments.
6. References
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). July 2018. July 2018 Modifications for
Habitat Score Ranges. Modified from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western
Washington Version. Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001. Accessed November 2018.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/parts/1606001part1.pdf
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). June 2016. Wetland Guidance for CAO
Updates: Western Washington Version. Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001. Accessed
November 2018. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1606001.pdf
