HomeMy WebLinkAbout4365 BREHERTON CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ~-~ ~
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY
OF BREHERTON SHORELINE MANAGMENT MASTER
PROGP. AM OF 1977 WHICH PROMULGATES SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND USE REGULATIONS
CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 AS AMENDED.
WHEREAS. the State of Washington Shoreline Management Act
of 171 and all subsequent amendments is the law of the State of
Washington; and
WHEREAS. certain duties, obligations and responsibilities
have thereby become incumbent upon the City of Bremerton; and
WHEREAS. the City of Bremerton approved a Shoreline
Master Program by Resolution No. 1736, dated October 5, 1977; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has performed the required
steps under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and its
amendments, in the preparation of the amended City of Bremerton
Shoreline Management Master Program; and
WHEREAS, the amended City of Bremerton Shoreline
Management Master Program was adopted on February 5, 1992 by the
State of Washington Department of Ecology, pursuant to WAC 173-19-
062 Submission of master pro,rams and amendments by local
government and 173-19-064 Review and adoption of master programs
and amendments by the department; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has met the requirements
of WAC 173-19 Shoreline Manaqement Act of 1971--State Master
Pro.ram for amending shoreline master programs; now. therefore
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
SECTION 1. Amendments to the City of Bremerton Shoreline
Management Master Program, as listed in Exhibit A attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby adopted.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton on
PASSED by the City Council of the this ~- ~ day of
~-~¢ r~ ~L.~ , ~992.
President, City Council
LOUIS MENT6~,~ Mayor
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, Clerk
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
City of Bremerton, W'_ashington
Proposed ltevtsions
AMENDED TEXT SMP AMENDMENTS
Public Access .......... 1
Shore Modification ....... 38
View Protection ......... 66
Joint--Use Moorage ........ 76
Kitsap Lake & Kitsap Wetlands . . 80
Housekeepin~ Amendments ..... 81
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
PUBLIC ACCESS
BREMERTON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
JULY 31~ 1991
City of Bremerton
Department of Community Development/Planning Division
Project Manager: Kay W. Wilson, Senior Planner
286 Fourth Street, Bremerton, WA 98310
(206) 478-5275
The preparation of this report was financially aided through a
grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology with funds
obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and appropriated for Section 306 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972.
PROPOSED NEW SECTION
PUBLIC ACCESS
APPLICABILITY
Shoreline public access: The physical ability of the general
public to reach and touch the water's edge and/or the ability to
have a view of the water and the shoreline from upland locations.
There are a variety of types of public access including picnic
areas, pathways and trails (including handicapped), floats and
docks, promenades, viewing towers, bridges, boat launches, street
ends, ingress and egress, parking and others.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Physical publlc access: Unobstructed access with public use
improvements which are available to the general public extending
from the public right-of-way to the ordinary high water mark
(OHWM) or to the wetland directly abutting the OHWM. This
includes access to the navigable waters of any water body and to
tidelands in marine waters.
Visual public access: Access with public use improvements
available to the general public which provide a view of the
shoreline or water but do not allow physical access to the
shoreline.
General public access: Public access of a size and design
appropriate to the site, size and general nature of the proposed
development.
Improved public access: Physical public access from the right-
of-way to and along the entire waterfront of the subject property
within the OHWM yard.
OHWM yard: The shoreline setback area upland of the Ordinary
High Water Mark.
Limited public access (physical or visual): Access with
restrictions that are deemed necessary to protect the health,
safety or welfare of the public OR to protect and maintain a
particular site. Restrictions may limit times of use, or allow
access only to certain users. [A limitation to restrict access
may not be based on race, sex, color, creed, age or physical
disability.] For example, such restrictions may limit public use
to daylight hours, limit use to residents of a private community,
or restrict use of tidelands used for shellfish production.
PUBLIC ACCESS I
Feasible: Physically capable of being put into effect,
accomplished, or utilized; practicable or suitable..
Minor Projects: Minor accessory uses, minor remodels of existing
development or other minor projects requiring a shoreline permit
to correspond to the impact of the improvement, when such
projects meet Master Program criteria for revision of permits.
[Part 3 - Revision of Permits]
GOAL
· Protect and enhance the rights of the general public to
enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline,
while allowlng controlled dewelopment consistent with the
public interest.
· Plan, provide and maintain a comprehensive system of
public access, designed to provide safe, abundant
access to shoreline recreational areas, while
preventing trespass onto private properties.
· Encourage water-oriented shoreline uses and
activities that provide an opportunity for substantial
numbers of the public to enjoy city shorelines.
Public access should include, where appropriate, activities
ranging from camping and shellfish harvesting to the appreciation
of a simple water view. Access can be to and from the uplands
adjacent to the shoreline, to tidelands, beaches, stream
corridors and to the water itself.
While publlc access is most frequently gained over public land,
it can also be a mitigating component in a development on private
land. In such cases, the public may gain some form of access to
or near the shoreline, while the developer is able to complete a
project that otherwise may have unacceptable impacts on public
views of, access to, and use of the shoreline and water. This
right of access is most often obtained as a condition of
development approval in the form of a public access easement.
Public access could also be conveyed in fee simple (transfer of
title). Public access may also be achieved by developers
contributing to the cooperative development of public properties
such as street rights-of-way.
POLICIES
1. Incorporate.public access into all private and public
developments (including land division), with the exception
of: small single-family development; small multi-family
development; agricultural/ranching activities; and where
deemed inappropriate due to health or safety hazards,
PUBLIC ACCESS 2
security requirements, environmental impacts, or undue
conflict with adjacent uses.
2. Create incentives for developers to provide viewpoints,
pathway sections, and view corridors between buildings, over
and above minimum requirements.
3. Control development, uses and activities on or near the
shoreline so as not to impair or detract from the public's
visual and physical access to the water.
4. Preserve and enhance public views from the shoreline and
upland areas. Enhancement of views will not be construed to
mean excessive removal of vegetation that partially impairs
views or creation of a view not previously existing.
5. Limit publicly-owned shorelines to water-dependent uses,
public recreational uses, or protected open space.
6. Maintain, enhance, and preserve public access afforded by
shoreline street-ends, public utilities and rights-of-way.
7. Design public access to include:
a. Public access as close as possible to the water's edge.
b. Protection of sensitive shoreline areas such as
wetlands and unstable bluffs; incorporate erosion
control and wildlife habitat protection measures.
c. Naturally regenerating systems for prevention and
control of beach erosion, such as gravel berms, drift
sills, beach nourishment, and beach enhancement where
appropriate.
d. Provisions for public safety and ease of maintenance;
e. Clear separation of public and private space by
physical or other means in order to avoid unnecessary
user conflict. This separation can be achieved by
adequate space and through effective screening, such as
with landscape plantings or fences.
f. Adequate space and features to make the access area a
comfortable and safe place to visit. The public space
should be of sufficient size to allow passage and allow
visitors to stop, linger, and contemplate the setting.
It should be designed so that visitors will feel safe
from such things as industrial activities, biting dogs
and irate homeowners.
PUBLIC ACCESS
g. Features consistent with the adopted Bremerton
Waterfront Access Plan where applicable.
8. Link public access points with pathway systems for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Provide linkages between
pathway systems, public transit routes, and activity
centers.
9. Separate bicycle from pedestrian traffic. Strategically
place bicycle parking racks to encourage separation of
bicyclists and pedestrians.
10. Require landowners to keep public access facilities on
private land maintained up to code standards to limit public
liability.1
REGULATIONS
1. Public Access Requirement: Provisions for adequate public
access shall be incorporated into all shoreline developments
except as provided below.
a. Exceptions:
i. A residential project containing four (4) or less
dwelling units;
ii. A subdivision containing four (4) or less lots;
iii. A ,,minor project".2
2. Payment in Lieu of Public Access: When public access is
required, the City may authorize a payment in lieu of such
public access, as follows:
a. Criteria for Eligibility: To qualify to make payment
in lieu of providing public access, the applicant shall
demonstrate that:
1RC~/ &.24.220-210 limits the [{abitit¥ of tandowners ~ recreat~onat ushers, providing a fee is not
charged, in order to protect tando~ners ~ho at[o~ public recreatJonat use of their rands.
2Defined under I)efin{tion of Terms, above.
PUBLIC ACCESS 4
i. Ail reasonable alternatives have been exhausted,
including but not limited to:
(1) Providing "limite4 public access,,3 to
protect the public health, safety or welfare
or protect and maintain the particular site;
(2) Designing separation of uses and activities,
(e.g. fences, terracing, use of one-way
glazings, hedges, landscaping, etc.) to
provide security for and protect adjacent
sites from unreasonable intrusions into their
privacy; and
(3) Provisions for access at a site
geographically separated from the proposal
such as a street end, vista or trail system;
and
ii. One or more of the following provisions apply:
(1) Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the
public exist which cannot be prevented by any
practical means;
(2) Inherent security requirements of the use
cannot be satisfied through the application
of alternative design features or other
reasonable solutions;
(3) Unacceptable environmental harm will result
from the public access that cannot be
mitigated; or
(4) Significant undue and unavoidable conflict
between any access provisions and the
proposed use and/or adjacent uses would occur
and cannot be mitigated.
b. Public Access Payment. Where the above conditions are
met, a payment in lieu of providing public access shall
be made in accordance with RCW 82.02.020.4 Such
payments shall be deposited into a general shoreline
public access fund an~ dedicated to support established
areas or to acquire extensions to the public access
system in the near vicinity of the project site.
31bid.
4Rev{sedCode of Washington, Exc{se Tax regulations: prov{s~ons and [{mitations for voluntary payments
by devetopers.
PUBLIC ACCESS 5
3. General Public Access: Where "public access" is required
for certain use activities, such access shall consist of the
following:
a. .Visual public access;5
b. Easement: A public access easement along the water's
edge. (See "Public Access Easement" below);
b. Within Adopted Waterfront Access ,,Link,, Plan Area:6
An upland sidewalk and/or pathway connecting existing
or proposed water access areas where specified by the
Plan, including appropriate trees, signs and street
furnishings.
4. ii~'~'~ildii!=ii!~i~i~'~'ii~i=iX~'6~i~7: Where "improved public access" is
'~'~'~e~d"~'~'~'f6~'"~""6'~"~'~i'h"'~'~Se activities, such access shall
include:
....... ~ {~~=~=~?~ (Also see Public Access' Easement below2')
~'~:'?~?:~:~?~?T-~d' ~ entire dedicated area sh
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
prese~ing and enhancing
.............................. n'~"i~e"'"'~'e'~e't'~'~'i~'h'""~'~h'e'~ feasibl e,
by the property owner; and
5
Current Commercial and Residential pubtic access requirements include: "Provide an opportunity
for the public, patrons and/or residents to view the waterfront area."
A "Link One" p[en for the area between the downtown and the college was adopted in 1990. "link
Two" end "Link Three" ptans for two other areas of the city are proposed for adoption in the
near future.
7Shaded text identifies public access provisions contained in current Master Program requirements for
Commercial and I~esidentia[ Devetopment. Some wording has been revised to fit the senter~e structure of the
proposed amendments.
Put)tic Access Easement provision moved to Iiegu[ation 5.
PUBLIC ACCESS 6
5. ~blic Access Easement:
a. Size and Design: ~en re~ired, public access
easements along shorelines shall be of a size and
design appropriate to the site, size and general nature
of the proposed development. Minim~ width (unless
othe~ise specified in an adopted City plan):
i. Wate~ard of the Ordinary High Water Mark (O~):
Thirty (30) feet.
ii. Landward of the 0~: A minimum width necessary
to accommodate accessways which will not damage
bluffs, stream banks, or other shoreline features,
but no less than 9
9Current Commercial and Residentiat "improved pubtic access" requfrements inctude "dedication of a 12-
foot public access easement to the City atong the shoreline".
PUBLIC ACCESS 7
iii. Connecting nearest right-of-way and shorellne
easement= Ten (10) feet.1°
iv. Minlmum Wldth Exception= When the applicant
demonstrates that undue hardship would result from
minimum width standards, easement width may be
reduced only to the minimum extent necessary to
relieve the hardship.
b. Recording= Public access easements and permit
conditions shall be recorded on the deed of title
and/or on the face of a plat or short plat as a
condition running contemporaneous with the authorized
land use, as a minimum. Said recording with the Kitsap
County Auditor's Office shall occur at the time of
permit approval (RCW 58.17.110).
6. Design and Operation=
a. Development uses and activities shall be designed and
operated to avoid blocking, reducing, or adversely
interfering with the public's visual or physical access
to the water and shorelines where feasible.
b. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the
nearest public street (or as otherwise provided by the
adopted Waterfront Access Plan)
c. Development uses and activities shall include features
consistent with the adopted Waterfront Access Plan.
d. Public access shall be made barrier free for the
physically disabled where feasible.
e. The entire dedicated area shall be open to public
access from at least 10:00 a.m. to dusk (one-half hour
after sunset) each day.11
7. Signs:
a. The standard state approved logo or other approved
signs that indicate the public's right of access and
hours of access shall be constructed, installed and
maintained by the property owner in conspicuous
locations at public access sites.
lOcurrent Cormnercia[ and Residential requirements for "improved public access" do not specify easement
requirements connecting street to shoreline.
11Current Master Program provisions for "improved pub[lc access" in Co~nercial and Resfdentia[
developments: "The watkway shat[ be open to the pubtic from at [east mid-morning to dusk."
PUBLIC ACCESS 8
b. Signs may control or restrict public access as a
condition of permit approval, in accordance with
regulation 2.a. (1).
8. Oocupancy~ Required public access sites shall be fully
developed and available for public use at the time of
occupancy of the use or activity.
8. Future Actions: Future actions by the applicant or other
parties shall not diminish the usefulness or value of the
public access provided.
Table 3 - Required Public Acosss (Summary)
Table 3 summarizes the public access requirements for. the~I
various Uses and Activities regulated by the Master Program.
Related Use Activity Amendments
The remaining pages list e×isti'ng and proposed public access
provisions in the various Use Activity sections of the
Master Program.
New wording
Deleted Wording
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 10
TABLE 3
REQUIRED PUBLIC ACCESS (SUHHARY}~2
USE ACTIVITY GENERAL iMPROVED SPECIAL PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
PUBLIC PUBLIC
ACCESS ACCEBB
AQUACULTURE F
ARCHEOLOGICAL F F 1. Provide as required for
AREAS & associated use.
HISTORIC 2. Design and manage to give maximum
SITES protection to resource.
COMMERCIAL R R 1. Downtown Waterfront: In
DEVELOPMENT accordance with adopted Downtown
Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan.
FOREST F 1. Provide along Shorelines of
MANAGEMENT State-wide Significance:
PRACTICES a. Roadside scenic view
pullovers;
b. Shoulder parking and
pedestrian access to streams;
LANDFILL * * 1. Provide as required for
a~sociated use.
MARINAS R F 1. Provide along top of breakwater
where feasible.
MINING F F 1. Provide safe visual access when
physical access not feasible.
PARKS AND R R 1. Motorized vehicular access to
RECREATION beaches, bars, spits and
streambeds limited to boat
launching and maintenance
activities.
2. All-terrain and off-road vehicles
permitted only where specific
areas are set aside and
controlled, and only when demand
is sufficient to warrant such
activity.
3. Golf courses: Provide public
access for dispersed passive
recreation.
PORT AND R R 1. Provide visual and/or physical
INDUSTRY public access whenever feasible
and safe.
access requirements. It Is necessarily IncompLete, end does not substitute for the actual potlclem and
regutattons contained in tho~e sections.
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 11
USE ACTIVITY GENERAL IMPROVED SPECIAL PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
PUBLIC PUBLIC
ACCESS ACCESS
RESIDENTIAL R R 1. Exceptions: Multi-family
DEVELOPMENT developments, subdivisions, and
planned unit developments of four
(4) or less waterfront
lots/units.
ROADS, * * 1. Public Roads with Scenic Vistas:
RAILROADS AND a. Viewpoint areas;
BRIDGES b. Provisions for safe pedestrian
and non-motorized vehicular
travel through scenic
corridors.
SHORE * * 1. Provide as required for
STABILIZATION associated use.
2. Dikes and Levees: Provide linear
public access when in public
interest. Improved public access
is preferred.
3. Breakwaters, Jetties, & Groins:
Provide where feasible and safely
compatible.
4. Bulkheads at public access sites:
Provide for safe access to the
water.
SIGNS
UTILITIES R R 1. Provide for compatible multiple
use of sites and rights-of-way,
including physical and/or visual
access points and trail systems.
WATER ACCESS * * 1. Provide as required for
AND MOORAGE associated use, consistent with
FACILITIES scale of project.
KEY: R - Public Access required
F - Public Access required where feasible
* - Required as stated in Special Public Access Requirements column.
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 12
AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES (P. 5 0 ) 13
Policies
4. Encourage cooperative arrangements between farmers and public
recreation agencies to allow public use of shorelines where it
does not conflict with agricultural operations.
Requlations
13Normal egriculturat practfces ere exempt from the substant(e[ deve[ol~ent permit requirement. However
some practfces associated with sgricutture0 such as dikes, woutd require · permit.
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 13
AQUACULTURE ( P. 52 -53 )
Policies
3. ! .................... !::~*~!~:: '~¥~ ...... m~ ~ ~ ~-; ~ A ~
~Pg:~ ........ ~ .... aquaculture development
~'""~'~'~ ~ ~ . : ====================================================== , , :.:.:.:
.... ~ ...... e ~o:::.::~l~[~:ze detrimental lm acts
on the visual:~:~:~:~:~6:~:~:::::~:f~:~:~:~Upland o~ers and oh the general
aesthetic ~ality of the shoreline area.~4
4. Locate, design and operate a~aculture facilities to
minimize potential adverse impacts on local water resources,
a~atic plant and animal co--unities, land and water views,
and the physical character of the shoreline.
Requlat~ons
......................................
4. A~aculture structures and e~ip~ent, EXCE~ navigation
aids, shall be designed, operated, and ~aintained to blend
into their surroundings through the use of appropriate
colors and ~aterials.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
1) Over-water a~aculture structures shall be
constructed of non-reflective ~aterials that blend
in with the shoreline environment.
As policies ere revised, the sentence structure is being' changed from "subject/verb/object"
to "verb/object" to be consistent ~ith comprehensive ptan poticy sentence structure, as in
Aquacu[ture Policy ~. These routine changes are not being shown uith strike-out and shaded
text un[ess the po[icy is being substantively revised.
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 14
more ithon th
b. For floating culture facilities the city shall rese~e
the right to re~ire a visual impact analysis
consi~ttng of tnfomation comparable to that found
the 1986 Department of Ecology "A~acultural ~tting
Study". Such analysis may be prepared by the
applicant, without professional assistance, provided
that it is competently prepared.
b. ~'~g'~J"~: ~eve~ Potential visual impacts on upland
ownors shall not b~ a basis for denying aquaculture
projects in otherwi~e ~uitable
a~acult~re deVelOpment' p~:o'~:id:~::::bpport:nitiez:' for
educational tours. '
PURLIC Accrss RELATFD tmr ACIlVIIY AHKNDHENT$ ~
ARCHEOLOGICAL AREAS AND HISTORIC SITES (P. 54-55)
Policies
1. Identify and protect areas of special significance for
enjoyment by the public.
Requlations
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENIS 16
COHHERCIAL .DEVELOPMENT (P. 56-61}
Policies
2. Cite15 ~6~ commercial development to maximize the
enjoym~h~:¥:¥~:~~ the shoreline for a substantial number of
patrons, or for the general public.
3. Locate parking, circulation, and other elements of a
commercial development so as not to interfere with visual
quality and visual or physical access to the shoreline.
b. "~t .... l~t~ .... ,
15
Current wording: "Co~ercia[ devetopment shoutd be sited to maximize the enjoyment of the
shoreline,.."
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 17
2. Commercial uses that are proposed for shoreline locations
will be evaluated individually for their visual impact,
waterfront relationship to the shoreline, and potential to
enhance public access, direct and visual, to the shoreline.
6. Publis Access Requirements:
.................................... '~'d'~"'h:~:~'~'~':"~"~'~'":"':the water's edge shall provide "improved
public access" to and along the shoreline. (See ~blic
Access use activity section.)~
7.
~ ...................... d~. may
spacc;
16 Requfrements for "imp¢oved pubtic access" are located in the proposed ne~ Pubtic Access
section.
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS ~
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS
FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (P. 6 4 ] 17
Policfes
1. Conduct forest management practices in such a manner as to
prevent soil erosion, protect fish and wildlife habitat,
protect water quality, and maintain scenic values.
2. Water boundaries should be protected by suitable buffer
strips.
........................ ~'s~a~'t~iallY: natural' COnditton;?:/:'.Ltmifi. timber .ha~est; tn,
..... ......... With[n'-shOrelines of State-wide.:signiftcance .as fo~..!9~s.~~
............. ~rovlded'wi~h the proVi~ion.of~'~oad~de
b~?'adening of road 'ShoUlder's.~//
.................. parking':iand 'appropriate p-e.d.e.-s.trian, a~ce'~s ~-.-~o .th.9 ......... ' ..............
stream.
road' parking and az'sOcia'ted Pedestrian access
OPPortunity,.to the 'stream~edge,.'.if feasible.
17Shorettne permits are not norm. fly required for forest practices. Retated activities such as road
require public access and should be authorized prior to the forest practices activity occurring.
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 20
LANDFZLt
Pollcles
2. Give priority to landfills for water-dependent uses and for
public uses. In evaluatin~ fill projects,
flow and circulation ~i~:~~, reduction of water
~ality, and dest~ct~6~:~:~:6:~:"'~abitat %'ili bc ccnsldcrcd.
Re~lations
· · ~ ~ -- ~ · · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "?:::.:':: :::.: .-:.... :~.:~.:~. ':~:.:.: :~ ~.'.:.:::.: :.:.:.:.:-:~:~: :.:?:.¥.:.: :.:.:.: :::,~[. :.:: ..:.:::.: :f::...~:~:~::.:.: :.:.:.::~ ~. ::::::::::::::::::::: ============================== ?::--.:.:::.:.:.:
'~'~:~':':':':~:~':':':':'~:'~Verse effect upo~ '~:'~9':[~:~:~'1on, natural systems,
adjoini~9 properties are prohibited.
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 21
MARIN;~S (P.70-7~)
Pol~cles
Regulations
2. Proposals for marinas shall include an evaluation of ~he
following: ~a~er circulation and flushing~ marine life~
petroleum handling and s~orage~ upland impac~ visual
~ali~y~ effec~ upon ~he Environmen~ designation and land
use~ and any o~her concerns deemed necessary.
3. Breakwaters constructed for pro~ec~ion of marinas shall be
designed ~o allo~ public access along ~he ~op, ~here
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 22
MINING
Policies
................................... ~:~ii~~ ~.~i!ii ~ ~ i~ii~'~i! :~ ~
Re~lations
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 23
PARKS AND RECREATION P. ? 3-? 4
Policies
1. Develop existing and acquired publicly owned lands to assure
~a.x.~.m....u..m. ~.e..c..~eg.t.~?..nal oppor~_nities ~:~:::,~i~!!~.~i~
2. ~:. ~:~:~: .... ~ ........................
~.9~. ~ ............ Ac~lre these areas by lease or
.......... ~ ...... ~fom~nco~ora~ion into the public
tcgcther.
5, Encourage th~ use of shor~lin~ street ~nds
',: :,:.:< :.<.: '., .: :,:-:.v ' '-:.:,:.: ' '.:.: :..: :..:-:,:.' ' :,:c c. :+: ','.<,? ' '.' ' ?:.~.:.' :~.' · -,,.'-',, .:<. ,:.' ' ' :.:.
own~d~=~=~ands for pubtzc access and ~.e~
7, Give priority to developments which provide recreational
uses and other i~provements facilitating public access to
shorelines,
1. Street-e~d parks, where developed to se~e co~umity needs,
shall be limited to car top boat launching, waterfront
viewing, swimming, or fishing, and shall be
not to interfere with privacy of adjacent residential uses.
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 2 4
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDNENTS 2 S
PORT AND INDUSTRY (P.75-76)
Policies
6. D s~n~:and Dpera~e new ports and industry on the shoreline
.............. ~ ......... to minimize adverse visual and
environmental impact.
Re~lations
................................. ~:~ ~ ~ ~:?~[~.~ ~'d:;~ ::b~f f ~:.~ ~d ::~ ~:[~: ~: ~ :.~'~ ~:~:~ ~:.~:~ ~:~:.i[ih~:~ ~::~ ~ ~;~t'~'~
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AHENDHENTS 26
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY ANENDHENTS 27
18
Current .utti-fami[y "improved public access" provisions are identical to
provisions. Requirements for "improved public access" are proposed to be moved to the new
Public Access section.
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 28
RO;NDSm RAILRO;NDSm AND BRIDGES (P.81-82)
Policles
un c ........... t~ ~ .........
3. Encourage rest areas, view turnout points, and picnic areas
along shoreline areas, provided they do not detract from the
shoreline environment.
7. Provide facilities for safe pedestrian and other non-
motorized travel along public roadways in scenic areas.
Re~lattons
1. ~ndscape planting is re~ired along all shoreline roads,
parking, and turnout facilities to:
a. Provide buffers between pedestrian and auto users;
b. Enhance the shoreline driving experience; and
c. Enhance and complement potential views of shoreline
areas.
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 29
2. Applications for roads, railroads and bridges shall
adequately address the following criteria when appropriate:
f. That When public roads will afford scenic vistas,
viewpoint areas should i~i~i~ be provided. Scenic
corridors should !~!~ ~:~'~'~'~'sufficient provisions for
safe pedestrian a~n-motorized vehicular travel.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
19RCW 35.79.035 - a[tows vacations of streets abuttingt~dies of water on[~when: (a) the vacationwi(t
enabte acquisition of the property for public purposes; (bi the street or alley is not suitable for certain
purposes (e.g. port, park, education); or (c) the vacat;on,i[[ enable implementation of a pub[{c access ptan.
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 30
SHORE STABILIZATION (P. 83-87)
Policies - General
:~:~:~::~:~:`~:~:`~:~:~:.~:~:~:~:.::~:~:~:[~:~:~:~:~.:~:~:~:~:~:`~:~`~:~:~:.:~:`:.~:~:~:~:.~:~:~:~:~:.j:~.~.:~:~:.~:~:~:~.~:~::~:~:~:.~::~.~::~.`~:~[~[~j~:~:~: : ::: :.,...:.......: ....,.:..,,..
:::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:.
19
See proposed revisions to current "Shore Defense Works" section.
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY A~ENDMENTS
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 32
S~NS
Policies
3 ~ ~ .... ~ ~;~ aga'
' ' '" thc
'.'atek
bodics.
Re~lations
attcnt:cn-gctt:ng ~v
6. All ~'-~
.................. ~ signs and on-premiso signs shall be
constmcted on existing buildings, where feasible.
~???'~::~::~:?::~'"' ':~' .................. S ~::.:.~ ' ~:':::"::'::'"?'"'~:':'::~ .............................. ~0~ ~...~:':':~' '~F~':
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ ~:~ ~:::::~:~: :~:~: :::~:~::; :::-::~: :::~:~:
..................................
.................................. ~6~:~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 33
7. ~i~i~ili!!~i~i~i~i~i~i~i In Commercial designations that are
~i~i~'~e~--'f'f'~'~-~'~'fh~'~"~'~h~reline by a high bluff, the above sign
restrictions and sign prohibitions may be waived by the
direct?r of Co--unity Development if it can be demonstrated
that vlews will not be blcckcd ~~.~?~~~ and
that the signs will not be
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 34
UTILITIES · (P.91-92)
Policies
Re~lations
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 35
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS
WATER ACCESS AND MOORAGE FACILITIES (P.93-95)
Policies
2. Construct piers, docks and recreational floats should be
constructed so as to minimize obstruction of navigable
waters and not significantly reduce use of the water
surface.
4. Encourage the use of ~-~-~-~-
in those areas where scenic values are high, and where
conflicts with recreational boaters and fish. c-m~- .....
are not greatly increased.
................ so aS'to.be a~sthetically compatible'with'the area'igiSR'ai1'~
affected'and protect ~urrounding propertie~ from undue
impairment of views. ·
'~equlations - General
1. Prior to granting a permit for a pier, dock, or float, the
effects of the structure upon navigation, recreation, and
adjacent shorelines shall be determined, and disposition of
the permit by the City shall reflect such determination.
~i~!?i:!i. ii"W~ ~'~'7~'~'~'~''' '"a'n'd m o Ora g~' ' f'h~'~'~' i'~t'~'?"'~'h ~'i '~ '"'~ be" '~'66
designed and constructed so as.to cause minimum
wtth~?navigatio~-and public fuse ofi~.'th'e~i~i~!iwater surface~i!'a~d .......................
~ho'r~lin'~,
i~pa~rf0ent of 'viewsi~ - .... ....
uses reqa/iring pUblic access, shall provide public access
faqi~S.consi~tent with i~the ~cal'e~iofliii.~he' Pro~ectii~i ...........................
ADD TO PART 2 DEFINITIONS SECTION:
Water-oriented~ Any comb~nation of water-dependent, water-
related, and/or water enjoyment uses; serves as an all
encompassing definition for priority uses under the SMA.
PUBLIC ACCESS RELATED USE ACTIVITY AMENDMENTS 3'7
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
~ HORE MODIFICATION
BREMERTON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
JULY 31t 1991
City of Bremerton
Department of Community Dovelopment/Planning Division
Project Manager: Kay W. Wilson, Senior Planner
286 Fourth Street, Bremerton, WA 98310
(206) 478-5275
The preparation of this report was financially aided through a
grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology with funds
obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and appropriated for Section 306 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972.
SHORE MODIFICATION
APPLICABILITY
Shore modification: Actions which modify shore forms. These
actions include shore stabillzation activities as well as
dredging and landfill activities.
Shore stabilization: Actions taken to reduce adverse impacts
caused by current, flood, wake or wave action. These actions
include all structural and non-structural means to reduce impacts
due to significant flooding, erosion and accretion. Specific
shore modification activities included: beach enhancement;
breakwaters, jetties, rock weirs and groins; bulkheads and
seawalls; flood management; revetments (riprap); and other means
of shore protection.
These provisions apply to all structural and non-structural shore
modifications, actions and improvements associated with or in
support of a specific use. They also apply to projects whose
chief intent is to modify the shore of the property for which the
permit applies.
GOAL
· Protect uplands and harbors without adversely
impacting natural systems and adjacent shores, either
physically or aesthetically.
POLICIES - GENERAL
All shore modification measures shall be consistent with the
following general policies.
1. Purpose: Locate, design and construct shore stabilization
measures primarily to prevent damage to existing
development.
a. Locate and design new development in a manner so that
shore modification is not likely to become necessary in
the future.
b. Discourage new development requiring shore
modification.-
SHORE MO01F iCAT ION 38
2. Location/Design=
a. Give preference to stabilization activities which use
natural materials, (e.g. protective berms or vegetative
stabilizatlon) over structural works (of materials such
as steel, wood, or concrete), because the former have
less adverse and cumulative impacts on shore features
and habitats.
b. Allow structural solutions to reduce shore damage only
after it is demonstrated that natural methods are
unworkable.
c. Protect and/or restore the physlcal integrity of shore
processes and other properties which may be damaged by
interruptions of the geo-hydraulic system;
1) Strongly encourage or require professional design
by a registered engineer to ensure that project
design responds to complex modifying water
movements and littoral drift systems that extend
well beyond the project boundaries.
2) Require supplementary beach nourishment where
structural stabilization works are likely to
increase impoverishment of existing beach
materials at or downdrift from the project site.
e. Protect water quality and natural ground water
movement;
f. Protect valuable fish and wildlife vital to the aquatic
food chain, including their habitat;
g. Preserve valuable recreation resources and aesthetic
values, such as islands, point and channel bars,
braided stream banks, and other river and shore
features and scenery;
h. Public Access: Protect and/or enhance public access to
public shores. Where projects are publicly financed or
subsidized, provide public pedestrian access to
shorelines for low-intensity outdoor recreation.
3. Rivers and Streams:
a. Preserve rivers and streams in their natural state,
free of shoreline modification, where they are not now
influenced by urban growth and channelization.
SHORE HO01FICATION 39
b. Avoid substantial stream channel direction
modifications, realignment and straightening as a means
of shore stabilization and flood management.
c. Provide for the long-term multiple use of streamway
resources.
4. Coordinations Encourage affected property owners and public
agencies to coordinate shore modification development for an
entire drift sector or homogeneous reach in order to avoid
exacerbating erosion on adjacent properties.
5. Construction and Maintenance~
a. Ensure that construction and maintenance of shore
modification activities does not reduce the quality of
the existing environment.
b. Upon completion, require restoration of shore areas to
as near pre-project configuration as possible,
reestablishing vegetation with native species.
b. Require mitigation if loss of riparian vegetation and
habitat occurs.
REGULATIONS - GENERAL
All shore modification activities shall comply with the followlng
general regulatlons:
1. New Development: Ail new development activities shall be
located and designed to prevent or minimize the need for
shore modification and flood management works, such as
seawalls, bulkheads, riprap, landfills, levees, dikes,
groins, jetties, or substantial'site regrades.
2. Prohibited: Shore modification works are prohibited:
a. In wetlands;
b. On point and channel bars;
c. In salmon and trout spawning areas, except for fish or
wildlife habitat enhancement;
d. Where in support of a nonconforming shoreline use
except as permitted below.
SHORE HO01F i CAT ION 40
3. Criteria for Approval: Shore modification activities are
permitted when the applicant has demonstrated that:
a. The proposal is in support of an allowable shoreline
use that is in conformance with the provisions of this
Master Program. EXCEPTION= Shore modification may be
allowed as a shoreline activity when necessary to
maintain shoreline stability and the natural ecology.
b. The proposal is consistent with all applicable Master
Program provisions.
4. Applicat~on Requirements= Proposals for shore modification
shall include the following information, or as otherwise
determined by the director of Community Development:
a. Purpose of Project;
b. Description of Proposal:
i. Location of project;
ii. Construction materials (e.g. materials used,
dimensions of, design);
iii. Method of construction (e.g. source of backfill,
erosion contr01s);Purpose of project;
c. Characteristics of Site:
i. Toe and crest of uplands;
ii. Existing buildings;
iii. Existing shore stabilization and flood protection
devices;
iv. Ordinary, low, and high water elevations;
v. Net direction of littoral drift changes and tidal
currents (if any);
vi. General direction and speed of prevailing winds;
vii. Beach type, slope and material;
viii.Uplands type, slope and material;
ix. Soil types (S.C.S.);
x. Physical or geologic stability of uplands;
xi. Profile rendition of beach and uplands;
d. Characteristics of Impact Area:
i. Extent of Impact Area: (1) Marine shores: Within drift sector;
(2) Rivers: One-half (1/2) mile on each side of
proposed project;
(3) Lakes and streams: Three hundred feet (300')
on each side of proposed project;
SHORE HOOl F I CAT ION 41
ii. Existing characteristics: (1) Physical, geological and/or soil
characteristics;
(2) Existing shore stabilization and flood
management devices;
(3) Presence of fish/wildlife vital to the
aquatic food chain, or their habitat;
(4) Rivers: hydraulic characteristics;
e. Analysis:
i. Potential impact upon area shore and hydraulic
processes, upland stability, natural habitat,
adjacent properties, shore and water uses, and
public access; and
ii. Alternative measures (including non-structural
measures) which will achieve the same purpose.
Design alternatives shall include the best
available technology, including (but not limited
to) beach enhancement where appropriate.
5. Project Design: The City shall require professional design
of the proposed revetment if it is determined there are
sufficient uncertainties, such as:
a. Inadequate data on local geophysical conditions;
b. Inadequate data on stream flow, velocity, and/or flood
capacity; and/or
c. Effects on adjacent properties.
6. Project Criteria: Shore modification activities shall be
located, designed, constructed and maintained in such a
manner as to:
a. Minimize alterations of the natural shore and prevent
adverse impacts on adjacent shores;
b. Ensure long-term structural integrity; and
c. Consist of natural materials (such as rock) or other
materials that blend aesthetically into the surrounding
shoreline. The use of discarded materials such as car
bodies, uprooted tree stumps, scrap building materials,
asphalt from street work, or any discarded pieces of
equipment or appliances for shore modification shall be
prohibited.
SHORE MO0[ FICATION 42
7. Rivers and Streams:
a. Shore modification works shall be designed and
constructed to allow for channel migration to the
extent possible. These works shall not reduce the
volume and storage capacity of rivers and adjacent
wetlands or flood plains.
b. Modification, realignment and straightening of river
and stream channel direction are prohibited unless they
are essential to uses that are consistent with this
program.
8. Public Access:
a. Public access shall be provided when shore modification
improvements are associated with or in support of an
existing use which would be required to provide public
access under current Master Program provisions.
b. Design of public shore modifications shall include and
provide improved access to public shorelines whenever
possible.
c. Linear public access shall be provided along new dikes
when the City determines such access to be in the
public interest.
9. Vegetation Management:
a. All disturbed shore areas shall be restored to as near
pre-project configuration as possible and replanted
with native grasses, shrubs, and/or trees in keeping
with existing bank vegetation. If native species
cannot be obtained, acceptable substitutes may be used
for stabilization purposes.
b. Vegetation shall be planted and maintained on shore
modification structures in a manner that will lessen
the visual impact of such structures.
c. The restoration of any shoreline that has been
disturbed or degraded shall use native plant materials
with a similar diversity and structure as what was
originally occurring.
d. The use of commercial nursery stock in the restoration
of disturbed or degraded shorelines shall emulate the
previously existing vegetation in both size, structure,
and diversity at maturation.
SHORE HO01FICATION 43
e. Vegetation shall generally be planted by hand, with
short-term mechanical assistance when appropriate.
f. All plantings provided shall be maintained.
10. Mainten&noe~ Maintenance of shore modification activities
shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner.
11. Liabil~ty~ Any impact to neighboring properties caused by
shore modification activities is the sole responsibility of
the property owner providing such shore modification.
12. Related Permits~ Prior to the issuance of city permits for
the construction and operation of shore modification works,
the developer shall demonstrate approval of and compliance
with all applicable federal and state permits.
SHORE MO01F ICA1'1014 44
BE~CH E~CEMENT
~pplicabilit¥
Beach enhancement/restoration: The process of restoring a beach
to a state more closely resembling a natural beach, using beach
feeding, vegetation, drift sills, and other non-intrusive means
as applicable. Beach enhancement may be used on upland, tidal
and/or submerged shorelines to restore, enhance or create
recreational beaches, aquatic habitat, and/or to control erosion.
The materials used are dependent on the intended use. Various
grades of clean sand or pea gravel may be used to enhance a beach
for recreational use or erosion control. Vegetation, drift sills
and other non-intrusive means may also be used as applicable.
To create or restore an underwater aquatic environment such as a
reef or shore may require a rock matrix and/or combination of
other materials appropriate for the intended environment.
Berm: A linear mound or series of mounds of sand and/or gravel
generally paralleling the water at or landward of the line of
ordinary high tide.
Drift sills: Small groins which hold sediments in place without
blocking longshore drift.
Perched beach: A beach or fillet of sand retained above the
otherwise normal profile level by a submerged dike or sill.
Pocket beach: A Class II or III accretion beach which does not
depend on littoral drift accretion. It depends on the erosion of
immediately adjacent sources. In rare instances a pocket beach
may also be a berm beach.
Definition of Terms
Class I beaches: Accretional or rollback dry beaches, the
backshore of which is only wetted under extreme tide and wave
conditions. These beaches are usually the accretion terminals of
their drift sectors, and as such are components of points, spits,
and tombolos, as well as the various bluff-offset, and bay or
marsh-barrier shoreforms.
Class II beaches= Marginal erosion beaches, usually at the foot
of gravel-containing banks and bluffs that supply the upper
foreshore with a fairly heavy drift berm, but without creating a
stable and dry backshore zone above Mean Higher High Water (NHHW)
level.
SHORE I~OO I F 1 {~AT I 014 45
Class III beaches: Erosional beaches under' banks and bluffs that
are generally low in gravel and high in clay, and where the bluff
toe and upper foreshore is wave-cut below MHHW level with minimum
beach material cover to protect the foreshore shelf.
In addition to the general Shore Modification policies and
regulations, beach enhancement projects shall be consistent with
the following policles and regulations:
Policles - Beach Enhancement
13. Purpose= Encourage the design and use of naturally
regenerating systems for prevention and control of beach
erosion where:
a. The length and configuration of the beach will
accommodate such systems;
b. Such protection is a reasonable solution to the needs
of the specific site; and
c. Beach restoration/enhancement will accomplish the
following objectives:
i. Recreate or enhance natural shore conditions;
ii. Create or enhance natural habitat;
iii. Reverse otherwise erosional conditions; and
iv. Enhance access to the shore, especially to public
shores.
14. Design: Ensure that beach enhancement projects will not
degrade aquatic habitats, water quality and flood holding
capacity.
Regulations - Beach Enhancement
1. Prohibited: Beach enhancement is prohibited:
a. Within spawning, nesting or breeding habitat;
b. Where littoral drift of the enhancement materials will
adversely effect adjacent spawning grounds or other
areas of biological significance;
c. If it will interfere with the normal public use of the
navigable waters of the state; and/or
d. Where the activity is in support of a nonconforming
shoreline use." EXCEPTION: Beach enhancement may be
SHORE HOOIF~CATiON 46
allowed as a shoreline activity, provided that such
activities are necessary to maintain shoreline
stability and the natural ecology.
2. Criteria for Approval: Beach enhancement may be permitted
by Conditional Use Permit when the applicant has
demonstrated that:
a. No significant change in littoral drift will result
which will adversely affect adjacent properties or
habitat;
b. The proposal is consistent with Master Program
provisions for the Environment Designation; an4
c. The proposal conforms to all Master Program Policies
and Regulations.1
3. Project Area: Wherever possible natural beach enhancement
projects shall include adjacent shores that would benefit by
similar treatment so as to enhance the total shore system.
4. Application Requirements: In addition to the general
application requirements, proposals for beach enhancement
shall include:
a. Discussion of design alternatives, including the best
available beach enhancement technology, such as gravel
berms, beach nourishment, drift sills, and vegetation
where appropriate.
5. Design Criteria. Beach enhancement projects shall be
designed so that the project will not:
a. Detrimentally interrupt littoral drift, or redirect
waves, current or sediments to other shorelines;
b. Result in any exposed groin-like structures; EXCEPT:
Small "drift sill" groins may be used as a means of
stabilizing restored sediment where part of a well
planned beach enhancement program;
c. Extend waterward more than the minimum amount necessary
to achieve the desired stabilization;
1Update Table I -- Use Compatibility Chart eccording[y.
SHORE MOOIFICATION 47
d. Result in contours sufficiently steep to impede easy
pedestrian passage, or trap drifting sediments (a 5:1
slope is generally recommended; a 4:1 slope is a
minimum);
e. Create "additional dry land mass"; and
f. Disturb significant amounts of valuable shallow water
fish/wildlife habitat, unless'such habitat is
immediately replaced by new habitat that is comparable
or better.~
6. Construction Standards:
a. The size and/or mix of new materials to be added to a
beach shall be adjusted to the local wave climate for
maximum percolation and stability (generally similar to
that of the natural beach sediment, but large enough to
resist normal current, wake or wave action at the
site).
b. The restored beach shall approximate, and may slightly
exceed, the natural beach width, height, bulk or
profile (but not so much as to obviously create
additional dry land mass).
c. Where foreshore sediments containing marine plants or
organisms are to be covered by beach enhancement
materials: The top layer (approx. 6") shall first be
removed just prior to covering, carefully protected,
and then added to the top of the new beach material
whenever feasible.
2Sources of technical information to be used as e basis for eYatuating propose[s end determining
compliance are [isted at the end of the Shore Modification section.
SHORE MOOIFICA110N 48
(-
BREAKWATERS~ JETTIES~ ROCK WEIRS AND GROINS
Applicability
Breakwater: A protective structure usually built off shore to
protect harbor areas, moorages, navigation beaches and bluffs
from wave action. Breakwaters may be fixed (e.g., rubble mound
or rigid wall), open-pile or floating.
Groin, Rock Weir, or Spur Dike: A wall-like structure built
seaward perpendicular to the shore for the purpose of building or
preserving an accretion beach by trapping littoral sand drift on
the updrift side. Groins are generally narrow and of varying
lengths, and may be built in a series along the shore. (Groins
are built to preserve and promote accretion along stretches of
shoreline, while jetties are built to prevent accretion near
channels and/or inlets.)
Jetty: A structure generally built singly or in pairs
perpendicular to the shore at harbor entrances or river mouths to
prevent the shoaling or accretion of littoral sand drift.
Jetties also protect channels and inlets from storm waves and
cross-currents.
In addition to the general Shore Modification policies and
regulations, breakwaters, jetties, rock weirs and groins shall be
conslstent~wlth the followlng pollcies and regulations:
Policies - Breakwaters, Jetties, Rock Weirs and Groin~
1. Breakwaters: Encourage the use of breakwaters which are
open-pile or floating structures anchored in place so as not
to impede longshore sand and gravel transport and fish
movement, rather than solid breakwaters. (SDW Policy 4.
revision)
2. Jetties: Discourage jetties, because they partially or
totally block shore processes, are irreversible in nature
and require an on-going and costly dredging or beach feeding
program to alleviate erosion or accretion problems.
3. Rock Weirs and Groins: Allow rock weirs and groins where
designed as part of a larger planned system intended to
minimize the overall need for shore modification activities.
Discourage rock weirs and groins which purposefully trap and
accrete beach forming materials but may erode downdrift
beaches or banks, having adverse effects on other shore
resources and users.
SHORE HO01F[CATION 49
4. Public Access: Include public access or multiple use
opportunities in the design of breakwaters, jetties and
groins, to increase public use and enjoyment of the
shorelines where such access is safely compatible with the
structures. (SDW Policy 9. revision)
Requlations - Breakwaters, Jetties, Rock Weirs and Groin~
1. Prohibited:
a. Breakwaters, jetties, rock weirs and groins:
i. In lakes;
ii. Which would result in a net adverse impact on
adjacent and nearby properties and shorelines;
b. Groins: For the purpose of gaining access across tidal
areas to deep water, unless integral to a public access
project.
2. Notification Requirement: Applicants for groins, jetties &
solid breakwaters shall notify by registered mail all
shoreline landowners within the same drift sector3, or if
it is not possible to determine the drift sector, within a
one (1) mile of the project proposal.
3. Breakwaters:
......................................................................................................................................
Add definition to Master Program part 2 - DefinitiOns:
Drift Sector - A particular reach of marine shore in
which littoral drift may occur without significant
interruption, and which contains any and all natural
sources to such drift, and also any accretion
shoreform(s) accreted by such drift. Each normal drift
sector contains these shore process elements: feeder
bluff or estuary, driftway, littoral drift, and accretion
shoreform.
SHORE MODIFICATION 50
c. Open-pile or floating breakwaters shall be the only
type allowed unless it can be shown that solid
breakwaters will have no adverse effect on the aquatic
biology and shore processes.
4. Jetties, Rock Weirs and
a. Allowed subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit
only for navigational purposes, industrial activity,
marinas, erosion control, fisheries or habitat
enhancement, and public beach management as integral
components of an overall resource management plan.
5. Design:
a. Proposed designs for new or expanded breakwaters,
jetties, rock weirs and groins shall be designed by and
so certified by a registered civil engineer.
b. .The design of breakwaters, jetties, rock weirs and
groins shall conform to all applicable requirements
established by the State Departments of Fisheries and
Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
c. Floating breakwaters shall be used in place of solid~
rubble mound types wherever they can withstand
anticipated wave action, in order to maintain sand
movement and protect fish and aquatic habitat.
d. Breakwaters, 3etttes, rock eirs
................ :) ...............................................................................................................
e. Public Access: New breakwaters, jetties rock weirs an~
groins shall incorporate provisions for public access,
such as sightseeing and public fishing, if it is
determined such access is feasible and desirable.
6. Beach Maintenance: The effect of proposed breakwaters,
jetties, rock weirs, and groins on sand movement shall be
evaluated during permit review. The beneficiaries and/or
owners of large scale shore modification works which
substantially alter, reduce or block littoral drift and
cause new erosion of downdrift shores shall be required to
establish and maintain an adequate long term beach feeding
program as follows:
SHORE HODI FICATION 51
a. Groins, Breakwaters and Rock Weirs: By artificial
beach feeding.
b. Jetties: By artificially transporting sand to the
downdrift side of the inlet.
SHORE HOOf F I C~,T iON 52
BULKHEADS AND SEAWALLS
Applicability
Bulkhead: A wall usually constructed parallel to and near the
shore, whose primary purpose is to contain and prevent the loss
of soil caused by erosion and wave action. Bulkheads are used to
protect bluffs by retaining soil at the toe of the slope or by
protecting the toe from erosion and undercutting. Bulkheads may
also be used to protect the perimeter of a fill often associated
with single family and other developed properties.
Bulkheads are typically constructed of poured-in-place precast
concrete, steel or aluminum sheet piling, wood, or wood and
structural steel combinations. Bulkheads may either be thin
structures penetrating deep into the ground (e.g. sheet piling -
Figure )' or more massive structures resting on the surface
(e.g. sand or grout-filled bags - Figure ).
Seawall: Structure separating land and water areas primarily to
prevent erosion and other damage by wave action. Generally more
massive and capable of resisting greater wave forces than a
bulkhead.
In addition to the general Shore Modification policies and
regulations, bulkheads and seawalls shall be consistent with the
following policles and regulations:
Policies - Bulkheads and Seawalls
1. Purpose:
a. Allow bulkheads only where it is demonstrated that
natural shore modification methods (e.g. protective
berms, beach enhancement or vegetative stabilization)
are unworkable to prevent damage to existing
development.
b. Generally discourage construction of bulkheads to
protect feeder bluffs, particularly in areas not
already developed or not already subject to shoreline
modification.
c. Deny approval for bulkheads as a solution to geo-
physical problems (e.g. mass slope failure, sloughing,
landslides) caused by factors other than bank erosion.
2. Impacts: Evaluate the cumulative effects of allowing
bulkheads along segments of shoreline prior to granting
individual permits or exemptions.
SHORE MODI F ZCATION 53
Requlations - Bulkheads and Seawalls
1. Slngle Family Permit Exemption= The construction of a
normal protective bulkhead common to an existing single
family residence is exempt from the Substantial Development
Permit requirement (see definition of Substantial
Development). To qualify for the substantial development
permit exemption, a statement of exemption shall be obtained
from the City before commencing construction.
2. Prohibited=
a. For the primary purpose of retaining a landfill
proposed in conjunction with a non-water-dependent or
non-public use.
b. For any purpose when the bulkhead/seawall will cause
significant adverse erosion or beach starvation.
3. Criteria for Approval= Bulkheads/seawalls may be allowed
only when the following conditions apply:
a. Wave erosion threatens one of the following:
i. An established use or existing building(s) on
upland property that is consistent with this
Master Program; or
ii. A vacant parcel or nonconforming use or activity,
subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit;
b. And:
i. All alternatives are unworkable, including: use
relocation; use design; the use of natural
materials and processes; non-structural shore
modification options; and revetments;
ii. The bulkhead/seawall is not located on a shore
where valuable geo-hydraulic or biological
processes are sensitive to interference and
critical to shoreline conservation (e.g. feeder
bluffs, marshes, wetlands or accretion shoreforms
such as spits, hooks, bars or barrier beaches);
iii. Local physical conditions such as foundation
bearing material, surface and subsurface drainage
are suitable for such alterations; and
SHORE MOO] F ICA? ION 54
( -- (--
iv. If the bulkhead/seawall is for the primary purpose
of retaining a landfill: The proposal is in
conjunction with a water-dependent or public use.
4. Location: On all shorelines, bulkheads/seawalls shall be
located landward of the OHWM, landward of protective berms
(artificial or natural), and generally parallel to the
natural shoreline. In addition:
a. Marine Accretion Beaches: Bulkheads/seawalls shall be
set back a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet landward of
the OHWM, shall not extend waterward of OHWM, and shall
parallel the natural shoreline; EXCEPT: On sloping or
bluff/cliff shore, bulkheads shall be placed as far
landward of the OHWM as is feasible. (See Figure .)
b. Driftways and Lake Shores Subject to Erosion:
Bulkheads/seawalls shall be located within one (1) foot
of the bank toe and shall generally parallel the
natural shoreline. (See Figure __.)
c. On Bluff or Bank Shorellnes with no Adjacent
Bulkheads/Seawalls: Bulkheads/seawalls shall be as
close to the bank as possible and in no case shall be
more than three (3) feet from the toe of the natural
bank.
d. A bulkhead/seawall for a permitted landfill shall be
located at the toe of the fill.
e. Bulkheads/seawalls may tie in flush with existing
bulkheads/seawalls on adjoining properties.
i. Exception: Where an adjoining bulkhead/seawall
extends waterward of the OHWM or the toe of the
bank or permitted landfill, the location
requirements of Requlation ~4.a., ~4.b., and/or
.~4.c. shall apply.
ii. If there is an existing bulkhead/seawall on only
one of the adjacent properties, the proposed
bulkhead/seawall may tie in flush with the
adjacent bulkhead/seawall at or landward of the
OHWM and minimize the land area waterward of the
required setback. However, the required setback
shall be met on the side not abutting an existing
bulkhead/seawall.
SHORE MO01FICATION 55
f. Replacement bulkheads/seawalls shall be located no
further waterward of the existing bulkhea~ than is
necessary for construction of new footings, except
where the existing bulkhead has not been backfilled or
has been abandoned and is in serious disrepair.
g. The base of the bulkhead/seawall shall rest upon the
in-situ foreshore platform/shelf below the littoral
drift material.
5. Designs
a. Bulkheads/seawalls shall be sited and designed
consistent with appropriate engineeringprinciples.
Professional geologic site studies or design may be
required for any proposed bulkhead if the City
determines sufficient uncertainties exist. Grounds for
such determination shall be inadequate information or
expertise on local physical features and/or potential
damage to other shoreline properties and features.
b. Bulkheads/seawalls shall be designed for the minimum
dimensions necessary to adequately protect the
development.
c. Stairs or other permitted structures may be built into
a bulkhead but shall not extend waterward of it.
d. Bulkheads/seawalls shall be designed to permit the
passage of surface or ground water without causing
ponding or saturation of retained soil/materials.
e. Adequate toe protection (i.e. proper footings, a fine
retention mesh, etc.) shall be provided to.ensure
bulkhead stability without relying on additional
riprap.
i. Sheetpiling and precast concrete slabs with
vertical waterward faces shall include adequate
tiebacks and toe protection.
6. Construction Materials: Materials used in bulkhead/seawall
construction shall meet the following standards:
a. Bulkheads/seawalls shall utilize stable, non-erodible,
homogeneous materials (e.g. concrete, wood, rock riprap
or other suitable materials) which will accomplish the
desired end with the maximum preservation of natural
shoreline characteristics.
SHORE MODIFICATION 56
b. Beach materials shall not be used for fill behind
bulkheads/seawalls except clean dredge spoil from a
permitted off site dredge and fill operation.
7. Public Access: When a bulkhead/seawall is required at a
public access site, provision for safe access to the water
shall be incorporated into bulkhead design.
8. Related Permits: Bulkhead/seawall design and development
shall conform to all other applicable state agency policies
and regulations, including the Department of Fisheries
criteria governing the design of bulkheads.
SHORE MOOt F]CATION 57
FLOOD MANAGEMENT
APPLICABILITY
Flood management: Actions taken to prevent or mitigate damage
due to flooding. Flood management projects or programs may
include physical and/or regulatory controls, including dikes,
dams, lakes, engineered floodways, bioengineering, and land use
management (e.g. planning and zoning). Flood management also
includes repair and maintenance Of flood control systems if the
systems are enlarged or otherwise modified.
Dike: Constructed earthen embankments for the purpose of flood
control.
In addition to the general Shore Modification policies and
regulations, beach enhancement projects shall be consistent with
the following policies and regulations:
Requlations
1. Flood management diking shall be landward of the floodway
base (100-year frequency) flood and any marshes, bogs or
swamps associated or directly interrelated and
interdependent with the river.
2. Dikes and levees shall be limited in size to the height
required to protect adjacent lands from the predictable
annual flood.
SHORE lqO0 i F I CAT ION 58
REVETMENTS
Applicability
Revetment: A sloped shoreline facing built to protect an
existing eroding shoreline or newly placed fill against waves,
wakes, currents, or weather. Revetments are most commonly built
of randomly placed boulders (rlprap), but may also be built of
sand-cement bags, paving or building blocks, gabions (rock filled
wire baskets), or other systems and materials. The principal
features of a revetment, regardless of type, are: heavy armor
layer; filter layer; and toe protection (see Figure ).
Riprap: Large quarry rock used as building material in
construction of "rip-rap" revetments, seawalls or jetties.
In addition to the Shore Modification policies an4 regulations,
revetments shall be consistent with the following policies and
regulations:
Policies
1. Purpose:
a. Limit the use of armored structural revetments to
situations where non-structural solutions, such as
bioengineering, setbacks, and buffers or any
combination therefor, will not provide sufficient
shoreline stabilization.
2. Design:
a. Combine bioengineering techniques with armored
revetments where feasible.4
b. Where armored revetments will be impractical, costly
and ineffective, consider revetments that are
particularly adaptive to conditions, ranging from
jetted willow poles, piling revetments, jacks, brush
mats and others.
c. Design, improve and maintain revetments to provide
public access whenever possible.
& Bioengineering is the' preferred "best practices" choice when considering shoretine
stabilization. Soi[ "bioengineering" is a technotogy edlich involves restoration of altered
or threatened shoretines to reestabtish a native ptant co~n~qity es a dynamic syste~ that
stabilizes the land from the effects of erosion.
SHORE MOO IFICATION 59
3. Mitigation: Require mitigation if loss of riparian
vegetation and habitat occurs through construction and/or
maintenance of revetments.
4. Existing Revetments: Encourage enhancement of existing
riprap shorelines to restore lost riparian/shoreline habitat
and public values.
Requlations - Revetments
1. Revetments are only permitted subject to approval of a
Conditional Use Permit in the Conservancy, Kitsap Lake,
Kitsap Lake Wetlands, and Tracyton Beach Natural System
environments.5
2. When permitted, the siting and design of revetments shall be
performed using appropriate engineering princles, including
guidelines of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
3. When permitted, bank revetments shall be placed at the
extreme edge or bank of the shoreline.
4. Where armored revetment is employed the following design
criteria shall be met (see Figure ):
a. The size and quantity of the material shall be limited
to only that necessary to withstand the estimated
energy intensity of the hydraulic system;
b. Filter cloth must be used to aid drainage and help
prevent settling; and
c. The toe reinforcement or protection must be adequate to
prevent a collapse of the system from river scouring or
wave action.
5U~ate Teb|e 1 -- Use C~t~bJ|ity Chart eccord~ng[y.
SHORE MODIFICATION 60
INCORPORATED INTO SHORE MODIFICATION SECTION BY REFERENCE'
DREDGING (P.62-63)
In addition to the specific provisions for Dredging
activities, such activities shall comply with the general
Shore Modification policles and regulations.
LANDFILL (P.68-69}
In addition to the specific provisions for Landfill
activities, such activities shall comply with general Shore
Modification Policies and Regulations.
SHORE MO01F ICAT ION 61
Sheet piling
Figure Bulkheads Constucted of Thin Sheet Piling With Deep Foolings
Drain Pipe
k,, V.o.tatlon
Top~oll
· ~ FiIIocl Bag&
Gravel Flllar
, Toa Ptoler.,tiott
Figure - Bulkheads of Massive Stucture Resting on Sand or Grout Filled Bags
SHORE HOOIFICATION 62
G~blon m~l (rock
Figure Typical Gabion Cor~ructlon
/
· :~ T~.pIoll
F~re Bu~d Seiback ~fflnlmnm Along Ma~e Accretion
B~ch~ .
Figure Recommended Location of Bulkheads Along Driftways
and Lakesh ores
t
Vegetation
RIprap
Filler Cloth
Toe Protection
Figure Examples of Design Criteria for Pdprap Revetments
SHORE llll~ I F ICl'( I O)i 64
SHORE MODIFICATION TECHNICAL REFERENCES
The following sources of technical information will be used as a
basis for evaluating proposals for shore modification and
determining compliance.
Bauer, Wolf, Marine Shore Resource Analysis: Shoreline Dynamics,
City of Seattle, Department of Community Development
Environmental Management Division, 1978.
Shoreline Master Program Handbook, Department of Ecology,
Shorelines and Coastal Zone Management Section, First Edition,
1990.
Draft Shoreline Administrators Manual, Washington State
Department of Ecology, Shorelines and Coastal Zone
Management Section, April 1990.
Canning,Douglas J., Shoreline Bluff and Slope Stability:
Technical Manaqement Options: Shorelands Technical Advlsor¥
Paper No. 2, Washington State Department of Ecology,
Shorelands Division, July 1985.
Terich, Thomas A., Livlnq with the Shore of Puqet Sound and the
Georqia Strait, Sponsored by the National Audubon Society, Duke
University Press, Durham 1987.
Shorellne Public Access Handbook, Compiled by James W. Scott,
Washington State Department of Ecology Shorelands & Coastal Zone
Management Program, February 1990.
SHORE MOD ~ F ] CAT l ON 6 5
SHORE DEFENSE WORKS
DEFINITION
Shoreline defense works are structures or
used on n~ar~ne shores for diverting wave erosion, protecting
harbors, and controlling the ~,ove~,ent of sand, i.e., ds,
breakwaters, gro~ns, and jetties.
GOAL
To protect the upland and harbor portions the shoreline,
without adversely ir~pacting natural syst and adjacent
shorelines, either physically or aesthet~ca~ .
POLICIES
1. The effect of proposed shore de e works on public access
to publicly owned shoreline sho be considered.
2. Shore defense works shall bi designed to have a
degradation of views, and d adverse effects on nmtural
r~ar~ne resources.
3. Construction of shore d ense works should not be ccns~dered
until effects to ad ant shores have been re~ewed and
determined.
4. Float~ng or open kwaters which do not ~r~pede l~ttoral
drift or r. arine 1 are preferred over sol~d breakwaters.
5. Bulkheads shoul be constructed only for the p~otect~on of
upland propert or facElities, and not for the indirect
purpose cf c ting land, or f~ll~ng beh~d the bulkhead.
6. Bulkheads d be constructed so as to not adversely
affect joining property, to blend in ~ith the
surround s, and to not detzagt from the aesthetic
qualiti ~ of the shoreline.
7. Bul ads of r/p-rap construction utilizing natural
mat ~als (i.e., stacked rocks/boulders) are preferred over
th, other types of construction, such as timber or.concrete
8. ore defense works should be designed to ~nin,~ze adverse
effects on w~ld]ife propagation and mover,ant.
Breakwaters should provide recreational opportunities, as
well as protection to the . shoreline area or facilities,
where possible.
83
~0. Groins will only be allowed when nece~sar protect and
preserve existing natural features, or for the public
Denefit.
~EGULATION$
1. Prior to granting a Substantial Deve >ment Permit for shore
defense ~orks (bulkhemd, bre~kwmte gro~ns, and jetties),
the effect of such development on djacent properties shall
be deters,~ned, and the dec~s~ the City ~hmll reflect
such determination. Appl~cat~o~ for such development, even
if e×e~.pt by definition, ~ust accompanied by appropriate
~nformation, as follows:
a. Bulkheads:
Configuration o: shoreline and consistency of bank
~aterial for land ~ithin 300 feet ~n both
directions f the proposal;
2) Type and e of construction;
3) Elevation toe and crest of the bulkhead with
respect t waters levels;
4)Directi~ of net longshore drift, (~here
a' ate);
5) !~orma low and high water elevations {when
appr, pr~ate). "
b. ~gD~¥a rs:
1) ~ of breakwater:
2) struct~on ~aterlal: .
3) Method of cons%ruction:
4 Direction of net longshore drift.
c. ettfes and Gro~ns:
I) Reason for project;
2) Type of construction;
3) l{ethod of construction;
4) D~rect~on of net longshore drift, and resultant
beach material ~.over~en~.
$4
2. Shore defeni-' works shall be eva~uat(-- using the criteria
provided in ..~C 220-110. Current ~u~de~nes (1987) state:
e. The le~est t~dal elevations for the toe of sloping or
~. vertical bp~kheads in the ~re~.erton area is as
'. (Tidal ~eference Area ~5):
~ulkheads Adjacent A~l other ~ea Areas
to S~elt ~a~ninq ~eds Vertical S~oping
~ulkhead Bulkhead
+ 11.0 + 9.0 + 6.6
b. The faces o~ bulkheads shall constructed
~er~anent ~aterial not readily su eot to erosion.
c. Sl~p~ng bulkheads shall have slope n~t greater than
1.5 horizontal to 1 foot vert
d. Bulkheads shall only be c~n~ ucted during lo~ tides.
e. ~ulkheed forms shall be c~ tructed so that leaching of
concrete is mfnfm~zed E×pcsed concrete shall be
covered or cured prior ~ater contact.
f. Bulkhead construction =s restricted to the following
time ~eriods:
I 1) June 26 to ober 15, adjacent to Smelt
~ beds ~ithin air ~nlet and Dyes ~nlet. (The
~elt spawn beds are shown on F~gure 4.)
2) June 16 tl ~h March 14 ~n all other areas.
3. ~hore defense wot! shall be located and constructed ~n such
a ~,anner as to adversely affect nearby 5e~ches and to
n, inim~ze altera of the natural shoreline and inpacts on
adjacent shorel nos.
4. Bulkheads sba' be placed as close to the e×i~ting bank as
feasible, a~ parallel to the natural shoreline. When
bulkhead ~ proposed between two adjacent ex~sting
bulkheads, he proposed bulkhead ~,~y be pez~tted to extend
out to f~r: a straight ~ne with the adjacent bulkheads
it is that no adverse i~,pacts w~31 occur.
5. The loc ~on of a breakwater ~hall not render the remaining
open wa surface unusable by the publfc.
6. ~reak' ~ters shall only be allowed for protectfon of natural
feat es, for publfc benefit, for naviGatfonal or
recreatfonal purposes, or for commercSal activities and
85
(
~ar~nas.
7. Jetties and groins shall. he d gned to he visually
compatible with their surrounding
8. Shore defense works shall be cted of material and in
a manner that will ensure lon structural ~ntegrity.
86
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
VIEW PROTECTION
BREMERTON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
JULY 31v 1991
City of Bremerton
Department of Community Development/Planning Division
Project Manager: Kay W. Wilson, Senior Planner
286 Fourth Street, Bremerton, WA 98310
(206) 478-5275
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
!
:~!iltext~!il~ ~PrOP°sed ~newWording'is'. ishown With ,,shaded
: ~::~" ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...... raP!es ~:..:'::: ~.-~ ~,~.,~.': O.r~:~::. ~i:::::::~r~:~g: '::::.:.-...' :..i: ::::::::::::::::::::::
PART 7
S~ORELINE USE ACTIVITY GOALS, POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
[] REVISE TABLE 2 TEXT (P.41}:
[] REVISE TABLE 2 (P.45-46):
· (SEE FOLLOWING PAGES) ·
VIEW PROTECTION 66
TABLE 2
ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION SHORELINE ~ HEIGHT
SETBACK ~ [ 3 ]
URBAN CONSERVANCY
Utility Lands 25' i~*~i~!i [5] 25' [6]
Other 25' 60% 25' [6]
RES IDENTIAL
Single ~am!ly 25' ~ 25' [6]
CO~RCIAL
Water-Dependent 0' [6] 35' [6]
Water-Related 25' [6] 35' [6]
Water-Enj o~ent 25 ' [ 6 ] 35 ' [ 6]
Non-Water-Oriented 50' [6] 35' [6]
VIE~ PROTECTION 67
ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION SHORELINE ~ - HEIGHT
SETBACK ~ii ~,W [ 3 ]
INDUSTRIAL
Water-Dependent 0' [5] 35' [6]
Water-Related 35' [5] 35' [6]
~TATURAL SYSTEMS
[1] Shoreline Setback - Minimum setback for structures landward
of OHWM: PROVIDED, that an activity adjacent to a marine
bluff may be subject to a special marine bluff review
~"~?~a:;~ i~?:i i~?~:~!~ ~:~:~ ?:i~::~nf/~: ~ i:.~:~:~?~!?: ?'~6~.i~:~!'' ..................................................................................................................
[2] ~':~;'::f:~?~:-:.C~f~'~:~ - Minim'an lot -~idth to bc .!.~.f.~.....~.D..._SPS, D.~ .........
.......... · ...,._, ..., ............. : .- ._ .::. ,:.....~:.: :. ,:-.: .....:..:,: :.-.: =.:.. :.:.:< :.:.~ ...,:.:.:.:: :.: :.:,:.: :..:.:,:.:.:.:. :.:. ,.~: ,..:. :.:: :.:,? :,..: :,:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: :. :~?~:~:~:~:~:~:~: -: ~:~:'~ ~:{:~ ~: :?~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~?~:~:~::,:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:: :.:.. ,.:.
1Rev|$~on of current Table 2 Note #2.
VIEW PROTECTION 68
[3] Height ~d~'~?~':~?~?~ - Maximum height above Average
~ ..... ...... d~ ....... ei 'ess othe~ise specified.
[53 No Shoreline Maste~....p.[gg~9~....~9~.~.rement; which mcans that
Zoning Orainance, ~h~=~a~~=.~-~~?~=~=, or
other applicable
thc ~ .....
.......... dcsl~natlcn ~c as
~-'~,,d
f~om
~ ~: ~:~; ~ ~;: ~:~ ~:.:~:;: :~:;:~: :~:~:~:;:~::::::: ::::: ::::::::::::::::: ::: ::::: :::: :::::: :::::::: :: :):{:::: :~: ::~: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
2Revfs{on of current Table 2 Note #1.
3Rev{s{o~ of current Tabte 2 Note #7.
VIEW PROTECTION
'~ ¢ fir:t
..... h~ ~I ~,,e.
[NA] Not applicable. []
VIEU PROTECTION 7 0
EXAMPLES OF VIEW CORRIDOR/HEIGHT REQUIREMENT
Figure [6] on the following page gives an example of the
proposed view corridor/height requirements as applied to
lots that are 40~, 60~ and 90~ wide.
Figure [6-A] is a comparison of the existing 40% Open Area
requirement with the proposed View Corridor requirement (NOT.
PART OF AMENDMENT).
VIEW PROTECTION
D NEW VIEW PROTECTION SECTION
APPLICABILITY
The protection of "scenic vistas" within the shorelines and water
bodies is an important objective of the Shoreline Management Act:
In the implementation of this policy the public's
opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of
natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the
greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best
interest of the state and the people generally. (RCW
90.58.020)
No permit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter for any
new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-
five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the
state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of
residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a
master program does not prohibit the sane and then only when
overriding considerations of the public interest will be
served. (RCW 90.58.320)
The protection of significant views is a form of public.access
requirements: the access being visual rather than physical.
Consideration must be given to protection of the visual quality
of the shoreline resource and to the naintenance of view
corridors to and from waterways and their adjacent shoreland
features.
GOaL
! Preserve the public,s opportunity to enjo~ the physical
and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines to the
greatest extent feasible.
POLICIES
1. Control development, uses and activities on or near the
shoreline so as to not impair or detract from the public's
visual access to the water.
2. Enhance and preserve public views from shoreline and upland
areas. View enhancement should not be construed to mean
vIEW P~OTE~T ION 74
excessive removal of vegetation that partially impairs
views.
3. Maintain, enhance and preserve visual access on shoreline
street ends, public utilities and rights-of-way.
REGUL~TIONB
1. Shoreline 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 (see
Table 2 - Development Standards Matrix).
2. Public lands such as street ends, rights-of-way, and
utilities shall provide visual access to the water and
shoreline in accordance with RCW 35.79.035 (Limitations on
vacations of streets abutting bodies of water).
3. Submerged public right-of-way shall be preserved for visual
~CC~.
4. In providing visual access to the shoreline, the natural
vegetation shall not be excessively removed either by
clearing or by topping (see "Grading and Drainage" and "Land
Clearing" sections).
5. Development on or over the water shall be constructed as far
landward as possible to avoid interference with views from
surrounding properties to the shoreline and adjoining
waters.
6. Marinas with covered boathouses shall limit their height
above mean sea level (see Table 2 - Development Standards
Matrix).
VlE~ P~OTECTiON 7 5
PROPOSED AHENDHENT
JOINT-USE MOORAGE
BREMERTON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
JULY 31~ 1991
City of Bremerton
Department of Community Development/Planning Division
Project Manager: Kay W. Wilson, Senior Planner
(206) 478-5275
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Policies
Requlat~ons
New Policy:
..................................... ~:~b~d~'~ ~ ~:~ ~:::,~: ~ ~5:~ ?~:~6~ ........................................................................................................................
~:~ :~:~:~:~:~ :~: ~: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:~ :~ :~:' :::" :~:~:: :: :~: :~::;~: :: :::: :~:~:~:::::~:~:' :::::' :::~: ~: ::: :~ :::~:~ :~: ::' :~:::: :~2:: ::-: :~: ~:::~:-.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
JOINT-USE MOORAGE
WATER ACCESS AND MOORAGE FACILITIES
Policies
New Policy:
REGU~TIONS
JOINT-USE HOORAGE ? 7
JOINT-USE ~OORAGE 7 8
Boat launch ~ramps may be peat%ted for lndtvldual residences
where the uPIand slope within .tWenty-five (25),fee~ bf the'~ ...........
OHWM does~not~ exceed twent. Y'f~v? (25) percent and/6~i where
SubstantiallC6tting. gradlng~~ filling or defense Q6~s a~e
............................. demOn.Strate!.~:and-dOcument tha{?adeqUate ~mai~tehanC~"!
Floats.:
more than two (2) foot:above the water's' Surfac~ an&
~ust have reflectors for nightthe visibilitY;::'
exceed sixty-four (64) s~are feet. ....... '
d. ~o~n~-use floats shall not exceed n~nety-szx (96)
............................... ~indus'trial .~nt'erpris~s 'shall not ~ granted unl~S:S'":.i:t:.~
~etemin~ ~at adjacent co~erCial.:and/or in~ust'ri~:t.:
ente~rzses are not wxllxng:to coo eratz'velv:'develo~'::'~
JOIN]'-US~ ~O0~aGE '7 9
PROPOSED AME NDME~"~
KITSAP LAKE & KITSAP WETLANDS
BREMERTON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
JULY 31, 1991
City of Bremerton
Department of Community Development/Planning Division
Project Manager: Kay W. Wilson, Senior Planner
(206) 478-5275
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
[] CHANGE NAM~ OF "KITBAP BOG":
The term "bog" has been a derogatory term and does not
convey the true value of these wetlands at the south end of
Kitsap Lake. Change the name of "Kitsap Bog" to:
Fc[tsap Lake Wetlands
[] REVISE TABLE I - USE COMPATIBILITY CHART:
KITSAPLAKE/KITSAP ~TLANDS:
LAI~DFILL Landward of OHWM: ~
LANDFILL Waterward of OHWM: ~
[] REVISE TABLE 2 - SETBACK, HEIGHT AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS:
Revise Table 2 as recommended in proposed "View Protection"
amendments, to determine setback, height and width
requirements within the Kitsap Bog designation by
Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
K]TSAP LAkE & I~ITSAP BOG 80
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS
BREMERTON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
JULY 31, 1991
CONTENTS
PART i - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Master Program Application
Appeal
Amendments to Master Program
PART 2 - DEFINITIONS
Adjacent Lands
PART 3 - PERMIT PROCEDURES
Geographic Applicability
Development Activity that Requires a Permit
Permit Processing Procedures
Nonconforming Development
PART 4 - NATURAL SYSTEMS AND SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTS
Urban Conservancy
Urban Residential
City of Bremerton
Department of Community Development/Planning Division
Project Manager: Kay W. Wilson, Senior Planner
(206) 478-5275
VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN PLATe
PART i -- GENERAL PROVISION~
Master Proqram Application (Paqe 3)
The provisions of this Master Program shall apply to all
"shorelines" as that term is defined herein and which are
within the jurisdiction of the City of Bremerton as defined
by law.
~ The provisions of ~hls Mas~er Program shall
not apply to those substantial developments as defined
herein for which Substantial Development Permits were
issued prior to the October 5, 1977, adoption of this
Master Program. These previously approved substantial
developments must however comply with. the policies and
~ Department of Ecology
regulations of the Act,
guidelines and -~ ~ ....... ~ ...... ~~ the
Master Program being developed for the area at the time
the Substantial Development Permit was issued.
Substantlal Developments which are approved
after the October 5, 1977 adoption of this
Master Program must, when developed, comply
with the policy and regulations of the Act,
the Master Program in effect at the time they
were granted an original or revised
Substantial Development Permit, and the terms
of that permit. Non-permit development must
comply with this Master Program upon
development.
Plelr!i i§~anda:~d'~!iiiii!!ih'!iiiiii~i:flf~i6~!! ia~ ii~h~ i!ii~i~!~!iiii!%i~i Pi:~ .............
HOUSEKEEPING AHENDHENTS 82
Ap~ea! (Pa~e 4}
Ail action taken during the administration and enforcement of
these regulations may be appealed as
~ ( l~y CO~Cl~' ~C~sl~n. The~:~eclslon ~of ~he ~CltY Council: ~y
............... be apPealing0 ~e Shorelih~s~e~gs B~ard
Amendments to Master Proqram (Page 4)
Any of the provisions of this Master Program may be amended as
provided for in RCW 90.58.120,
i'T~:~i:S'"?:i~~'~'''~I~'~'h'i~'~'''i:~i''~'~'i~=:~'l~''
............ ~e::ci%Y :CouhCil aft~ ::h°lding at leas~ :one ?:(
~a.~ ........................................... .............................. " ' .................. '
HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS
PART 2 - DEFINITIONS
Adjacent Lands - Those lands immediately adjacent to and abutting
lands under shoreline permit jursidiction, extending landward to
the extent necessary to control direct and significant impacts to
shorelands and to implement the management policy articulated in
the Act, the Department of Ecology guidelines, and the Master
Program (RCW 90.58.340).
HCRJSEKEEP] NG AMENDMENTS 84
PART 3 -- PERMIT PROCEDURES:
Geographic Applicability (Paqe 13)
The Bremerton Shoreline Management Master Program applies to
development activity ~'~i~g"'"6e~':~'!i~i~hO~r'~e~.within the
incorporated city limi't~"'Of-'Brem~'~Oh'~'"i~cludih"g that occurs in
Puget Sound, Kitsap Lake, Kitsap Bog, a'nd'~Tw~n'-'Lakes, Union
River Union ir ~ ~ ~~ The
, Reserve . ~'~ ~ ....... ~ ~
program also applies to development activity that occurs within
~'~ '~~'~i~'.~:~:i~ss'6~'i~'~:~'~i~h'"'%_h'~:~'[ill~i~f''':'~odi~'''u~i'i:''ai
B g,.!and:~i:i~e.uplands w~th~n 290 feet landward of these wa~er'
h°di'~'~";':':"':'~:~:~'r~'d"':'fr'6m the or~nar~ ~igh ~at~r ~rl
-~ ........ ~io: only to dcvclop=cnt pro
.... ~ ..... ~P jcct:, or portion: of
~,,~1 ~~ ~ '~ ,,4~ ~ ~ ............. ""'-'.":-.-:.:."- .... .'.:'.'.'-'."
'~ ..... ~ .......~ .... , .................... ~tle aevelopment on
"~ac"'n'~"'"i'~'~S"d°~'s"'n6~' reqUire a'~h0rei'fn& permit, it:~ust ~e ......
Consistent with ~aster Program requirenents for ~horeline ..........
development. Where a substantial developm.nt is locatedii'part[y
~nside';the!'Shoreline and partly on a~jacent lands, the '~h:~reline
p rm~t'~'¢overs the total project action as defined by'th:eyState ..............
Environed%al'Policy ~ct (S~PA)...The'permit will inctud~
h°nd/ti°nS:iiii°n ~sveloPment located °n'~jacent lanai, when
~eCes~ii~iii.{° :::~itigatei::adverse i~pa~ets on :. the shorel
~he deVelOPment,-. ' ' ....... ' ..................................................
Development Activity that Requires a Permit (Page 13)
1. State law requires that all substantial development
occurring within the state's shorelines obtain a shoreline
~'~h~i~-"d&V'd:~:~Ph'dne permit before con~tmction
undertaken ..............
dcvclcpmcnt
a. There are several exceptions to the definition, .;h~Ch
.............................-- - ' ~ - -m~ " -~c-~d~n~~ - -~ that
~-~" t ....... ~ ' ~ '- complete
...... ~ ..... c found in Pa~ 2,
HCIJSE£EEPING AMENDMENTS 8 5
b. ~~, While tkc abovc exceptions do not require a
shorel ina ~i~'~'~!~ii~i!~i~!~i~i~i!~i~i permit, .a 11
developmen~'~'"~'~'~i~"i'{'~'~'~'~"i'h~'~'~'~h'~'~'~'~'sh'~6'~'~'line area must be
consistent with the pclicicu cf thc Shoreline
Management Act (R~.90.58) and the Bremerton Shoreline
~:~'~:~=~ Program.
c. ~enever a development is exempt from the retirement
to obtain a S~stantial Development pe~it, and thc
Sccticn ~ P .... it "~- ~
Pollution Ccntrcl Act cf 1972, the City shall issue a
~tter of Exemption ~onsistent with WAC 173-14-115
Perm'~t Processing Procedures (Page
The same application form is used for all three permits, and may
be obtained at the Bremerton Department of Community Development.
In general, Shoreline Pe~its are reviewed by the City using the
same procedures used for zoning pe~it applications. However,
additional public notice may be re~ired by the Shoreline Master
Program. The procedure for processing Shoreline Pe~its is as
follows:
::]~?:{~?:~?:~:::~....~pp.~.~9~::~:: The same application fo~ is used for all
..................................... *~h'~'6~:'~'~*:~'~*~i*{s, and may be obtained at the City of Breme~on
Department of Community Development.
~'~{~R~i*~::~:~6~:~'~{~ In general, shoreline pe~its are reviewed
:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:::~:~:C:~:{:~.:~::~::~ng the same procedures used for zoning pe~it
applications. However, additional public notice may be
re~ired by the Shoreline Master Program. The procedure for
processing shoreline pe~its is as follows:
...... ' ............ ~:~I~:~:~a~.~6~hg~.~:~:~{~/~:~~6~:~ rezone or site plan
review for the development to proceed: The shoreline
pe~it will be-'reviewed using the same prcccs=
Zonin Ordinance
HOUSEKEEPING AHENDHENTS 8 6
development to proceed, and:
1) A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is
required: The permit application will be reviewed
and approved, approved with conditions, or denied
by the Director of Community Development. Tha
S~t .... O ~ +h~ ~ ~- Zcn~,,~ O~d ......
2) A ~'T~ Conditional Use Pe~it or Variance
Pe:~::{{:':~:::~:[~:~::~:::~e~ired: The pe~it application will
be reviewed and approved, approved with
conditions, or denied by the Planning Co~ission.
................. ~ ~ appca~d t=
Nonconforminq Devlopment (Paqe 17)
Nonconforming development may be continued provided it is not
" ........ its non-confr=.ity: P. vvid~d that
................. cc arc
lA Request for Review ~ay be fired directly with the Shorelines Hearing Board at the option of the
applicant0 as provided for in RL~7 90.58.180.
HOUSEKEE P I HG AMENDMENTS 8 7
PART 4 -- NATURAL SYSTEMS AND SHORELINE E~IRONMENTS
DESIGNATION OF ENVIRONMENTS (Paqes 23-25}
Urban Conservancy
~her-con~e'rva~cv ~i Des t~a~
Urban Residential
Manette-East (Rll) - Extends south from the Manette
Commercial area, around the Manette peninsula, to the city
limits-~ ~-~-~- ~"~ .....
................... , along the northeast shore of
the Port Washington Narrows and the west shore of Sinclair
Kitsap ~ke (R12) - E~ends ~"~ ~-~- ~ ~" l~-:~- at
~ .... th~=~t ~ -~ thc
....... ..... e no~ from C~p McKean on ~e
west lake shore, around ~he la~ ~lon~ ~e east lake shore
to Kitsap ~ke Park. T~:~:~7~'~'~?~i~:~'~:~'e:?~h~ ~'~:~~
effect ~Ve upon ahne xa t i On o f :j ~a t :~ a~ea:~ ~ :(p'e~ding)' ~ .....................................
~ f,:: sincl a tr~: I nl et~. a Dpt oximatel:y' :. between :j
and: Ba~iew 'DriVe e~egded ~::.~'Thi s 'des lqDat~en' :':wi 11~ b:~'come ...............
~ff~t~e..uP°n a~nexatl.0n of..~.e.area~[~Pendinq),:
NOU~EL'~.EP i #G AMENDNENTS S 8
AMENDED ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION MAPS
Justification for Redesignation
Map 1 of 6
Map 2 of 6
Map 3 of 6
JUSTIFICATION FOR REDESIGNATION
PRE-DESIGNATION OF PENDING ANNEXATION AREAS
The following areas are either recently annexed (R-12) or
annexations are pending. These areas are being pre-designated in
order that the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program will be effective
upon annexation.
JUSTIFICATION FOR PRE-DESIGNATION
The following discussion is in response to the designation criteria
listed in WAC 173-16-040(4).
URBAN CONSERVANCY
Camp McKean - (CS 12-F)
1. Existing Development Pattern: Developed recreational
facility for use of military personnel and families.
2. Biophysical Capabilities and Limitations of Shoreline:
Located on east shoreline of Kitsap Lake, is a designated
Natural System requiring special protection from over-
development.
3. Goals and Aspirations of Local Citizenry: Kitsap Lake
residents have demonstrated steadfast concern for the
protection of the lake ecosystem. Surrounding residents
could be expected to take a very active interest in any
proposals to change the use of or surplus this Federal
facility.
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
Manette-East (R-11)
1. ExistinqDevelopment Pattern: Single-family development.
2. Biophysical Capabilities and Limitations of Shoreline:
Located on the west shore of Sinclair Inlet, a narrow
inlet connecting Bremerton to Puget Sound. Much of
shoreline lined with bulkheads and riprap, and has shown
vulnerability to wake damage from fast passenger ferries.
3. Goals and Aspirations of Local Citizenry: Residents are
petitioning for annexation to the city with residential
single-family zoning.
Kitsap Lake (R-12) '
1. Existing Development Pattern: Single-family development.
2. Biophysical Capabilities and Limitations of Shoreline:
Located on northwest shoreline of Kitsap Lake, a
designated Natural System requiring special protection
from over-development.
3. Goals and Aspirations of Local Citizenry: Area was
recently annexed to the city with residential single-
family zoning.
Sherman ~eights (R-13)
1. Existing Development Pattern: A railway to PSNS and
Bangor and State Highway 3 parallel tke shoreline, with
residential developnent upland of the highway.
2. Biophysical Capabilities and Limitations of Shoreline:
Shoreline is lined with riprap to protect rail line, and
the natural shore is non-existent. There is a
significant landslide hazard on the steep bluff facing
the water upland of the highway. There is no strong
likelihood of flooding.
3. Goals and Aspirations of Local Citizenry: Residents are
petitioning for annexation to the cit~ with residential
single-family zoning.
D*
SBO~L~
SHIPYARD ~l RO~,~T DESIGNATIONS
](~3 % Map 3 Of ~
Con~ervancy CS
Residential R
I(F)S Co~ercia 1 C
~ Industrial
Downto~ Water front/
~ ;~ ~ ~to~ Waterfront/ DW~
Indicates Federal ~n~ [F)~
~lgh Bluff
HC)US[K[[PING AM[WDM[NI$
~SOLUTION OF INTENT TO /tDOPT
A I~ESOLUTION OF NOTICE OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
BRE~RTON t WASHINGTON, TO ADOPT APPeNDaNTS TO THE
BREMERTON SHORELINE F~KSTER PROGRAM ~"HICH PROMULGAGES
SHORELINE F~kN AG EP~ NT POLICIES AND USE REGULATIONS
CONS I STENT ~/TH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON SHORE LINE
¥2%NAG~NT ACT OF 1971 AS AMENDED.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Bremerton City Council
hereby finds and adopts these facts.
'1. Shoreline Master Program. The City of Bremerton approved the
Bremerton Shoreline Master Program by Resolution No. 1736,
effective OCTOBER 5, 1977. The City approved major amendments
to the Shoreline Master Program by Ordinance No. 4183,
effective JA3~ARY 25, 1989.
2. Waterfront Access Plan
a. The City of Bre~erton adopted the Waterfront Access Plan
as an a~end~ent to the 1986 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
by Resolution No. 2315, effective AUGUST 22, 1990.
b. The Waterfront Access Plan Goal is to provide a
comprehensive system of safe and abundant access to city
shorelines, while protecting private properties from
adverse impacts. The Plan includes policies and
objectives toward this end, including the objective to
add a new Public Access Element to the Bremerton
Shoreline master Program to i~plement the recommendations
of the Waterfront Access Plan.
3. Shore Defense. The Bremerton Shoreline'Master Program does
not address beach enhancement as an alternative to bulkheads
or riprap for shore defense. Beach enhancement is preferred
to bulkheads, which usually cause long-range degradation of
beaches, are often aesthetically unpleasing, and limit access
to the beach.
4. View Protection. The Bremerton Shoreline Master Program does
not adequately protect scenic vistas within the shorelines and
water bodies. View protection requirements for residential
development create a hardship on narrow lots, but do not
provide effective view corridors on larger sites. View
protection requirements for non-residential development are
minimal.
5. Joint-Use Moorage Facilities. The Bremerton Shoreline Master
Program encourages joint ~oorage facilities in place of
individual docks, but contains inadequate guidance to
determine m'hen Joint ~.oorage is required and individual docks
prohibited.
6. Kitsap Lake and Kitsap Bog. The Bre~-erton Shoreline Easter
Program contains inadequate protection for the Kitsap Lake and
Kitsap Bog ~atural Systems.
7. ~eneral Provisions. The Bremerton Shoreline Easter Program:
a. lacks information on state lam' regarding the vesting of
development standards in plats;
b. contains a discrepancy regarding procedures for appeals;
and
c. o~its Planning Co~ission review of proposed Easter
Progra~ a~end~ents.
8. Permit Procedures. The ~rer~erton Shoreline Easter Progr. am:
a. lacks information on the applicability of the Easter
Program to adjacent lands;
b. does not require documentation of exer. ption from the
shoreline substantial development per, it requirement;
c. does not provide a process for pre-application revie-g of
proposed shoreline projects; and
d. contains regulations for nonconforming development that
are inconsistent with zoning ordinance re?ulations.
9. ~n~nexation Areas. Arunexation has occurred and ad~ed ne~'
shoreline area to the city, and annexation of other shoreline
areas is in process. The Bremerton Shoreline Easter Program.
lacks provisions to transfer ne~'ly annexed areas fro.- ccunty
to city shoreline jurisdiction effective upon annexation.
10. A Determination of ~'onsignificance m'as issued Eay 3, i991, in
accordance m'ith the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
11. The City of Bremerton Department of Co,unity Develop-ent has
solicited comments on the proposed Shoreline Easter Progra~
anend~ents from the Department of Ecology consistent m-ith the
require~-ents of WAC 173-19-061(5).
12. The Bre~erton Planr~ing Cot-mission held several study meetings,
one public meeting, and one public hearing on the proposed
Bremerton Shoreline Easter Program amendments between
September 1990 and June 1991. After considering cral and
%-ritten testimony and the staff report, the Commission p~ssed
a resolution recor_~ending approval of the proposed E~ster
Program amendments on May 21, 1991.
13. The Bremerton City Council held a study meeting on the
proposed Bremerton Shoreline Master Program amendments on June
10, 1991.
14. The Bremerton City Council held a public hearing on' the
proposed Bremerton Shoreline Master Program amendments on June
26, 1991, and continued the hearing to July 31, 1991, and has
considered the proposed amendments, the staff report,
Department of Ecology comments, and all public testimony on
the proposed amendments during this five week period.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Bremerton City Council hereby
concludes the following:
1. New planning issues and civic objectives have arisen that can
be addressed by shoreline management.
2. Several deficiences have been identified in the Bre~erton
Shoreline Master Program as a~ended January 25, 1989.
3. The proposed Bremerton Shoreline Master Program amendments are
consistent with:
a. The policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management
Act;
b. Department of Ecology guidelines, rules and regulations;
and
c. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). :-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Bre~erton City Council hereby
declares its intent to adopt the proposed amendments to the
Bremerton Shoreline Master Program, adopted by Resolution No. 1736
in 1977, and amendments, ~odifications or changes thereto.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this 31st day
of July, 1991.
LYNN MORTON
President, Bremerton City Council
APPROVED THIS /3' DAY OF ~-~glU~ , 1991.
LOUIS F~_N~R, MaTor
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY,i Clerk
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
^;ar' ~toF P'~-7~ · O,m,~.:~ Washingto'~ 9.~$54'..~'-17 · (206)
February 5, 1992
Mr. Donald L. Pratt
Director of Planning
Department of Community Development
City of Bremerton
286 - 4th Street
Bremerton, Washington 98310
Re: Department Action on Amendments to
Bremerton Shoreline Master Program
Dear Mr. Pratt:
I am pleased to advise you that the Department of Ecology has completed
its review of the proposed amendments to the City of Bremerton's
Shoreline Master Program (SMP), WAC 173-19-2601. The amendments include
revisions to public access, shore modification, and view protection
policies and regulations, revision of residential joint-use moorage
requirements and pier, dock, and float standards, revision of Kttsap Lake
and Bog development standards, and various housekeeping amendments
relating to vesting of plat development, administrative decision appeal,
S~ amendment, exempt development, pre-application procedures, adjacent
lands policy, nonconforming development, and environment predesignation
adjacent to Kitsap Lake.
Our review has found the proposed amendments to be in conformance with
the Shoreline Management Act, specifically RCW 90.58.120 and .200 and
Chapter 173-16 WAC, Guidelines for Development of Master Programs. No
public comment was received by the Department regarding this proposal.
We appreciate the time and effort that the City has put into these
a~emdm~ents and look foz-ward to the City's management of future shoreline
development in accordance with these revisions to your master program.
Please forward to the Department five (5) copies of your approved master
program amendments in a form that can be inserted directly into the
existing Official State Shoreline Master Program for Brem~rton. This
will allow us to complete our SM~ amendment files. If you have questions
regarding our approval of the subject amendz~nts, please contsct Peter
Skowlund of my staff at (206) 438-7430.
Sincerely,
Fred Olson
Deputy Director
FO:PS:del
cc: Kay Wilson, City of Bremerton Senior Flasher
BREMER. TON CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY
OF BREMERTON SHORELINE MANAGMENT MASTER
PROGRAM OF 1977 WHICH PROMULGATES SHORELINE
MANAGEN~NT POLICIES AND USE REGULATIONS
CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 AS AMENDED.
WHEREAS, the State of Washington Shoreline Management Act
of 171 and all subsequent amendments is the law of the State of
Washington; and
WHEREAS, certain duties, obligations and responsibilities
have thereby become incumbent upon the City of Bremerton; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton approved a Shoreline
Master Program by Resolution No. 1736, dated October 5, 1977; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has performed the required
steps under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and its
amendments, in the preparation of the amended City of Bremerton
Shoreline Management Master Program; and
WHEREAS, the amended City of Bremerton Shoreline
Management Master Program was adopted on February 5, 1992 by the
State of Washington Department of Ecology, pursuant to WAC 173-19-
062 Submission of master programs and amendments by local
government and 173-19-064 Review and adoption of master programs
and amendments by the department; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has met the requirements
of WAC 173-19 Shoreline Management Act of 1971--State Master
Program for amending shoreline master programs; now, therefore
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
SECTION 1. Amendments to the City of Bremerton Shoreline
Management Master Program, as listed in Exhibit A attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby adopted.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton on
the first reading this day of , 1992.
PASSED by the City Council of the this day of
, 1992.
LYNN HORTON
President, City Council
APPROVED this day of , 1992.
LOUIS MENTOR, Mayor
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, Clerk
Full text of amendments is included with City Clerk's
packet. Executive Summary is attached for remaining
pa cke ts.
· New Public Access Section:
[] Incorporates adopted Waterfront Access Plan
policies.
[] Includes existing Commercial and Residential public
access requirements.
· Related Use Activity Amendments:
Adds public access policies/regulations to be
inserted into various Use Activity sections.
· Replaces current Shore Defense Works section:
[] Establishes general Shore Modification policies and
regulations applicable to all shore modification
activities.
[] Adds restrictions to bulkhead construction.
Includes beach enhancement as a preferred
shore protection method.
· Incorporates current Dredgin~ and Landfill sections by
reference.
· Revises Table 2 - Setback, Height and Width Requirements:
Replaces Residential 40~ Open Area requirement with
25~/35%40~ "View Corridor" requirement related to
building height.
Removes Downtown Waterfront requirements, which
defers this authority to the Downtown Waterfront
Urban Renewal Plan.
· Adds new View Protection policy/regulation section.
· Revises Residential Development section.
Requires subdivisions and planned developments with
shoreline frontage to provide a location for a
joint-use pier/dock.
Prohibits additional joint-use moorage where one is
provided.
Prohibits single-use moorage where joint-use
moorage is provided.
· Revises Water Access and Moorage Facilities Section:
Allows existing residential lots to have no more
than one private single-use dock.
[] Limits maximum length and width of residential
piers and docks.
Limits moorage facilities for multi-family
residences, hotels, motels and other commercial and
industrial developments.
[] Requires maintenance of joint-use moorage
facilities.
[] Limits size of floats.
· Revises Table 2 - Setback, Height and Width Requirements
to determine these requirements within Kitsap Bog by
Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
· Changes name of "Kitsap Bog" environment designation to
"Kitsap Lake Wetlands".
· Vesting of Development Standards in Plats: Explains
effect of 5-year vesting period for subdivisions.
· Appeal of Administrative Decision: Corrects discrepancy
between appeal procedures listed in Part 1 and Part 3.
· Amendments: Requires that proposed Master Program
amendments go to Planning Commission for recommendation
prior to action by City Council.
· Adjacent Lands: Clarifies that lands adjacent to
shoreline areas must be consistent with policies and
regulations of the Shoreline Management Act.
· Letter of Exemption: Requires a Letter of Exemption
before development exempt from the substantial
development permit requirement is allowed to proceed.
· Pre-Application Meeting: Adds an optional Pre-
application meeting for applicants.
· Nonconformin~ Development: Replaces existing
nonconforming development provisions with Zoning
Ordinance provisions to eliminate the confusion of
overlapping requirements.
~ DI!IS'rGIqA'I'ICH~I I~AP$
· West Kitsap Lake Annexation Area: Adds newly annexed
area to Kitsap Lake (R-12) map designation.
· Pre-Annexation Environment Designations: Adds
designations to Environment Designation Maps to pre-
designate areas expected to be annexed in near future:
Camp McKean (CS 12-F)
[] Manette-East (R-11)
[] Sherman Heights (R-13)