My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOCC Exhibits A-E ECY Approved SMP-Code Amendments
>
Meetings
>
2016
>
03. March
>
2016-03-15 10:00 AM - Commissioners' Agenda
>
BOCC Exhibits A-E ECY Approved SMP-Code Amendments
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2018 10:36:59 AM
Creation date
4/7/2018 10:31:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
3/15/2016
Meeting title
Commissioners' Agenda
Location
Commissioners' Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Supporting documentation
Supplemental fields
Alpha Order
m
Item
Request to Approve an Ordinance with Amendments to the Kittitas County Code and Kittitas County Comprehensive Plan to reflect the Washington State Department of Ecology Approved Shoreline Master Program for Kittitas County
Order
13
Placement
Consent Agenda
Row ID
28372
Type
Ordinance
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
339
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Kittitas County Shoreline Master Program <br />Chapter 5 86 <br />March 7, 2016 <br />Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners Shoreline Master Program Adopting Ordinance <br />Kittitas County Shoreline Master Program Exhibit A | March 2016 | Page 86 of 339 <br />11. Evaluate appropriate opportunities to remove or prevent structures that confine <br />floodplains and inhibit channel migration. <br />B. Regulations <br />1. Use and development in floodplains shall not significantly or cumulatively increase <br />flood hazards or be inconsistent with comprehensive flood hazard management <br />plans adopted pursuant to RCW Chapter 86.12. <br /> <br />2. New uses or development in shoreline jurisdiction, including the subdivision of land, <br />shall not be permitted when it would be reasonably foreseeable that the uses and/or <br />development would require structural flood hazard reduction measures within the <br />channel migration zone or floodway. <br /> <br />3. The following uses and activities may be appropriate and/or necessary within the <br />channel migration zone or floodway: <br />a. Actions that protect or restore the ecosystem-wide processes or ecological <br />functions. <br />b. Forest practices in compliance with the Washington State Forest Practices Act <br />and its implementing rules. <br />c. Existing and ongoing agricultural practices provided that no new restrictions to <br />channel movement occur. <br />d. Mining when conducted in a manner consistent with Section 6.12 Mining, the <br />shoreline environment designation, and with the provisions of WAC 173-26- <br />241(3)(h). <br />e. Bridges, utility lines, and other public utility and transportation structures where <br />no other feasible alternative exists or the alternative would result in unreasonable <br />and disproportionate costs. Where such structures are allowed, mitigation shall <br />address impacted functions and processes in the affected shoreline. <br />f. Repair and maintenance of an existing legal use, provided that such actions do <br />not cause significant ecological impacts or increase flood hazards to other uses. <br />g. Use and development with a primary purpose of protecting or restoring ecological <br />functions and ecosystem-wide processes. <br />h. Modification or additions to an existing nonagricultural legal use, provided that <br />channel migration is not further limited and that the new uses and/or <br />development includes appropriate protection of ecological functions. <br />i. Use and development in incorporated municipalities and designated urban <br />growth areas, as defined in RCW Chapter 36.70A, where structures exist that <br />prevent active channel movement and flooding. <br /> <br />4. Allow new structural flood hazard reduction measures in shoreline jurisdiction only <br />when it can be demonstrated by a scientific and engineering analysis that they are <br />necessary to protect existing development; that nonstructural measures are not <br />feasible; that impacts on ecological functions and priority species and habitats can <br />be successfully mitigated so as to assure no net loss; and that appropriate
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.