1. For ease of implementing shoreline management standards, this chapter codifies this allowable use and shoreline modification matrix.

2. Where there is a conflict between the chart and the written provisions in Chapter 3, 4, or 5 of the Monroe SMP, the written provisions shall apply.

3. For any development proposal, the applicant and city shall consider and implement the applicable shoreline modification (Chapter 4) and shoreline use (Chapter 5) standards of the Monroe SMP.

1. The use or shoreline modification may be allowed in the aquatic environment if, and only if, permitted in the adjacent upland environment.

2. Public access, as approved by the city, is a condition of non-water-dependent development on properties with shoreline water body frontage.

3. The use may be allowed provided there is no other feasible route or location.

4. The shoreline modification may be allowed for environmental restoration or if the city determines that there will be a net increase in desired shoreline ecological functions.

5. Within the “Cadman Sky River” industrial property in the high-intensity environment of the Skykomish River, continued aggregate washing, crushing and screening, and continued concrete batching facilities or concrete ready-mix facilities are permitted, together with accessory uses such as truck scales, office trailers, maintenance shops, equipment sheds, aggregate depots, and facilities for fueling equipment; provided, that these facilities and activities are not expanded. See Section 5.E, Mining, for conditions.

6. The existing boat launch at the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Lewis Street access site may be modified and improved consistent with state and federal regulatory agency permits that must be obtained prior to conditional use permit approval. New hand launch facilities may be provided within the Cadman site park area to provide access for kayaks, canoes, and similar nonmotorized and hand-launched watercraft along the Cadman site pond and to adjacent Skykomish River shoreline. Improvements for any hand launch facilities must be consistent with state and federal regulatory agency permits which must be obtained prior to conditional use permit approval. No other new boating facilities are allowed in the urban conservancy environment.

7. All forest practices subject to the Washington State Forest Practices Act (WAC Title 222; Chapters 76.09 and 76.13 RCW) must conform to the provisions of that Act, this program, and any other applicable city requirements. See Section 3.L, Vegetation Conservation, of the Monroe SMP and critical areas regulations (Chapter 22.80 MMC) for other conditions.

8. Any cleanup activities must be coordinated with approval and oversight by the Department of Ecology, or conducted under Ecology’s voluntary cleanup program.

9. New boating facilities may be constructed to provide improved access for nonmotorized and small electric boats (less than or equal to one and one-half hp). All facilities, including boat launches or piers and docks, will be designed in consultation with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. No facilities will be constructed to provide long-term moorage.

10. Dredging may only be conducted as necessary to maintain the storm water detention function of the pond. Dredging must be conducted in a way that minimizes impacts to ecological functions and any impacts must be mitigated.

11. The prohibition on piers and docks does not apply to public recreational facilities, which are addressed under boating facilities. (Ord. 015/2019 § 1; Ord. 005/2019 § 10 (Exh. B))

1. All proposed uses and developments, including those that do not require a shoreline permit, occurring within shoreline jurisdiction, must conform to Chapter 90.58 RCW, Shoreline Management Act, and the Monroe SMP.

2. Shoreline uses and modifications listed as “prohibited” shall not be eligible for consideration as a shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit.

3. The “policies” listed in the Monroe SMP will provide broad guidance and direction and will be used by the city in applying the “regulations.”

4. Where provisions of this chapter and the full Monroe SMP conflict, the provisions of the full Monroe SMP shall apply.

5. Where provisions of the Monroe SMP conflict with each other, the provisions most directly implementing the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act, as determined by the city, shall apply unless specifically stated otherwise.

6. All uses and development shall result in no net loss of ecological functions to the greatest extent feasible.

7. All newly created lots with shoreline frontage shall provide a minimum shoreline frontage width of 50 feet.

1. Archaeological sites located both in and outside the shoreline jurisdiction are subject to Chapters 27.44 (Indian Graves and Records) and 27.53 (Archaeological Sites and Resources) RCW and shall comply with Chapter 25-48 WAC as well as the provisions of the Monroe SMP.

2. The city shall notify the Tulalip Tribes upon receipt of application for work in shoreline areas. The property owner shall allow the Tulalip Tribes to examine the site at a mutually agreed upon time.

3. All shoreline permits shall contain provisions which require developers to immediately stop work and notify the city, affected tribes and the Washington State Office of Archaeology if any phenomena of possible archaeological interest are uncovered during excavations. In such cases, the developer shall be required to provide for a site inspection and evaluation by a professional archaeologist to ensure that all possible valuable archaeological data are properly salvaged.

4. Permits issued in areas known to contain archaeological artifacts and data shall include a requirement that the developer provide for a site inspection and evaluation by a professional archaeologist in coordination with affected Native American tribes. The permit shall require approval by the city before work can begin on a project following inspection. Significant archaeological data or artifacts shall be recovered before work begins or resumes on a project.

5. Significant archaeological and historic resources shall be permanently preserved for scientific study, education and public observation. Significant archaeological and historic resources shall be handled in conformance with the Federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. When the city determines that a site has significant archaeological, natural, scientific or historical value, a substantial development permit shall not be issued for activities which would pose a threat to the site. The city may require that development be postponed in such areas to allow investigation of public acquisition potential and/or retrieval and preservation of significant artifacts.

6. See Chapter 3, Section C for additional standards regarding emergency actions, standards for archaeological excavations, park and open spacing planning considerations, and public interpretation consideration.

1. The city of Monroe critical areas regulations, as codified in Chapter 22.80 MMC, are herein incorporated into this program except for the following:

2. In the event of a contradiction between the Monroe SMP and the critical areas regulations (Chapter 22.80 MMC), the provision more protective of the environment shall apply, as determined by the city.

3. MMC 22.80.090 (Stream development standards) requires a minimum buffer of two hundred feet from Type S streams. The Skykomish River and Woods Creek are both classified as Type S streams. Chapter 22.80 MMC also includes provisions for increasing the stream buffer as necessary to protect streams when either the stream is particularly sensitive to disturbances or the development poses unusual impacts.

4. In accordance with statute, wetlands associated with waters of the state fall within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. Buffer areas of wetlands and other critical areas that extend outside of the boundary of shoreline jurisdiction are regulated under the city of Monroe critical areas ordinance (Chapter 22.80 MMC). Activities occurring in these buffer areas would not require Monroe SMP review, and exceptions listed above shall not apply.

5. Allowances for Tye Storm Water Facility Fringe Wetlands. Wetlands that have developed around the edges of the Tye storm water facility must be delineated and protected as outlined in Chapter 22.80 MMC. However, the buffer from any Tye storm water facility fringe wetland shall only extend to the waterward edge of paved roads or gravel parking areas greater than fifty feet in width. Water-dependent uses, such as docks, may be permitted in wetlands that have developed adjacent to the Tye storm water facility; provided, that any impacts are mitigated.

6. In addition to the critical areas regulations, the city has adopted flood hazard area regulations, Chapter 14.01 MMC, which are administered by the city engineer. In accordance with WAC 173-26-221(3)(c), new structural flood hazard reduction measures should be allowed “only when it can be demonstrated by a scientific and engineering analysis that they are necessary to protect existing development, that nonstructural measures are not feasible, that impacts to ecological function and priority species and habitat can be successfully mitigated so as to assure no net loss and that appropriate vegetation conservation actions are undertaken.”

7. All integrating critical areas regulations from Chapter 3, Section D of the Monroe SMP are codified in this section.

1. All project proposals within shoreline jurisdiction, including those for which a shoreline permit is not required, shall comply with Chapter 43.21C RCW, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act.

2. Projects that cause significant ecological impacts, as defined in Monroe SMP Chapter 8 (Definitions), are not allowed unless mitigated, according to the sequence in subsection (E)(4) of this section, to avoid reduction or damage to ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions.

3. Projects that cause significant adverse impacts, other than significant ecological impacts, shall be mitigated according to the sequence in subsection (E)(4) of this section.

4. When applying mitigation to avoid or minimize significant adverse effects and significant ecological impacts, the city will apply the following sequence of steps in order of priority, with subsection (E)(4)(a) of this section being top priority:

5. The city will set mitigation requirements or permit conditions based on impacts identified. In determining appropriate mitigation measures, avoidance of impacts by means such as relocating or redesigning the proposed development will be applied first. Lower priority measures will be applied only after higher priority measures are demonstrated to be not feasible or not applicable. When critical areas are impacted, mitigation will be designed consistent with the critical areas regulations as applicable in shoreline jurisdiction.

6. All shoreline development shall be located and constructed to avoid significant adverse impacts to human health and safety.

7. Application of the mitigation sequence shall achieve no net loss of ecological functions for each new development and will not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions fostered by the policy of the Act.

8. When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to the mitigation priority sequence above, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and in the immediate vicinity of the impact. However, alternative compensatory mitigation within the watershed that addresses limiting factors or identified critical needs for shoreline resource conservation based on watershed or comprehensive resource management plans applicable to the area of impact may be authorized. Authorization of compensatory mitigation measures may require appropriate safeguards, terms or conditions as necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological functions.

9. All integrating environmental impact regulations from Chapter 3, Section E of the Monroe SMP are codified in this section.

1. The applicant shall provide the following information as part of a shoreline permit application:

2. New development must be consistent with subsections (F)(2)(a) through (e) of this section in addition to the provisions of this program. In cases of inconsistency, the provisions most protective of shoreline ecological functions and processes shall apply:

3. New development, including significant vegetation removal and shoreline stabilization, is not allowed within the CMZ except for:

4. The city shall determine whether or not the previous exceptions apply to the development proposal in question. The city may require the project proponent to submit documentation or analysis based on scientific and technical information demonstrating that the development proposal meets the exception criteria in subsections (F)(3)(a) through (f) of this section. Further, such exceptions will be allowed only where it can be shown that these activities, along with mitigation measures associated with the development, will not increase flood elevations, decrease storage capacity, or restrict the natural erosion and accretion processes associated with channel migration.

5. Significant ecological impacts of all development in the CMZ and structural hazard reduction measures shall be mitigated according to the priorities listed under subsection (E) of this section, Environmental Impacts and Mitigation.

6. Otherwise allowed development in the CMZ and flood hazard reduction measures shall employ the type of construction or measure that causes the least significant ecological impacts. When authorizing development within the CMZ, the city will require that the construction method with the least negative significant ecological impacts be used.

7. Existing hydrological connections into and between water bodies, such as streams, tributaries, wetlands, and dry channels, shall be maintained. Where feasible, obstructed channels shall be reestablished as a condition of non-water-dependent uses, development in the CMZ, and structural flood hazard reduction measures.

8. Reestablishment of native vegetation waterward of a new structure is required where feasible. The city may require reestablishment of vegetation landward of the structure if it determines such vegetation is necessary to protect and restore ecological functions.

9. Designs for flood hazard reduction measures and shoreline stabilization measures in river corridors must be prepared by qualified professional engineers (or geologists or hydrologists) who have expertise in local riverine processes.

10. Structural flood hazard reduction projects that are continuous in nature, such as dikes or levees, shall provide for public access unless the city determines that such access is not feasible or desirable according to the criteria in the public access section.

11. Along with the above criteria and the allowed use and modifications table in MMC 22.82.040, refer to Chapter 3, Section F (standards 11 through 17) of the Monroe SMP for limits on specific uses within the one-hundred-year floodplain.

1. Parking facilities shall be designed and landscaped to minimize adverse impacts upon adjacent shoreline and abutting properties. Landscaping shall consist of native vegetation and plant materials approved by the city and be planted before completion of the parking area in such a manner that plantings provide effective screening within three years of project completion.

2. Parking facilities serving individual buildings located on parcels that are contiguous with shoreline water bodies shall be located landward from the principal building being served, except when the parking facility is within or beneath the structure and adequately screened, or in cases when an alternate location would have less environmental impact on the shoreline.

3. Parking facilities for shoreline activities shall provide safe and convenient pedestrian circulation within the parking area and to the shorelines.

4. Parking facilities shall provide adequate facilities to prevent surface water runoff from contaminating water bodies, using best available technologies, and include a maintenance program that will assure proper functioning of such facilities over time.

1. Development, uses and activities on public lands shall be designed and operated to avoid blocking, reducing or adversely interfering with the public’s physical access to the water and shorelines, unless such access would cause ecological impacts.

2. Public access provided by shoreline street ends, public utilities, rights-of-way, and other public lands shall not be diminished. RCW 35.79.035 and 36.87.130 restrict the city from vacating right-of-way which abuts on a body of fresh water unless the purpose of the vacation is to enable the public authority to acquire the vacated property for boat launching sites, or for park, viewpoint, recreational, and educational or other public purposes.

3. Shoreline development, uses and activities shall be designed and operated to avoid blocking, reducing, or adversely interfering with the public’s visual access to the water and shorelines, except that vegetation conservation and shoreline restoration activities may intrude into view corridors where necessary to protect or restore ecological functions. The city may require the development proposal to be relocated or reconfigured to reduce view blockage.

4. Along with the above criteria, refer to Chapter 3, Section H (standards 4 through 7) of the Monroe SMP for additional public access requirements.

1. All development, including clearing and grading, shall minimize significant vegetation removal to the extent feasible. In order to implement this regulation, applicants proposing development that includes significant vegetation removal, clearing or grading must provide, as a part of a shoreline permit or a letter of exemption application, a site plan, drawn to scale, indicating extent of the proposed clearing and/or grading. The city may require that the proposed development or extent of clearing and grading be modified to mitigate the impacts to ecological functions.

2. Restoration of any shoreline that has been disturbed or degraded shall use native plant materials with a diversity and type similar to that which naturally occurs on site unless the city finds that native plant materials are inappropriate or not hardy in the particular situation.

3. The Monroe SMP includes additional detailed standards for ensuring vegetation conservation, including shoreline environment designation specific criteria. For all development that includes clearing of existing native vegetation, the applicant and city shall ensure consistency with Chapter 3, Section L of the Monroe SMP.

1. All shoreline development, both during and after construction, shall avoid or minimize ecological impacts, including any increase in surface runoff, through control, treatment, and release of surface water runoff so that the receiving water quality and shore properties and features are not adversely affected.

2. All development shall conform to local, state, and federal water quality regulations, provided the regulations do not conflict with this program. Where there is a conflict, provisions most protective of the natural ecology shall apply. The city of Monroe adopts the latest version of the Department of Ecology Storm Water Management Manual for Western Washington to regulate storm water discharge and management.

3. Water quality regulations apply to the Tye storm water facility environment and its associated aquatic environment only as they are consistent with maintaining the primary purpose of the human-made Tye storm water facility, collecting and treating storm water runoff from existing and future developments within its catchment area. Any loss of ecological functions must be mitigated.

4. All water quality regulations from Chapter 3, Section M of the Monroe SMP are codified in this section. (Ord. 015/2019 § 1)

1. No reasonable alternative conforming use is practical; and

2. The proposed use will be at least as consistent with the policies and provisions of the Act and the Monroe SMP and as compatible with the uses in the area as the preexisting use. In addition, such conditions may be attached to the permit as are deemed necessary to assure compliance with the above findings, the requirements of the Monroe SMP and the Shoreline Management Act, and to assure that the use will not become a nuisance or a hazard.

1. Remedial Actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial action at a facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to Chapter 70.105D RCW, or to the Department of Ecology when it conducts a remedial action under Chapter 70.105D RCW.

2. Boatyard Improvements to Meet NPDES Permit Requirements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person installing site improvements for storm water treatment in an existing boatyard facility to meet requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System storm water general permit.

3. WSDOT Facility Maintenance and Safety Improvements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.356, Washington State Department of Transportation projects and activities meeting the conditions of RCW 90.58.356 are not required to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other local review.

4. Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant to RCW 90.58.045. (Ord. 015/2019 § 1)

1. The city shall narrowly construe exemptions. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions in the definition for substantial development found in Chapter 8 of the Monroe SMP, or those exemptions or exceptions listed in WAC 173-27-040, and/or Chapter 90.58 RCW may be granted exemption from the substantial development permit process.

2. An exemption from the substantial development permit process is not an exemption from compliance with the Shoreline Management Act or the Monroe SMP, or from any other regulatory or municipal requirements. All uses and developments must be consistent with the policies and provisions of the Monroe SMP and the Shoreline Management Act. A development or use, either listed as a conditional use in the Monroe SMP or an unlisted use, must obtain a conditional use permit even though the development or use does not require a substantial development permit. When a proposed development or use does not comply with the bulk, dimensional and performance standards of the Monroe SMP, such development or use shall require a variance.

3. The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt from the shoreline permit process is on the applicant; as such, a written request for exemption shall be submitted to the community development department, with the proposed development application, in conformance with this section.

4. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for an exemption, then a substantial development permit is required for the entire proposed development project.

5. The city of Monroe may attach conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses, as necessary, to assure consistency of the project with the Shoreline Management Act and the Monroe SMP. (Ord. 015/2019 § 1; Ord. 005/2019 § 10 (Exh. B))

1. The policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act;

2. The provisions of this regulation; and

3. The approved master program.

1. Uses classified in the Monroe SMP as conditional uses may be authorized, provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:

2. Other uses which are not classified or set forth in the Monroe SMP may be authorized as conditional uses; provided, that the applicant can demonstrate, in addition to the criteria set forth in subsections (A)(1) and (A)(3) of this section, that extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable use of the property in a manner consistent with the use regulations of the Monroe SMP.

3. In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests or like actions in the area.

4. Uses specifically prohibited by the Monroe SMP may not be authorized pursuant to either subsection (A)(1) or (A)(3) of this section.

1. Variances should be granted in a circumstance where denial of the permit will not thwart the policy enumerated in the Shoreline Management Act or the Monroe SMP. In all instances, extraordinary circumstances shall be shown, and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect.

2. Variances for development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark may be authorized, provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:

3. Variances for development that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark may be authorized, provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the criteria specified above; and provided, that the applicant can demonstrate that the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance.

4. In granting of all variances, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests or like actions in the area.

5. Variances from the use regulations of the Monroe SMP are prohibited. (Ord. 015/2019 § 1; Ord. 005/2019 § 10 (Exh. B))

1. If the community development department determines that the proposed changes are within the scope and intent of the original permit, the department may approve the revision, provided it is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and the Monroe SMP.

2. “Within the scope and intent of the original permit” means the following:

3. The zoning administrator may authorize revisions to shoreline permits after the original permit authorization has expired under RCW 90.58.143. The purpose of such revisions shall be limited to authorization of changes which are consistent with this section and which would not require a permit for the development or change proposed under the terms of Chapter 90.58 RCW and the Monroe SMP. If the proposed change constitutes substantial development, then a new permit is required; provided, this subsection shall not be used to extend the time requirements or to authorize 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, will violate the criteria specified above, the city shall require the applicant to apply for a new substantial development, conditional use, or variance permit in the manner provided for herein.

5. The department of community development shall file with the Department of Ecology the revision approval, including the revised site plans and text consistent with the provisions of WAC 173-27-180 as necessary to clearly indicate the authorized changes, and the final ruling on consistency with this section. In addition, the city shall notify parties of record of their action.

6. If the revision to the original permit involves a conditional use or variance, the city shall submit the revision to the Department of Ecology for final approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The Department of Ecology shall render and transmit to the city and the applicant its final decision within fifteen days of receipt of the submittal from the city. The city shall notify parties of record of the Department of Ecology’s final decision.

7. The revised permit is effective immediately upon final decision by the city or, when appropriate under subsection (A)(6) of this section, upon final action by the Department of Ecology.

8. Appeals shall be in accordance with RCW 90.58.180 and shall be filed within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of the city’s action by the Department of Ecology or, when appropriate under subsection (A)(6) of this section, the date the Department of Ecology’s final decision is transmitted to the city and the applicant. Appeals shall be based only upon contentions of noncompliance with the provisions of subsection (A)(2) of this section. Construction undertaken pursuant to that portion of a revised permit not authorized under the 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 permit, the decision shall have no bearing on the original permit. (Ord. 015/2019 § 1; Ord. 005/2019 § 10 (Exh. B))