HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/2006 AGENDA
FILE
CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337-1873 03 (360) 473-5?130
MARCH 15, 2006
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
1. PRE-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. in COUNCil CONFERENCE ROOM 603
A. General Council Business
2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. in MEETING CHAMBERS lOCATED ON FIRST FLOOR
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
3. MAYOR'S REPORT
4. PUBLIC RECOGNITION & ANNOUNCEMENTS - "A Call to Citizens..."
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Claims & Check Register (#AB06-048)
B. Minutes of Meeting - March 8, 2006 (#AB06-049)
C. Professional Services Agreement Amendment with the Law Office of DAVID P. HORTON,
INC. P.S. for Legal Services (#AB06-050)
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Ordinance No. 4965, repealing and replacing Chapter 20.14; and amending Chapters
20.02 and 17.60 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, all relating to Critical Areas Regulations
(#AB06-051? I
7. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Ordinance No. 4963, amending Section 2.16.020 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating
to the Fire Marshall (#AB06-052)
B. Ordinance No. 4964, repealing and replacing Chapter 1.06 of the Bremerton Municipal
Code relating to Disclosure of Public Records; and amending Chapter 3.01 Rate Table A
of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to Rates and Fees for Financial Services
(#AB06-053)
8. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
9. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
rI Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special
accommodations should contact the City Clerk's Office at (360) 473-5323 by noon on the Monday preceding the
Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SPEAKERS LIST
PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FROM THE CITY OF
BREMERTON MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING.
THANK YOU.
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO
SPEAK DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT
sU-~~ c:~: (0)\
v
l)0y\
pO\r\1- of (p~c:t ~ D*n (3100) 3/7- 8l q I
FREE INCOME TAX RETURN PREPARATION AND fiLING
The IRS and AARP jointly sponsor a program staffed by volunteers to prepare and file income
tax returns at no cost to the taxpayers. Although intended for elderly and low-income families.
no taxpayer will be turned away. Note however, business and rental income are beyond the
scope of the program. Last year the 50 volunteers of the Kitsap County Tax-Aide program
prepared and filed nearly 3000 returns.
Taxpayers must bring a photo identification, documents verifying the Social Security numbers
of all persons on the tax return and aU 2005 tax documents, such as statements of income
from wages, retirement, social security, interest and dividends. It is advisable to bring a
checkbook to provide account numbers for electronic funds transfer and a copy of the 2004
return for comparison purposes.
If in doubt about the paperwork, bring it all and let us sort it out.
There is no cost for this service!
T ax-Aide Sites and Times.
Sites will be open February 1 through April 15
Bainbridge Island Main Library
1270 Madison Ave. N, Bainbridge Island
Mon, Wed and Fri 10:30-1
Mon eve 6-8 Sat. by appointment
Westpark Community Center
76 Russell Road. Bremerton
Man and Sat 1-5
Givens Community Center
26 Sidney Ave. Port Orchard
Thr 9-1
VVork Source
1300 Sylvan Way, Bremerton
Fri 1 - 5
Olympic College
1600 Chester Ave. Bremerton
Tus, Wed & Thr 12:30-4:30
Manchester Library
8067 E. Main St. Manchester
Thr 4 - 8
Port Orchard Library
87 Sidney Ave. Port Orchard
Sat. 10-2
St. Gabriel's Catholic Church
1150 Mitchell Ave. Port Orchard "",
Tus 10 - 4
Poulsbo Martha & Mary's
19160 Front St. Poulsbo
Thr 1-5, Fri and Sat 10-2
Sheridan Park Center
680 Lebo Blvd. Bremerton
Wed & Thr 10 - 2
Silverdale Community Center
9729 Silverdale Way NW, Silverdale
Tus & Thr 10-2
Page 1 ot 1
Christine Grenier
From: Lori Smith
Sent: Monday, March 13,20062:21 PM
To: Christine Grenier
Subject: Tax Info Announcement
Since we are a "Navy Town", if you want to add this info to your report, the Department of Defense has a program
offered to. provide; free access:to TurboTax for assisting, military and family members with all. their-tax questions
,via a websiteat www.militaryonesource.com or by calling (800) 342'-9647!
3/14/2006
BILL # 00-0Y[(
DATE SUBMITTED:
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CIT.Y COUNCIL
.......................................................................................,
SUBJECT:
Claim & Checks Register Approval
Committee Meeting Date:
. COUNCIL MEETING Date: ~ 3-(~,---()0
Department: Financial Services
Presenter: Cathy Johnson
Phone:
SUMMARY:
ATTACHMENTS:
FISCAL IMP ACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
APPROVALS:
DEP ARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
FISCAL/BUDGET:
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
\ CONSENT AGENDA [gJ I
~~4;~~-t~
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve:
1) Check #'s
300070 - 30(;96/
~~c:-- ? '6/0 ..
EFT's
$ ~03.3?S: 3;:(
/
2) Regular Payroll for
$
3) Retiree Payroll for
$
COUNCIL ACTION: ~rove
o Deny
o Table
o Continue 0 No Action
DATE SUBMITTED: !VlttYlYl1
q :JO<:/
J \0 AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
BILL #
01, - O'f r
58
........................................................................................
SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting -
M t,?,Y&h 8 JDub
I ,
Committee Meeting Date:
COUNCIL MEETING Date:
Department:
Presenter:
N/A
1'14 rIA,.. J ::;. dDD k-
City Council /
Cecil McConnell,
Council President
(360) 473-5280
Phone:
SUMMARY:
Attached are the meeting minutes for the Council Meeting held 1'1 ar~ g I ~oOb
ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes for ~{(rvh. 8, d-ooC::,.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None
APPROVALS:
DEP AR TMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
FISCAL/BUDGET:
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
---,
~NSENT AGENDA ~ I
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass the CONSENT AGENDA as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: tSl Approve [1 Deny D Table
Continue LJ No ACllon
DIGITAL RECORDING
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 8, 2006
The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City
Council Chambers, of the NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER 345 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington,
Wednesday, March 8, 2006, at 5:30 PM, with Council President Cecil McConnell presiding. Council
members present were Nick Wofford, Will Maupin, Carol Arends, Dianne Robinson, Mike Shepherd,
Wendy Priest, Adam Brockus, and Brad Gehring. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich,
City Clerk Paula Johnston, and Council Assistant Christine Grenier.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Brad Gehring followed by the invocation
provided by Council Member Carol Arends.
President McConnell announced the following:
. A Pre-Council session was held in Council Conference Room 603 from 5:00 to 5:30 PM; which
included a 15-minute EXECUTIVE SESSION to discuss "Pending Litigation" per RCW
42.30.110(1 )(i);
. The Council will gather for a Planning Retreat on Saturday, March 11, 2006 from 9:00 AM to
12:00 noon at the Gold Mountain Golf Complex; and
. Citizens were informed that they could receive information on upcoming Council meetings on the
City's website at www.cLbremertor1:wa.us; or by calling the Council Office at (360) 473-5280.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION & SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS - "A Call to Citizens..."
Paula Johnston announced that the Olympic, View Elementary School Farewell Ceremony will be
held on Saturday, March 11th from 2:30 to 4:00 PM at the Olympic View Gym. For more information,
please contact Walt Draper at (360) 478-5113 or by email at walt.draper@bsd.wednet.edu.
Steve Priest referred to segments of the "Community Character Element" to establish that the
Council was making decisions that are not in compliance with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan
with respect to the proposed developments for Highland and Pleasant Avenues.
Annie Barrus expressed her disappointment with Council's decision last week to not refer the
building heights issue back to the Planning Commission; and believed that this was not in the best
interest of the community.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Check Numbers 306394 through 306677; and EFT-8876 through EFT-8887; in the amount of
$703,791.32; and Regular Payroll in the amount of $566,091.09 for the pay period ending
February 28, 2006 (#AB06-045)
B. Minutes of Meeting - February 22, 2006 (#AB05-046)
C. Minutes of Meeting - March 1, 2006 (#AB06-047)
There were no other comments from the public.
5:38:49 M/S/C (Priest/Arends) Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Voted in favor of the Motion: Gehring, Brockus, Priest, Robinson, Arends, Maupin, Wofford,
McConnell
Abstained: Shepherd
Motion carried: 8-Yes; 1-Abstention
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, March 8, 2006
Page 2 of 2
With no further business, President McConnell adjourned the meeting of the City Council at
5:39 PM. The Council reconvened in Conference Room 603 for a STUDVSESSION to hear
presentations on upcoming items.
Prepared and Submitted by:
~ )t".....;
CHRISTINE GRENIER '
Council Assistant
Attest:
PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk
CECIL McCONNELL, City Council President
CM/PJ/ls/cg
DATE SUBMITTED: February 27,2006
BILL # O/P-OSV
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
5(..
........................................................................................
SUBJECT: Professional Services
Agreement Amendment with the Law Office
of David P. Horton, Inc., P.S. for legal
servIces
Committee Meeting Date: March 8, 2006
COUNCIL MEETING Date: March 15, 2006
Department: City Attorney's Office
Presenter: Roger A. Lubovich
Phone: 473-2345
SUMMARY: David P. Horton is currently handling most of the City's litigation. The current
contract with Mr. Horton expires March 31, 2006. An Assistant City Attorney has been hired and is
scheduled to begin work on June 1,2006. The proposed professional services agreement amendment
extends Mr. Horton's contract through May 31, 2006 in order to maintain continuity of representation
for the City until the new in-house attorney arrives. It further amends compensation from a monthly
retainer to hourly commencing June 1, 2006.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memo to Council
2. Proposed Professional Services Agreement Amendment
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): A budget adjustment to reallocate funds from the
City Attorney's Office and Risk Management Fund personnel costs to legal professional services and
risk claims payments is required to fund the contract extension.
APPROVALS:
DEP ARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MA YOR:
:7
'", ,', ~
,."n> I , I I
,,/,", 'l "__,U''''; -,- "j~~ ,h . 1
/ tkfti!~~O... : . .c<_
. .:;;~~:? . >7& ~ " --;:r--. . CONSENT AGENDA .E}
,,~,# , i /' '?" v .
,., - ~. ,,/?:~r../" 't:-?.~-~",~,,,,, .
"-.~ ....... ~. .; ',': ~~k'~':;O-: .,' /,l"
" - ,! r ~ - .. _/>F /.... ._~ ~ ""'.,.Y-,_..... ,--'),4,.,../ i1,.
.., ,-'- - <.< -', - ~, '... -,
'& . ,/
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
FISCAL/BUDGET:
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
Move to approve the Professional Services Agreement Amendment between the City of Bremerton
and the Law Office of David P. Horton, Inc., P.S. and authorize the City Attorney to finalize and
execute the agreementwith substantially the same terms and conditions as presented and further to
authorize a budget adjustment to reallocate the necessary funds within the City Attorney and Risk
Management funds to fund the contract extension.
COUNCIL ACTION: D Approve D Deny D Table
D Continue D No Action
Office of the City Attorney
Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney
MelDorandulD
TI: City Council
From: Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney
Be: Budget Adjustment for Professional Services Agreement Amendment
Dale: March l, 2006
In December 2005, City Council approved hiring a new assistant city attorney. The City
Attorney's Office has selected the new attorney and originally anticipated his start date as April
1,2006. However, the new attorney will not be commencing work until June 1,2006. In order
to maintain continuity of representation for cases currently being litigated, the City Attorney's
Office entered into a professional services agreement with the Law Office of David P. Horton,
Inc. P.S. That agreement will expire March 31,2006.
The City Attorney's Office desires to continue the professional services agreement with the Law
Office of David P. Horton, Inc. P.S. A budget adjustment is required in order to extend the
professional services agreement with Mr. Horton's firm.
The City Attorney's Office proposes adjusting the budget by reallocating funds from the City
Attorney and Risk Management personnel costs (funds that would have been expended as salary
for the new assistant city attorney) to the City Attorney professional services budget and the Risk
Management claims payment budget. No new funds are required to accommodate the extension
of the professional services agreement.
The proposed reallocation is requested as follows:
Amount From Fund To Fund
$7,500 515.221451010 515.221454110
$6,200 514.717751010 514.787754110
$7,900 514.7177 51010 514.787754620
CONTRACT MODIFICATION AGREEMENT NO.1
BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND THE LAW OFFICE OF
DAVID P. HORTON, INC. P.S.
This Contract Modification Agreement specifically amends the Professional Services
Agreement entered into between the City of Bremerton and the Law Office of David P.
Horton, Inc. P.S. on December 9,2005.
All provisions in the Professional Services Agreement shall remain in full force and effect except as
expressly modified by this document.
For valuable consideration and by mutual consent of the parties, the modifications to the Agreement
are as follows:
I.
Section I Scope is modified as follows:
I. Scope: The Retained Counsel will represent the City of Bremerton on an as needed basis in
matters related to municipal government services as directed by the City Attorney. Retained
Counsel's primary role is prosecuting and defending lawsuits for the City. Retained
Counsel's secondary roll is work on general municipal and transactional work. City shall
provide the use of City facilities and personnel for administrative support for City related
representation until June 1, 2006.
Section II Term is modified as follows:
II. Term: This Agreement commences on January 1, 2006, and shall continue in full force and
effect until terminated pursuant to Section V of this Agreementterminates on March 31,
~
Section III Compensation is modified as follows:
III. Compensation:
A. In consideration of the services provided pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall
pay Retained Counsel a fixed retainer for all legal services provided in a total
amount not to exceed Six Thousand One Hundred Eighty Seven Dollars and Fifty
Cents ($6,187.50) per month on or before the fifteenth of each month. City shall pay
reasonable costs and expenses related to services rendered by Retained Counsel
under this Agreement including but not limited to copy fees, postage, phone
expenses, court reporter fees, witness fees and mileage for out of county travel.
Payment will be made within thirty (30) days of billing.
B. In addition to the foregoing, the City shall pay Retained Counsel One Hundred
Dollars and No Cents ($100) per hour for any single event that involves five or more
hours of Retained Counsel's time in anyone day. Event shall be defined as a hearing
or other appearance including but not limited to trial, arbitration, mediation,
depositions, or other court hearings. Preparation of memoranda, briefs, and other
CONTRACT MODIFICATION
legal documents shall not be construed as an event when determining compensation
pursuant to this paragraph.
C. Commencing June 1, 2006, paragraphs A. and B of this Section will terminate.
Beginning June 1, 2006, the City shall pay Retained Counsel hourly rates for
services as follows: $175 an hour for attorney services and $95 an hour for paralegal
services. Out of pocket expenses will be reimbursed in accordance with Retained
Counsel's standard billing practices. The Parties agree that the hourly rates for
services stated herein may, from time to time, and upon approval by the City
Attorney, be adiusted to reflect current market rates and conditions. Any rate
modifications shall be approved in writing by the City Attorney.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Contract Modification on the day
and year written below.
CONSULTANT.
THE CITY OF BREMERTON
By: David P. Horton
Its: President
By: Roger A. Lubovich
Its: City Attorney
DATE:
DATE:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTEST:
Bremerton City Attorney
City Clerk
R:\Legal\Legal\Contracts\LEGAL\2006 Horton Amendment l.doc
CONTRACT MODIFICATION
2
DATE SUBMITTED: 3/1/2006
BILL # /)7P-l>5 I
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMER TON
CITY COUNCIL
irJA
....................g...m.........................a.B...................................
SUBJECT: Public hearing and Ordinance
No.fCf ~S'repealing and replacing BMC
20.14, amending BMC 20.02 and BMC
17.60 all relating to critical areas regulations.
Committee Meeting Date: 3/7 /2006 & 3/8/2006
COUNCIL MEETING Date: 3/15/2006
Depm1ment: DCD
Presenter: Andrea Spencer
Phone: 473-5283
SUMMARY: The action before the Council is to conduct a public hearing and adopt an ordinance
for the update of the City's critical areas regulations.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed ordinance
2. Staff memorandum
3. Public comments received and summary table of how comments were addressed
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The Growth Management Act CGMA) requires
that critical areas regulations be updated to include "Best Available Science." Failure to maintain
GMAcompliance may jeopardize the City's eligibility for State grants and loans, particularly Public
Works Trust Fund loans.
APPROV ALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MA YOR:
FISCAL/BUDGET:
OPERA TIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
CONSENT AGENDA 0
"
~ ..;.-
t~fY
./ ..,.c . f. _
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. 41b:> updating the Critical Areas
regulations to include Best Available Science.
COUNCIL ACTION: D Approve D Deny D Table
D Continue D No Action
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE
SPEAKING POINTS BEFORE THE BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ON 15 MARCH, 2006
BY Helen Miller
For those of you who have yet to read the purported PURPOSE of the Critical Areas
Ordinance: TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE BY
ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS TO CLASSIFY, PROTECT AND PRESERVE
BREMERTON'S CRITICAL AREAS AND THEIR FUNCTIONS AND VALUES BY
PROVIDING STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN ASSOCIATION WITH THESE
AREAS. THE IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION OF CRITICAL AREAS IS
REQUIRED BY WASHINGTON STATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1990.
BE AWARE THAT BEHIND THESE PEACEFUL SOUNDING WORDS LIES A DARK
SECRET; WHICH HAS BEEN REVEALED BY RECENT ACTIONS:
YOU MUST ASK YOURSELF WHETHER THIS IS WHAT 2 OUT OF 3 OF THE KlTSAP
COWNTY COMMISSIONERS HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY TOOK 30 THOUSAND ACRES
OF PRIVATE LANDS WORTH 935 MILLION DOLLARS. A WAY FROM CITIZEN
ThANDOWNERS BY PREVENTING THEIR USE BY THE OWNERS - WITHOUT
t:OMPENSA TION.
J
THIS IS THE SAME AS CREATING CONSERVATION EASEMENTS WITHOUT EVEN
TAX BENEFITS BEING ACCORDED THE OWNERS. THIS HAS ALREADY BECOME A
NIGHTMARE FOR MORTGAGE COMPANIES - BECAUSE THESE TWO
COMMISSIONER HAVE MADE SURE TRA T YOUR TITLE WILL BE FOREVER
ENCUMBERED.
APPARENTLY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT MEAN NOTING TO THE COMMISSARS IN OUR MIDST.
DO WE REALLY WANT OUR CITY TO STEAL FROM OUR CITIZENS BY FOLLOWING
SUCH A FALLACIOUS LEAD BY THE COUNTY BUREAUCRATS?
~
Proposed Amendments To Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO)
Based on Council Discussion and Citizen Comment
Bremerton City Council Meeting 3/15/2006
Pro Dosed Amendment Notes
A. Add Definition for "Danger Tree" to the Definitions Section 20.14.200: Clarification requested from City
(Pg. "A tree that is dead, or is so affected by a significant structural defect or disease that Councilmembers.
15) falling or failure appears imminent, or a tree that impedes safe vision or traffic flow, or
that otherwise currently poses a threat to life or property. "
B. Revise Language in 20.14.630 (f)( 4) Tree Topping, to add the final sentence: Clarification requested from City
(Pg. "When tree topping is used in a geologically hazardous area, the root system shall remain Councilmember to make sure roOt systems stay
46) in place. " in place on steep slopes.
C. Revise language in Section 20. 14.660(e)(1)(iii), Geotechnical Reports, pertaining to Councilmember noted that sometimes contour
(Pg. information required for report submittal: maps are adequate for geotechnical reports.
49) "Contour mao and site plan, and the Deoartment may require ground surface profiles and This language makes submittal requirement less
typical cross-sections" onerous for the applicant when contour maps
are adequate for evaluating a proposal.
D. To the Geologically Hazardous Areas Section 20.l4.630(i) Stormwater Runoff, add the City Councilmember request for clarification.
(Pg. words "surface" so the first sentence reads:
47) "At no time shall concentrated stormwater runoff be allowed to surface flow directly over a
moderate or high geologically hazardous area... "
E. - To Section 20.14.730 (d), Buffers and Building Setbacks, add the words "And Citizen and design professional comment to
(Pg. Associated" so the title reads "Buffers And Associated Building Setbacks". DCD requesting clarity that both the standard
55,57, - To Section 20. 14.730(d)(5) Buffer Reduction, add the words "and building setbacks" so buffer width and any associated building
63)
the first sentence reads "Buffers and building setbacks" may be reduced.. ." setbacks may be reduced with a professionally
- To Section 20. 14.740(a) under Special Reports, add the words "and building setbacks" prepared Habitat Management Plan.
after "buffer width" in the first sentence, and after "habitat buffers" in the second to last
sentence.
- And direct staff to ensure that all Sections of the code allow for reductions to both
setbacks and buffers through special reports.
F. Amend Exhibit A - Attachment I (pg. 3 of 7) to include a reference to "AGI Technologies Staff inadvertently left this resource off the list.
Water Resource Group. 1996. Technical Memorandum #3 Conceptual Hydrogeological Model
Gorst Creek Basin. Publication reference number 15,842.001"
ORDINANCE NO. Jfq~S-
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington amending certain sections of Chapter
17.60 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to floodplain
management; repealing and replacing in its entirety Chapter 20.14
of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Critical Areas"
establishing new and updated critical area regulations for the City
of Bremerton; and amending Table 040 of Chapter 20.02 of the
Bremerton Municipal Code relating to permitting.
WHEREAS, the state Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the adoption of
development regulations that protect the functions and values of critical areas (known as the
"Critical Area Ordinance" or CAO), including wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas, critical groundwater recharge areas, frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous
in accordance with RCW 36.70A.170; and
n .
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.172 requires local governments to include the best
available science ("BAS ") in developing policies and development regulations to protect the
functions and values of critical areas, and to give special consideration to conservation and
protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries; and
WHEREAS, the City has considered and included the Best Available Science in
developing these regulations, consistent with RCW 36.70A.172 and WAC 365.195.900, and this
has been achieved through research and identification of relevant technical 30urces of
information, consultation with experts in the disciplines covered by these regulations, and
consultation and requests for technical information regarding best available science from state
and federal resource agencies; and
WHEREAS, preparation of this ordinance has included the use of relevant
nonscientific information, including consideration of legal, social, policy, economic, and land
use issues and reflects the City's responsibilities under numerous laws and programs, including
other provisions of the Growth Management Act, and the need to weigh and balance various
factors as part of decision making to accomplish municipal objectives; and
WHEREAS, the City will also use its authority under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEP A) to identify, consider, and mitigate, where appropriate, significant adverse
effects on critical resources not otherwise addressed by the regulations of this Chapter; and
WHEREAS, Bremerton intends to review and monitor implementation of its
critical areas regulations and to use an adaptive management approach and will make
adjustments to the regulations, as appropriate, in response to changing conditions, new
information about best available science, or empirical data indicating the effectiveness of its
regulatory program. This will occur in the context of the City's ongoing review and revision of
1
Critical Areas
its comprehensive plan and development regulations pursuant to the Growth Management Act;
and
WHEREAS, State of Washington legislation (ESHB 1933) requires Bremerton to
provide equivalent ecological protection for critical areas in the shoreline jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City considered functions and values of its Shorelines of the
State in its investigation of best available science; and
WHEREAS, the City's inclusion of buffers of Shorelines of the State (previously
located in the Shoreline Master Program) in the critical area ordinance is designed to develop
standard stream/lake/shoreline buffer widths that would result in no net loss of functions and
values of these ecological features. Further, the City's regulations allow for both standard and
flexible buffers, ensuring that site developments proposing to substantially improve functions
and values may be allowed to reduce buffer widths with a site-specific habitat management plan;
and
WHEREAS, such modification to integrate the Shoreline Master Program buffers
in the Critical Areas ordinance is in the best interest of the public; and
WHEREAS, the City is not proposing any amendments to the goals and policies
of the Shoreline Master Program or the Shoreline Use Environment Designations maps at this
time as part of the Critical Areas Ordinance Update process; and
WHEREAS, the City will consider comprehensive Shoreline Master Program
amendments in a subsequent work program to comply with Shoreline Management Guidelines in
accordance with the timelines included in the State law;
WHEREAS, the City established a public participation program pursuant to RCW
36.70A.130(2) and provided notice of the update process pursuant to RCW 36.70A.035,
provided for early and continuous public participation pursuant to RCW 36.70A.140 by
publishing a meeting schedule, provided updates to the schedule on public television, City web
site, through legal and commercial paid advertisements in the newspaper; and
WHEREAS, the City formed a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), comprised of
interested citizens, in the Spring of2005 to provide direction for the update of the CAO and
several meetings were held with this group and their input was solicited for comments on the
draft CAO; and
WHEREAS, during the fall of2005 the City formed a Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC), comprised of professionals from State Department of Ecology, State
Department Fish and Wildlife, Puget Sound Action Team, Suquamish Tribe, Home Builders
Association of Kitsap County, and others to review and provide feedback on the draft CAO; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2005 a draft CAO was released and it was broadly
advertised that the public was invited to review and comment on the draft; and
2
Critical Areas
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2005 a draft CAO was circulated to the State
Agencies for the requisite 60-day review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2006 the City issued a SEP A Determination of
Nonsignificance with an appeal deadline of January 30, 2006 and no appeals were filed; and
WHEREAS, during December 2005, January 2006 and February 2006 the
Planning Commission conducted several workshops to discuss the draft ordinance and invited
the CAC, T AC, and general public to provide feedback on the draft; and
WHEREAS, the City has provided opportunity for the public to comment on the
review and suggest needed revisions of the plan and regulations, and held public hearings with
the Planning Commission on February 14,2006 and February 28,2006 and with the City
Council on March 15, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the City considered and responded to government agency and public
comments as compiled and documented in "Summary of Public Comments" dated February 28,
2006; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The findings and conclusions adopted by the Planning Commission
attached hereto as Exhibit A are adopted and incorporated as if set forth fully herein.
SECTION 2. Section 17.60.070 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
"Basis for Establishing the Areas of Special Flood Hazard" is hereby amended to read as
follows:
17.60.070 BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD.
The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a
scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for the City of Bremerton"
dated February, 1979, with accompanying flood insurance maps is adopted by reference and
declared to be a part of this Chapter. The flood insurance study is on file at the Bremerton
Planning Department and Engineering Department, 239 1th 8treetDepartment of Community
Development, 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, W A 9833-7+G.
SECTION 3. Section 17.60.250 ofthe Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
"Construction Materials and Methods" is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.60.250 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS.
(a) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with
materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage.
3
Critical Areas
(b) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using
methods and practices that minimize flood damage.
(c) Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and airconditioned equipment and other
service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located at least one (1) foot
above the base flood elevation so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the
components during conditions of flooding.
SECTION 4. Section 17.60.300 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
"Residential Construction" is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.60.300 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION.
(a) New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall
have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to ef-One (1) foot or more above base flood
elevation.
(b) Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are
prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior
walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement
must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed
the following minimum criteria:
(1) A minimum of two openings have a total net area of not less than one
square inch of every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided.
(2) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade.
(3) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or
devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters.
SECTION 5. Section 17.60.310 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
"Nonresidential Construction" is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.60.310 NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION.
New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or other
nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to one
(1 ) foot or more above the level of the base flood elevation; or, together with attendant utility and
sanitary facilities, shall:
( a) Be floodproofed so that below one (1) foot or more above the base flood level the
structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water;
(b) Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
loads and effects of buoyancy; and
( c) Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the standards of
this section are satisfied. Such certifications shall be provided to the official as set forth in
17.60.140(3)(B).
(d) Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not floodproofed, must meet the same
standards for space below the lowest floor as described in 17 .60.300(b ).'
(e) Applicants floodproofing nonresidential buildings shall be notified that flood
insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one foot belowthe floodproofed level (e.g., a
building constructed to the base flood level will be rated as one foot below that level).
4
Critical Areas
SECTION 6. Section 17.60.320 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
"Mobile Homes" is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.60.320 MOBILE HOMES.
(a) Mobile homes shall be anchored in accordance with 17.60.240.
(b) For new mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions; for expansions to
existing mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions; for existing mobile home parks and
mobile home subdivisions where the repair, reconstruction or improvement of the streets, utilities
and pads equals or exceeds fifty percent of value of the streets, utilities and pads before the
repair, reconstruction or improvement has commenced; and for mobile homes not placed in a
mobile home subdivision, require that:
(1) Stands or lots are elevated on compacted fill or on pilings so that the
lowest floor of the mobile home will be at-efone (1) foot or more above the base flood level;
(2) Adequate surface drainage and access for a hauler are provided; and
(3) In the instance of elevation on pilings, that:
i. Lots are large enough to permit steps;
ii. Piling foundations are placed in stable soil no more than ten feet
apart, and
111. Reinforcement is provided for pilings more than six feet above the
ground level.
(4) No mobile home shall be placed in a floodways except in an existing
mobile home park or existing mobile home subdivision.
SECTION 7. Chapter 20.14 of the Bremerton Municipal Code is hereby repealed
in its entirety and a new Chapter 20.14 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Critical
Areas" is created to read as follows:
CHAPTER 20.14
CRITICAL AREAS
20.14.100 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
Sections 20.14.1 00 through 20.14.175 of this Chapter are general provisions pertaining to
Critical Areas.
20.14.110 PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Chapter is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by
establishing provisions to classify, protect, and preserve Bremerton's critical areas and their
functions and values; by providing standards for development in association with these areas.
The identification and protection of critical areas is required by the Washington State Growth
Management Act of 1990 (Chapter 17, Laws of 1990).
20.14.115 INTENT.
Critical areas include Wetlands, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, Frequently Flooded Areas,
Geologically Hazardous Areas, and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. The intent of
this Chapter is to preserve the beneficial functions and values of critical areas, and to minimize
potential dangers or public costs associated with the inappropriate use of such areas, and to
5
Critical Areas
manage development in or adjacent to critical areas. This Chapter contains classification criteria
and preservation standards for each type of critical area. Classification criteria identify physical
characteristics by which critical areas are designated. Preservation standards protect critical
areas from degradation caused by improper development. These criteria and standards will
secure the public health, safety and welfare by:
(a) Reducing risk of damage due to erosion, flooding, and land slides;
(b) Reducing the risks to the public from personal injury, loss of life, or property
damage;
(c) Maintaining surface water quality and protecting groundwater areas which help
recharge (purify or re-supply) rivers, streams, and aquifers;
(d) Maintaining and protecting priority fish and wildlife habitats;
(e) Maintaining and protecting the habitat of threatened and endangered wildlife
specIes;
(f) Avoiding public expenditures to correct damaged or degraded critical ecosystems;
(g) Alerting appraisers, assessors, owners, potential buyers, or lessees to the potential
presence of a critical ecosystem and possible development limitations;
(h) Providing flexibility and attention to site-specific characteristics when
administering code, allowing for reasonable use of private property and the provision of public
facilities and services necessary to support existing development;
(i) Applying the best available science, as determined according to WAC 365-195-
900 through 365-195-925;
CD Implementing the goals, policies, guidelines, and requirements of Bremerton's
Comprehensive Plan and the Washington State Growth Management Act.
20.14.120 SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.
(a) General. This Chapter applies to any public or private activity or action which
would alter the condition of any land, water or vegetation, or construct or alter any structure or
improvement regulated by this title, on any land which meets the classification standards for any
critical area defined herein. Such activities or actions include but are not limited to:
(1) Building, demolition, clearing, grubbing, grading, filling;
(2) Subdivisions and short plats;
(3) Reclassifications, site plan approvals, shoreline substantial development
permit, and special and conditional use permit
(4) Temporary use permits, variances, exceptions and waivers.
(b) Where one site is classified as containing two or more critical areas, the project
shall meet the minimum standards and requirements for each identified critical area as set forth
in this Chapter.
( c) Mapping. Critical areas may be located through the use of any and all
information from the Unites Stated Department of Agriculture, Department ofFish and Wildlife,
National Resources Conservation Service, the United States Geological Survey, the Washington
Department of Ecology, the Coastal Zone Atlas, the National Wetlands Inventory maps,
Bremerton topography maps, the Kitsap County Generalized\:Vetland and Critical Areas
Inventory maps, Kitsap Public Utilities District maps, and Kitsap County Assessor's maps, and
other Geographical Information Systems (GIS) data provided by Kitsap CQunty. The maps
above listed maps and data sources are only guidelines available for reference. The actual
6
Critical Areas
location of critical areas must be determined on a site-by-site basis according to the classification
criteria found in this Chapter.
20.14.125 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER REGULATIONS.
Applications for permits and approvals are subject to the provisions of this Chapter as
well as to other provision of State and City law, including all other Chapters of the Title 20 Land
Development Code. Where this Chapter imposes greater restrictions than existing regulations,
easements, covenants or deed restrictions, the provisions of this Chapter shall prevail.
20.14.130 ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES.
The requirements and criteria of this Chapter shall be applied at the time of application
for any development proposal, land use project or non-project action requiring permit approval
subject to the BMC. The requirements and criteria ofthis Chapter shall be applied in
conjunction with review for permits required by other Chapters of the BMC. Procedures
specifically related to the application of this Chapter are as follows:
(a) Project Permits: The procedures as set forth in Chapter 20.02 BMC, Project
Permits, shall apply unless modified by this Chapter;
(b) Pre-Submittal Conference. Any applicant intending to construct, grade or
conduct any activity subject to this Chapter in a critical area or its buffer is encouraged to
schedule a pre-submittal conference during the earliest possible stages of project planning to
discuss impact avoidance before large commitments have been made to a particular project
design. Effort put into pre-submittal conferences and planning will help applicants create
projects which will be more quickly and easily processed;
(c) Burden of Proof Applications for any proposal subject to this Chapter shall be
reviewed by the Department of Community Development for completeness and consistency with
this Chapter. At every stage, the burden of proof demonstrating that any proposed development
is consistent with this title is upon the applicant.
(d) Special Reports: When a critical area is on site, or the Department of Community
Development determines a likelihood that a critical area is on site, the Department may require
submittal of additional special reports and studies prepared by qualified specialists to make an
assessment or delineation of the critical area. Sections of this Chapter include detailed
procedures for preparation of special reports.
(e) Site Plan: Applications for any proposal subject to this Chapter shall include a
site plan drawn to scale identifying locations of critical areas in addition to proposed structures
and aCtivities. Site Plan submittal shall meet the standards ofBMC 20.58.080, Site Plan Review.
(f) Conditions: The Director may attach any conditions deemed necessary to
minimize or avoid impacts to any critical area in order to meet the requirements and intent ofthis
Chapter. Development may be prohibited in a proposed site based on criteria set forth in this
Chapter.
(g) Notice to Title and Hold Harmless: The owner of any property upon which
approval under Title 20 BMC, or Title 17 BMC is sought, with a critical area or critical area
buffer verified on site through an assessment delineation or permit application, shall record a
"Notice to Title" of the presence of the critical area and/or buffer with the Kitsap County Auditor
when required by the Department. The Department may require recording of a "Notice to Title
and Hold Harmless" in cases where a site-specific critical area could pose potential threats to
safety or property if altered through future acts. Said document shall also serve as a Hold
7
Critical Areas
Harmless and Covenant holding the City harmless from claims due to soil disturbances or any
development on the property in conjunction with issuance of development permits by the city.
The notice shall be notarized and the applicant must submit proof that the notice has been legally
recorded before the final approval for development is issued.
(h) Time Limit: The approvals granted under this Chapter shall be valid for the same
time period as the underlying permit (e.g. preliminary plat, building permit etc.). If the
underlying permit does not contain a specified expiration date, then approvals granted under this
Title shall be valid for a period of three (3) years from the date of issue, unless a longer or
shorter period is specified by the Department.
(i) Activities Not Requiring a Permit: If an activity is subject to this Chapter per
BMC 20.14.120 but is not subject to any established City permit, the proponent shall obtain
written authorization from the Department prior to commencement, to ensure compliance with
the Chapter.
(j) Modifications and Reductions. Modifications or reductions to critical areas
buffers, setbacks, or other standards through a site-specific or special report shall be processed as
a Type I (for applications where the underlying permit does not require SEP A) or Type II (for
applications where the underlying permit requires SEPA) decision per BMC 20.01.160
Table 040.
20.14.140 APPEALS.
An appeal of a decision regarding a critical area may be made in accordance with the.. .
Zoning Code, BMC 20.02.140.
20.14.145 EXEMPTIONS.
An exemption means that an activity is fully exempt from critical areas review, and not
subject to the provisions of this Chapter. The proponent of the activity may submit a written
request for exemption to the Director that describes the activity and states the exemption listed in
this Section that applies. The Director shall review the request to verify that it complies with this
Chapter and approve or deny the exemption as a Type I administrative determination. All
exempted activities shall use Best Management Practices to the greatest possible extent to avoid
potential impacts to critical areas. The following developments, activities and associated uses
shall be exempt:
(a) Emergencies: Emergency activities are those activities necessary to prevent an
immediate threat to public health safety or welfare, or that pose an immediate risk of damage to
property and that require remedial or preventative action in a short timeframe. The person or
agency undertaking such action shall notify the Department, and the Director shall determine if
the action takes as within the scope of the emergency action allowed in this Section. After the
emergency, the person or agency shall fully restore and/or mitigate any impacts to the critical
areas and buffers resulting from the action in accordance with an approved critical area report
and mitigation plan.
(b) Operation Maintenance or Repair: Operation maintenance or repair of existing
structures not requiring permits, if the activity does not further alter or increase the impact to
critical areas or their buffers.
(c) Passive Outdoor Activities: Recreation, education, and scientific research
activities that do not degrade the critical area.
8
Critical Areas
(d) Forest Practices: Forest practices regulated and conducted in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 76.09 RCW and forest practices regulations, Title 222 WAC.
( e) Existing Infrastructure Maintenance and Repair: Maintenance and repair of
legally existing roads, utilities, infrastructure and associated facilities.
(f) Activities Within the Improved Right-o.fWay. Construction ofn~w utility
facilities, improvements or upgrades to existing utility facilities that take place within existing
improved right-of-way or existing impervious surface that do not increase the amount of
impervious surface.
20.14.150 PUBLIC AGENCY EXCEPTION.
An exception means that an activity may receive special consideration and relief from
certain provision of this Chapter, but the activity is subject to the Chapter, and must undergo full
critical areas review. Public agencies may make an application for exception to the Department
for construction of items such as new roads, utilities, infrastructure and associated facilities. The
application shall include critical area identification; critical area report, including mitigation plan
if necessary; and any other related project documents such as environmental documents pursuant
to SEP A Chapter 43.21 C RCW. The decision whether to grant the Public Agency Utility
Exception shall be processed as a Type III Hearing Examiner Decision per Chapter 20.02 BMC
pursuant to the following review criteria: '
(a) There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less
impact on the critical areas; and
(b) The application of this Chapter would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide
utility services to the public.
20.14.155 REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
An exception means that an activity may receive special consideration and relief from
certain provision of this Chapter, but the activity is subject to the Chapter, and must undergo full
critical areas review. An applicant may apply for a reasonable use exception ifit can be
demonstrated that application of this Chapter would deny all reasonable use of the subject
property. The application shall include critical areas identification; critical areas report including
mitigation plan if necessary; and any other related project documents such as environmental
documents and special studies. The decision whether to grant the Reasonable Use Exception
shall be processed as a Type III Hearing Examiner Decision per Chapter 20.02 BMC pursuant to
the following review criteria:
(a) The application of this Chapter would deny all reasonable use ofthe property;
(b) No other reasonable use of the property has less impact on the critical area;
(c) Any alteration is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the
property; and
(d) The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is not the
result of actions by the applicant after the effective date ofthis Title, or its predecessor.
20.14.160 . NONCONFORMING USES/STRUCTURES
An established use or existing structure that was lawfully permitted prior to the adoption
of this Chapter, but which is not in compliance with this Chapter, may continue subject to the
provisions of the Zoning Code, Chapter 20.54 BMC.
9
Critical Areas
20.14.165 BONDS
All bonds and acceptable securities guaranteeing compliance with this Chapter shall be
set in the amount of one-hundred-fifty percent (150%) of the average expected value ofthe
project. The value of the bond shall be based on the average of three contract bids that establish
all costs of compensation, including costs relative to performance, monitoring, maintenance, and
provision for contingency plans.
(a) Performance bonds: Except for public agencies, applicants receiving a permit are
required to post a cash performance bond or other acceptable security to guarantee compliance
with this Chapter prior to beginning any site work. The surety shall guarantee that work and
materials used in construction are free from defects. All bonds shall be approved by the City
Attorney. The surety or bonds cannot be terminated or canceled without written approval. The
Director shall release the bond after documented proof that all structures and improvements have
been shown to meet the requirements of this Chapter and that a maintenance bond has been
posted, if required.
(b) Maintenance bonds: Except for public agencies, an applicant shall be required to
post a cash maintenance bond or other acceptable security guaranteeing that structures and
improvements required by this Chapter will perform satisfactorily for a minimum of three years
after they have been constructed and approved. All bonds shall be on a form approved by the
City Attorney. Without written release, the bond cannot be canceled or terminated. The Director
shall release the bond after determination that the performance standards established for
measuring the effectiveness and success of the project have been met.
20.14.170 ENFORCEMENT
(a) No regulated activity, as defined in BMC 20.14.020 shall be conducted without a
permit and without full compliance with this Chapter. All activities not allowed or conditionally
approved shall be prohibited.
(b) The Director shall have authority to enforce this Chapter, issue delineation
verifications, permits, and violation notices, and process violations through the use of
administrative orders and/or civil and criminal actions as provided for herein, and as listed in
BMC 20040.180 of the Zoning Code.
(c) In the event of violation, the City shall have the authority to order restoration,
enhancement, or creation measures to compensate for the destroyed or degraded critical area. If
work is not completed in a reasonable time following the order, the City may implement a
process to restore or enhance the affected site. This includes creation of new wetlands or streams
to offset loss as a result of violation of the provisions in this Chapter. The violator shall be liable
for all costs of such action, including administrative costs.
(d) Failure to comply with an administrative order of the Director under this section
shall constitute a violation subject to enforcement pursuant to this section.
20.14.175 VIOLATION - PENALTY.
(a) Any violation of any provision ofthis chapter constitutes a civil violation under
Chapter 1.04 BMC for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and abatement and/or
enforcement may be required as provided therein.
(b) In addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty provided in this chapter or
by law, any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall by guilty of a misdemeanor
10
Critical Areas
pursuant to BMC 1.12.020(2). Each day, or a portion thereof, during which a violation occurs
shall constitute a separate violation.
20.14.180 SEVERABILITY.
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part ofthis Chapter or the application
thereof to any person or circumstances shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, such order or judgment shall be confined in its operation to the controversy in
which it was rendered and shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of any part thereof to any
other person or circumstances, and to this end, the provisions of each clause, sentence,
paragraph, section or part of this Chapter are hereby declared to be severable.
20.14.200 DEFINITIONS.
Words not defined in this Title shall be as defined in the Bremerton Municipal Code, the
Washington Administrative Code, or the Revised Code of Washington. Words not found in
either code shall be as defined in the Webster's Third New International Dictionary, latest
edition.
Active Fault - A fault that is considered likely to undergo renewed movement within a period of
concern to humans. Faults are commonly considered to be active if the fault has moved one or
more times in the last 10,000 years, but faults may also be considered active in some cases if
movement has occurred in the last 500,000 years.
Adaptive Management - Adaptive management relies on scientific methods to evaluate how
well regulatory and non-regulatory actions protect the critical area. An adaptive management
program is a formal and deliberate scientific approach to taking action and obtaining information
in the face of uncertainty.
Adjacent - For the purposes of this Chapter, immediately adjoining (in contact with the
boundary ofthe influence area) or within a distance that is less than that needed to separate
activities from critical areas to ensure protection of the functions and values of the critical areas.
Adjacent shall mean any activity or development located:
A. On a site immediately adjoining a critical area;
B. A distance equal to or less than the required critical area buffer width and building
setback;
C. A distance equal to or less than one-half mile (2,640 feet) from a bald eagle nest;
D. A distance equal to or less than three hundred (300) feet upland from a stream, wetland,
or water body;
E. Bordering or within the floodway, floodplain, or channel migration zone; or
F. A distance equal to or less than two hundred (200) feet from a critical aquifer recharge
area.
Advance Mitigation - Mitigation of an anticipated critical area impact or hazard completed
according to an approved critical area report and prior to site development.
Agricultural Land - Land primarily devoted to the commercial production of horticultural,
viticultural, floricultural, dairy, apiary, or animal products or of berries, grain, hay, straw, turf,
11
Critical Areas
seed, Christmas trees not subject to the excise tax imposed by RCW 84.33.100 through
84.33.140, or livestock, and or that has been designated aslong-term commercial significance for
agricultural production.
Alluvial Fan Flooding - Flooding occurring on the surface of an alluvial fan or similar landform
which originates at the apex and is characterized by high-velocity flows; active processes of
erosion, sediment transport, and deposition; and unpredictable flow paths.
Alteration - Any human induced change in an existing condition of a critical area or its buffer.
Alterations include, but are not limited to clearing, grubbing, grading, filling, channelizing,
dredging, clearing (vegetation), construction, compaction, excavation, or any other activity that
changes the character of the critical area.
Anadromous Fish - Fish that spawn and rear in freshwater and mature in the marine
environment. While Pacific salmon die after their first spawning, adult char (bull trout) can live
for many years, moving in and out of saltwater and spawning each year. The life history of
Pacific salmon and char contains critical periods of time when these fish are more susceptible to
environmental and physical damage than at other times. The life history of salmon, for example,
contains the following stages: upstream migration of adults, spawning, inter-gravel incubation,
rearing, smoltification (the time period needed for juveniles to adjust their body functions to live
in the marine environment), downstream migration, and ocean rearing to adults.
Applicant - A person who files an application for permit under this Title and who is either the
owner of the land on which that proposed activity would be located, a contract purchaser, or the
authorized agent of such a person.
Aquifer - A geological formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that is capable of
yielding a significant amount of water to a well or spring.
Aquifer, Confined - An aquifer bounded above and below by beds of distinctly lower
permeability than that of the aquifer itself and that contains ground water under sufficient
pressure for the water to rise above the top of the aquifer.
Aquifer Recharge Areas - Areas that, due to the presence of certain soils, geology, and surface
water, actto recharge ground water by percolation.
Aquifer, Sole Source - An area designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
the Safe Drinking Water Act of1974, Section 1424(e). The aquiferes) must supply fifty percent
(50%) or more ofthe drinking water for an area without a sufficient replacement available.
Aquifer Susceptibility - The ease with which contaminants can move from the land surface to
the aquifer based solely on the types of surface and subsurface materials in the area. ..
Susceptibility usually defines the rate at which a contaminant will reach an aquifer unimpeded by
chemical interactions with the vadose zone media.
12
Critical Areas
Aquifer, Unconfined - An aquifer not bounded above by a bed of distinctly lower permeability
than that ofthe aquifer itself and containing ground water under pressure approximately equal to
that of the atmosphere. This term is synonymous with the term "water table aquifer."
Area of Shallow Flooding - An area designated AO or AH Zone on the flood insuranc~map(s).
The base flood depths range from one (1) to three (3) feet; a clearly defined channel does not
exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate; and velocity flow may be evident.
AO is characterized as sheet flow and AH indicates ponding.
Base Flood - A flood event having a one percent (1 %) chance of being equaled or exceeded in
any given year, also referred to as the 1 DO-year flood. Designations of base flood areas on flood
insurance map(s) always include the letters A or V.
Basement - Any area of the building having its floor below ground level on all sides.
Best Available Science - Current scientific information used in the process to designate, protect,
or restore critical areas, which is derived from a valid scientific process as defined by WAC 365-
195-900 through 925. Sources of the best available science are included in Citations of
Recommended Sources of Best Available Science for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas
published by the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) - Conservation practices or systems of practices and
management measures that:
A.Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by high concentrations of
nutrients, animal waste, toxics, and sediment;
B. Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and ground water flow and circulation
patterns and to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of wetlands;
C. Protect trees and vegetation designated to be retained during and following site
construction and use native plant species appropriate to the site for re-vegetation of disturbed
areas; and
D. Provide standards for proper use of chemical herbicides within critical areas.
The City shall monitor the application of best management practices to ensure that the
standards and policies ofthis Title are adhered to.
Biodiversity - The variety of animal and plant life and its ecological processes and
interconnections - represented by the richness of ecological systems and the life that depends on
them, including human life and economies.
Breakaway W all- A wall that is not part of the structural support of the building and is
intended through its design and construction to collapse under specific lateral loading forces, .
without causing damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system.
Buffer or Buffer Zone - An area that is contiguous to and protects a critical area which is
required for the continued maintenance, functioning, and/or structural stability of a critical area.
13
Critical Areas
Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) - The lateral extent oflikely movement along a stream or
river during the next one-hundred (100) years as determined by evidence of active stream
channel movement over the past one-hundred (100) years. Evidence of active movement over
the one-hundred (100) year time frame can beinferred from aerial photos or from specific
channel and valley bottom characteristics. The time span typically represents the time it takes to
grow mature trees that can provide functional large woody debris to streams. A CMZ is not
typically present if the valley width is generally less than two (2) bankfull widths, if the stream
or river is confined by terraces, no current or historical aerial photographic evidence exists of
significant channel movement, and there is no field evidence of secondary channels with recent
scour from stream flow or progressive bank erosion at meander bends. Areas separated from the
active channel by legally existing artificial channel constraints that limit bank erosion and
channel avulsion without hydraulic connections shall not be considered within the CMZ.
Clearing - The removal of non-invasive surface vegetation including but not limited to brush,
shrubs, natural grasses, and trees. Removal of surface vegetation in quantities greater than the
minimum necessary to maintain a well-functioning natural habitat constitutes clearing. For the
purposes of this Chapter, activities described in BMC 20. 14.630(f), Vegetation Thinning,
constitutes clearing.'
Coastal High Hazard Area - An area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the
inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high
velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources. The area is designated on the flood
insurance map(s) as Zone Vl-30, VE, or V.
Compensation Project - Actions necessary to replace project-induced critical area and buffer
losses, including land acquisition, planning, construction plans, monitoring, and contingency
actions.
Compensatory Mitigation - Replacing project-induced losses or impacts to a critical area, and
includes, but is not limited to, the following:
Restoration - Actions performed to reestablish critical areas functional characteristics and
processes that have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area that
no longer meets the definition of a wetland.
Creation - Actions performed to intentionally establish a critical area such as a wetland at a
site where it did not formerly exist.
Enhancement- Actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded critical
areas such as a wetland so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality.
Preservation - Actions taken to ensure the permanent protection of existing, high-quality
critical areas such as wetlands.
Conservation Easement - A legal agreement that the property owner enters into to restrict uses'
of the land. Such restrictions can include, but are not limited to, passive recreation uses such as
trails or scientific uses and fences or other barriers to protect habitat. The easement is recorded
on a property deed, runs with the land, and is legally binding on all present and future owners of
the property, therefore, providing permanent or long-term protection.
14
Critical Areas
Critical Aquifer Recharge Area - Areas determined to have a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water as classified per BMC 20.14.420.
Critical Areas - Critical areas include any of the following areas or ecosystems: aquifer
recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas,
geologically hazardous areas, and wetlands, as defined in RCW 36.70A and this Title.
Critical Area Tract - Land held in private ownership and retained in an open condition in
perpetuity for the protection of critical areas. Lands within this type of dedication may include
but are not limited to, portions and combinations of forest habitats, grasslands, shrub steppe, on-
site watersheds, 1 DO-year floodplains, shorelines or shorelines of statewide significance, riparian
areas, and wetlands.
Critical Facility - A facility for which even a slight chance of flooding, inundation, or impact
from a hazard event might be too great. Critical facilities include, but are not limited to, schools,
nursing homes, hospitals, police, fire and emergency response installations, and installations that
produce, use, or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste.
Critical Species - All animal and plant species listed by the state or federal government as
threatened or endangered.
Cumulative Impacts or Effects - The combined, incremental effects of human activity on
ecological or critical areas functions and values. Cumulative impacts result when the effects of
an action are added to or interact with other effects in a particular place and within a particular
time. It is the combination of these effects, and any resulting environmental degradation, that
should be the focus of cumulative impact analysis and changes to policies and permitting
decisions.
Department - Unless otherwise noted, Department is defined as the City of Bremerton
Department of Community Development.
Developable Area - A site or portion of a site that may be utilized as the location of
development, in accordance with the rules of this Title.
Development - Any activity upon the land consisting of construction or alteration of structures,
earth movement, dredging, dumping, grading, filling, mining, removal of any sand, gravel, or
minerals, driving of piles, drilling operations, bulkheading, clearing of vegetation, or other land
disturbance. Development includes the storage or use of equipment or materials inconsistent
with the existing use. Development also includes approvals issued by the [city/county] that
binds land to specific patterns of use, including but not limited to, subdivisions, short
subdivisions, zone changes, conditional use permits, and binding site plans. Development
activity does not include the following activities:
A. Interior building improvements.
B. Exterior structure maintenance activities, including painting and roofing.
15
Critical Areas
C. Routine landscape maintenance of established, ornamental landscaping, such as lawn
mowing, pruning, and weeding.
D. Maintenance ofthefollowing existing facilities that does not expand the affected area:
septic tanks (routine cleaning); wells; individual utility service connections; and individual
cemetery plots in established and approved cemeteries.
Development Permit - Any permit issued by the City, or other authorized agency, for
construction, land use, or the alteration of land.
Director - The Director of the Bremerton Department of Community Development or other
responsible official, or other city staff granted the authority to act on behalf of the Director.
Elevated Building - A building that has no basement and its lowest elevated floor is raised
above ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, post, piers, pilings, or columns.
Emergent Wetland - A wetland with at least thirty percent (30%) of the surface area covered by
erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation extending above the water surface as the uppermost
vegetative strata.
Erosion - The process whereby wind, rain, water, and other natural agents mobilize and
transport particles.
Exotic - Any species of plants or animals, which are foreign to the planning area.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas - Areas necessary for maintaining species in
suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated subpopulations are
not created as designated by WAC 365-190-080(5). These areas include:
A. Areas with which state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive
species have a primary association;
B. Priority Habitat Species and species of local importance, including but not limited to
areas designated as priority habitat by the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife;
C. Streams and watercourses used by juvenile salmonids, and habitat of species essential to
the juvenile salmonid diet;
D. Commercial and recreational shellfish areas;
E: Kelp, eelgrass beds, and sandlance spawning habitat;
F. Herring and smelt spawning areas;
G. Naturally occurring ponds under twenty (20) acres and their submerged aquatic beds that
provide fish or wildlife habitat, including those artificial ponds intentionally created from dry
areas in order to mitigate impacts to ponds;
H. Waters of the state, including lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground
waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the
state of Washington;
I. Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal
entity;
J. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas; and
K. Land essential for preserving connections between habitat blocks and open spaces.
16
Critical Areas
Fish Habitat - Habitat that is used by fish at any life stage at any time of the year, including
potential habitat likely to be used by fish that could be recovered by restoration or management
and includes off-channel habitat.
Flood or Flooding - A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of
normally dry land areas from the overflow of inland waters and/or the unusual and rapid
accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source.
Flood Insurance Map - The official map on which the Federal Insurance Administration has
delineated the areas of special flood hazards and include the risk premium zones applicable to
the community. Also known as "flood insurance rate map" or "FIRM."
Flood Insurance Study - The official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration
that includes flood profiles, the Flood Boundary- Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation
of the base flood.
Floodplain - The total land area adjoining a river, stream, watercourse, or lake subject to
inundation by the base flood. "
Flood Protection Elevation - The elevation that is one (1) foot above the base flood elevation.
Flood Resistant Material- Materials designed to be resistant to the impacts associated with
flooding and defined. and described in detail in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
Technical Bulletin #2-93, 1993 and FEMA publication FEMA-348, Protecting Building Utilities
from Flood Damage.
Floodway - The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land area that must be
reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the surface water
elevation more that one (1) foot. Also known as the "zero rise floodway."
Forested Wetland - A wetland with at least thirty percent (30%) ofthe surface area covered by
woody vegetation greater than twenty (20) feet in height that is at least partially rooted within the
wetland.
Formation - An assemblage of earth materials grouped together into a unit that is convenient for
description or mapping.
Formation, Confining - The relatively impermeable formation immediately overlying a
confined aquifer.
Frequently Flooded Areas - Lands in the floodplain subject to a one percent (1 %) or greater
chance of flooding in any given year and those lands that provide important flood storage,
conveyance, and attenuation functions, as determined by the [Director] in accordance with WAC
365-190-080(3). Frequently flooded areas perform important hydrologic functions and may
present a risk to persons and property. Classifications of frequently flooded areas incllJd~, at a
17
Critical Areas
minimum, the lOa-year floodplain designations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and the National Flood Insurance Program.
Functions and Values - The beneficial roles served by critical areas including, but are not
limited to, water quality protection and enhancement; [lsh and wildlife habitat; food chain
support; flood storage, conveyance and attenuation; ground water recharge and discharge;
erosion control; wave attenuation; protection from hazards; historical, archaeological, and
aesthetic value protection; educational opportunities; and recreation. These beneficial roles are
not listed in order of priority. Critical area functions can be used to help set targets (species
composition, structure, etc.) for managed areas, including mitigation sites.
Geologically Hazardous Areas - Areas that may not be suited to development consistent with
public health, safety, or environmental standards, because of their steep slopes, susceptibility to
erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events. For the purposes of this code
geologically hazardous areas are those areas receiving High or Moderate Geologically
Hazardous classifications per the Geologically Hazardous Areas Sections of this Chapter.
Ground Water - Water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the surface of land or a surface
water body.
Ground Water Management Area - A specific geographic area or subarea designated pursuant
to Chapter 173-1 00 WAC for which a ground water management program is required.
Ground Water Management Program - A comprehensive program designed to protect ground
water quality, to ensure ground water quantity, and to provide for efficient management of water
resources while recognizing existing ground water rights and meeting future needs consistent
with local and state objectives, policies, and authorities within a designated ground water
management area or subarea and developed pursuant to Chapter 173-1 00 WAC.
Ground Water, Perched - Ground water in a saturated zone is separated from the underlying
main body of ground water by an unsaturated rock zone
Grading - Excavating, filling or embanking of earth materials in quantities equal to or greater
than fifty (50) cubic yards, as specified per the Bremerton Municipal Code grading permit
requirement.
Grubbing - The removal of vegetative matter from underground, such as sod, stumps, roots,
buried logs or other debris, and shall include the incidental removal of topsoil and earth in
quantities lesser than fifty (50) cubic yards.
Habitat Conservation Areas - Areas designated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) - "Habitat Management Plan" means a report
prepared by a professional wildlife biologist or fisheries biologist which discusses and evaluates
critical fish and wildlife habitat functions and evaluates the measures necessary to maintain,
enhance and improve habitat conservation Qna proposed development site.
18
Critical Areas
Habitats of Local Importance - These areas include a seasonal range or habitat element with
which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered may reduce the likelihood
that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long-term. These might include areas of
high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors.
These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to
alterations such as cliffs, talus, and wetlands. (WAC 365-190-030)
Hazard Areas - Areas designated as frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas
due to potential for erosion, landslide, seismic activity, mine collapse, or other geological
condition.
Hazardous Substances - Any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance,
product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits any of the physical, chemical,
or biological properties described in WAC 173-303-090 or 173-303-100.
High Intensity Land Use - Land uses which are associated with high levels of human
disturbance or substantial habitat impacts including, but not limited to, medium- and high-
density residential (more than one home per five acres), multifamily residential, some
agricultural practices, and commercial and industrial land uses.
High Quality Wetlands - Those wetlands that meet the following criteria:
A. No, or isolated, human alteration ofthe wetland topography;
B. No human-caused alteration of the hydrology or the wetland appears to have recovered from
the alteration;
C. Low cover and frequency of exotic plant species;
D. Relatively little human-related disturbance of the native vegetation, or recovery from past
disturbance;
E. If the wetland system is degraded, it still contains a viable and high quality example of a
native wetland community; and
F. No known major water quality problems.
Historic Condition - Condition of the land, including flora, fauna, soil, topography, and
hydrology that existed before the area and vicinity were developed or altered by human activity.
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) - A permit issued by the Washington Department ofFish
and Wildlife for modifications to waters ofthe state in accordance with Chapter 75.20 RCW.
Hydric Soil- A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to
develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. The presence of hydric soil shall be determined
following the methods described in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation
Manual.
Hydrologic Soil Groups - Soils grouped according to their ronoff-producing characteristics
under similar storm and cover conditions. Properties that influence runoff potential are depth to
_seasonally high water table, intake rate and permeability after prolonged wetting, and depth to a
19
Critical Areas
low permeable layer. Hydrologic soil groups are normally used in equations that estimate runoff
from rainfall, but can be used to estimate a rate of water transmission in soil. There are four
hydrologic soil groups:
Low Runoff potential and a high rate of infiltration potential;
Moderate Infiltration potential and a moderate rate of runoff potential;
Slow Infiltration potential and a moderate to high rate of runoff potential; and
High Runoff potential and very slow infiltration and water transmission rates.
Hydrophytic Vegetation - Macrophytic plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least
periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. The presence ofhydrophytic
vegetation shall be determined following the methods described in the Washington State Wetland
Identification and Delineation Manua1.
Hyporheic Zone - The saturated zone located beneath and adjacent to streams that contains
some portion of surface waters, serves as a filter for nutrients, and maintains water quality.
Impervious Surface - Means any material which reduces or prevents absorption of stormwater
into previously undeveloped land. Permeable paving technologies shall not be classified as
impervious surfaces. (See also Paved Surface in the Definitions of Chapter 20.42 BMC for a
discussion of impervious pavements.)
In-Kind Compensation - To replace critical areas with substitute areas whose characteristics
and functions closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity. It does
not mean replacement "in-category."
Isolated Wetlands - Those wetlands that are outside of and not contiguous to any 100- year
floodplain of a lake, river, or stream and have no contiguous hydric soil or hydrophytic
vegetation between the wetland and any surface water.
Inmtration - The downward entry of water into the immediate surface of soil.
Injection Well(s)
A. Class I - A well used to inject industrial, commercial, or municipal waste fluids beneath
the lowermost formation containing, within one quarter (1/4) mile of the well bore, an
underground source of drinking water.
B. Class Il- A well used to inject fluids:
1. Brought to the surface in connection with conventional oil or natural gas exploration
or production and may be commingled with wastewaters from gas plants that are an
integral part of production operations, unless those waters are classified as dangerous
wastes at the time of injection;
2. For enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas; or
3. For storage of hydrocarbons that are liquid at standard temperature and pressure.
C. Class III - A well used for extraction of minerals, including but not limited to the
injection of fluids for:
20
Critical Areas
1. In-situ production of uranium or other metals that have not been conventionally
mined;
2. Mining of sulfur by Frasch process; or
3. Solution mining of salts or potash.
D. Class IV - A well used to inject dangerous or radioactive waste fluids.
E. Class V - All injection wells not included in Classes I, II, III, or IV.
Invasive - Vegetative or animal species not native to a region, and marked by a tendency to
spread, especially with proclivity to replace healthy native species.
Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application - A single application form that may be used to
apply for hydraulic project approvals, shoreline management permits, approvals of exceedance
of water quality standards, water quality certifications, coast guard bridge permits, Washington
State Department of Natural Resources use authorization, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
permits.
Land Use, High Intensity - See "High Intensity Land Use.'"
Land Use, Low Intensity - See "Low Intensity Land Use."
Land Use, Moderate Intensity - See "Moderate Intensity Land Use."
Low Impact Development (LID) - Low Impact Development is a stormwater management and
development strategy applied at the parcel and subdivision scale that emphasizes conservation
and use of on-site natural features integrated with engineered, small-scale hydrologic controls to
more closely mimic pre-development hydrologic functions.
Low Intensity Land Use - Land uses which are associated with low levels of human
disturbance or low habitat impacts, including, but not limited to, passive recreation, open space,
or forest management land uses.
Lowest Floor - The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area, including the basement. An
unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or .
storage in an area other than a basement area, which is not considered a building's lowest floor,
provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the
applicable requirements of this Title.
Mine Hazard Areas - Areas that are underlain by, adjacent to, or affected by mine workings
such as adits, gangways, tunnels, drifts, or airshafts, and those areas of probable sink holes, gas
releases, or subsidence due to mine workings. Factors that should be considered include:
proximity to development, depth from ground surface to the mine working, and geologic
material.
21
Critical Areas
Mitigation - A voiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse critical areas impacts.
Mitigation, in the following sequential order of preference, is:
A. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
B. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps, such as project
redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts;
C. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and habitat
conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the
conditions existing at the time ofthe initiation of the project;
D. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through
engineered or other methods, provided the engineered method creates the minimum disturbance
necessary to mitigate the action, and the method does not adversely impact categories of critical
areas other than those being mitigated;
E. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action;
F. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and habitat
conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments;
and
G. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when
necessary.
Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures.
Mobile Home - A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent
chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the
required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational vehicle."
Mobile Home Park or Subdivision - A parcel (or contiguous parcels) ofland divided into two
or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale.
Moderate Intensity Land Use - Land uses which are associated with moderate levels of human
disturbance or substantial habitat impacts including, but not limited to, low-density residential
(no more than one home per five acres), active recreation, and moderate agricultural land uses.
Monitoring - Evaluating the impacts of development proposals on the biological, hydrological,
and geological elements of such systems, and assessing the performance of required mitigation
measures throughout the collection and analysis of data by various methods for the purpose of
understanding and documenting changes in natural ecosystems and features, including gathering
baseline data.
Native Vegetation - Plant species that are indigenous to the area in question.
Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) - An area where native vegetation is preserved for
the purpose of preventing harm to property and the environment, including, but not limited to,
controlling surface water runoff and erosion, maintaining slope stability, buffering, and
protecting plants and animal habitat;
22
Critical Areas
Natural Waters - Waters, excluding water conveyance systems that are artificially constructed
and actively maintained for irrigation.
Non-conformity - S~e Definitions in BMC 20.54.040, the NonConforming Provisions of the
land use code.
Off-Site Compensation - To replace critical areas away from the site on which a critical area
has been impacted.
On-site Compensation - To replace critical areas at or adjacent to the site on which a critical
areas has been impacted.
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHM) - That mark which is found by examining the bed and
banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so
long continued in all ordinary years, that the soil has a character distinct from that of the abutting
upland in respect to vegetation.
Out-of-Kind Compensation - To replace critical areas with substitute critical areas whose
characteristics do not closely approximate those destroyed or degraded. It does not refer to
replacement "out-of-category."
Permeability - The capacity of an aquifer or confining bed to transmit water. It is a property of
the aquifer or confining bed and is independent of the force causing movement.
Porous Soil Types - Soils, as identified by the National Resources Conservation Service, u.S.
Department of Agriculture, that contain voids, pores, interstices, or other openings which allow
the passing of water.
Potable Water - Water that is safe and palatable for human use.
Practical Alternative - An alternative that is available and capable of being carried out after
taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project
purposes, and has less impacts to critical areas.
Primary Association Area - The area used on a regular basis by, is in close association with, or
is necessary for the proper functioning of the habitat of a critical species. Regular basis means
that the habitat area is normally, or usually known to contain a critical species, or based on
known habitat requirements ofthe species, the area is likely to contain the critical species.
Regular basis is species and population dependent. Species that exist in low numbers may be
present infrequently yet rely on certain habitat types.
Priority Habitat - Habitat type or elements with unique or significant value to one or more
species as classified by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. A priority habitat may consist
of a unique vegetation type or dominant plant species, a described successional stage, or a
specific structural element.
23
Critical Areas
Project Area - All areas within fifty (50) feet of the area proposed to be disturbed, altered, or
used by the proposed activity or the construction of any proposed structures. When the action
binds the land, such as a subdivision, short subdivision, binding site plan, planned unit
development, or rezone, the project area shall include the entire parcel, at a minimum.
Qualified Professional- A person with experience and training in the pertinent scientific
discipline, and who is a qualified scientific expert with expertise appropriate for the relevant
critical area subject in accordance with WAC 365-195-905(4). A qualified professional must
have obtained a B.S. or B.A. or equivalent degree in biology, engineering, environmental studies,
fisheries, geomorphology, or related field, and five (5) years of related work experience.
A. A qualified professional for habitats or wetlands must have a degree in biology and
professional experience related to the subject species, and meet the requirements set forth in
BMC 20.14.360.
B. A qualified professional for a geological hazard must be a professional civil or
geotechnical engineer with experience in the field, or geologist, licensed in the state of
Washington.
C. A qualified professional for critical aquifer recharge areas means a hydro geologist,
geologist, engineer, or other scientist with experience in preparing hydrogeologic assessments,
and meet the requirements set forth in BMC 20.14.450.
Recharge - The process involved in the absorption and addition of water to ground water.
Reclaimed Water - Municipal wastewater effluent that has been adequately and reliability
treated so that it is suitable for beneficial use. Following treatment it is no longer considered
wastewater (treatment levels and water quality requirements are given in the water reclamation
and reuse standards adopted by the State Departments of Ecology and Health).
Recreation Vehicle - See definition in Chapter 20.42 BMC of the land use code.
Repair or Maintenance - An activity that restores the character, scope, size, and design of a
serviceable area, structure, or land use to its previously authorized and undamaged condition.
Activities that change the character, size, or scope of a project beyond the original design and
drain, dredge, fill, flood, or otherwise alter critical areas are not included in this definition.
Restoration - Measures taken to restore an altered or damaged natural feature including:
A. Active steps taken to restore damaged wetlands, streams, protected habitat, or their
buffers to the functioning condition that existed prior to an unauthorized alteration; and
B. Actions performed to reestablish structural and functional characteristics of the critical
area that have been lost by alteration, past management activities, or catastrophic events.
Riparian Habitat - Areas adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contain elements';,
of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that mutually influence each other. The width of these
areas extends to that portionof the terrestrial landscape that directly influences the aquatic
ecosystem by providing shade, fine or large woody material, nutrients, organic and inorganic
debris, terrestrial insects, or habitat for riparian-associated wildlife. Widths shall be measured
24
Critical Areas
from the ordinary high water mark or from the top of bank ifthe ordinary high water mark
cannot be identified or from the channel migration zone (CMZ). It includes the entire extent of
the floodplain and the extent of vegetation adapted to wet conditions as well as adjacent upland
plant communities that directly influence the stream system. Riparian habitat areas include those
riparian areas severely altered or damaged due to human development activities.
Scientific Process - A valid scientific process is one that produces reliable information useful in
understanding the consequences of a decision. The characteristics of a valid scientific process
are as follows:
A. Peer Review. The information has been critically reviewed by other qualified scientific
experts in that scientific discipline.
B. Methods. The methods that were used are standardized in the pertinent scientific
discipline or the methods have been appropriately peer-reviewed to ensure their reliability and
validity.
C. Logical Conclusions and Reasonable Inferences. The conclusions presented are based
on reasonable assumptions supported by other studies and are logically and reasonably derived
from the assumptions and supported by the data presented.
D. Quantitative Analysis. The data have been analyzed using appropriate statistical or
quantitative methods. .
E. Context. The assumptions, analytical techniques, data, and conclusions are appropriately
framed with respect to the prevailing body of pertinent scientific knowledge.
F. References. The assumptions, techniques, and conclusions are well referenced with
citations to pertinent existing information.
Scrub-Shrub Wetland - A wetland with at least thirty percent (30%) of its surface area covered
by woody vegetation less than twenty (20) feet in height as the uppermost strata.
Section 404 Permit - A permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the placement
of dredge or fill material or clearing in waters of the United States, including wetlands, in
accordance with 33 USC S 1344. Section 404 permits may also be for endangered species
consultation. They require a consultation under Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species
Act.
Seeps - A spot where water oozes from the earth, often forming the source of a small stream.
Seismic Hazard Areas - Areas that are subject to severe risk of damage as a result of
earthquake-induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, or soil liquefaction.
Shorelines - All of the water areas ofthe state as defined in RCW 90.58.030, including
reservoirs and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them except:
A. Shorelines of statewide significance;
B. Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is
twenty cubic feet per second (20 cfps) or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream
segments; and
C. Shorelines on lakes less than twenty (20) acres in size and wetlands associated with such
small lakes.
25
Critical Areas
Shorelines of the State - The total of all "shorelines," as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)( d), and
"shorelines of statewide significance" within the state, as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)( c).
Shorelines of Statewide Significance - Those areas defined in RCW 90.5_8.030(2)( e).
Shorelands or Shoreland Areas - Those lands extending landward for two hundred (200) feet
in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways
and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred (200) feet from such flood ways; and all
wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to
the provisions of Chapter 90.58 RCW.
Soil Survey - The most recent soil survey for the local area or county by the National Resources
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Special Flood Hazard Areas - The land in the floodplain within an area subject to a one percent
(1 %) or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Designations of special flood hazard areas
on flood insurance map(s) always include the letters A or V.
Special Protection Areas - Aquifer recharge areas defined by WAC 173-200-090 that require
special consideration or increased protection be9ause of unique characteristics, including, but not
limited to:
A. Ground waters that support an ecological system requiring more stringent criteria than
drinking water standards;
B. Ground water recharge areas and wellhead protection areas that are vulnerable to
pollution because of hydrogeologic characteristics; and
C. Sole source aquifer status.
Species - Any group of animals classified as a species or subspecies as commonly accepted by
the scientific community.
Species, Endangered - Any fish or wildlife species that is threatened with extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range and is listed by the state or federal government as an
endangered species.
Species of Local Importance - Those species of local concern due to their population status or
their sensitivity to habitat manipulation, or that are game species.
Species, Priority - Any fish or wildlife species requiring protective measures and/or
management guidelines to ensure their persistence as genetically viable population levels as
classified by the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, including endangered, threatened,
sensitive, candidate and monitor species, and those of recreational, commercial, or tribal
importance.
Species, Threatened - Any fish or wildlife species that is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout a significant p()rt~on of its range without
26
Critical Areas
cooperative management or removal ofthreats, and is listed by the state or federal government as
a threatened species.
Sub-drainage Basin or Subbasin - The drainage area of the highest order stream containing the
subject property impact area. Stream order is the term used to define the position of a stream in
the hierarchy of tributaries in the watershed. The smallest streams are the highest order (first
order) tributaries. These are the upper watershed streams and have no tributaries of their own.
When two first order streams meet, they form a second order stream, and when two second order
streams meet they become a third order stream, and so on.
Substantial Damage - Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of
restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed fifty percent (50%)
of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
Substantial Improvement - Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost
of which equals or exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure either: before
the improvement or repair is started; or if the structure has been damaged and is being restored,
before the damage occurred.
Unavoidable - Adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and
minimization have been achieved;
Vulnerability - The combined effect of susceptibility to contamination and the presence of
potential contaminants.
Water Dependent - A use or portion of a use that cannot exist in a location that is not adjacent
to the water, but is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. A
use that can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to water. Examples of water dependent uses
include: ship cargo terminal loading areas; fishing; ferry and passenger terminals; barge loading,
ship building, and dry docking facilities; marinas, moorage, and boat launching facilities;
aquaculture; float plane operations; surface water intake; and sanitary sewer and storm drain
outfalls.
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) - One of sixty-two (62) watersheds in the state of
Washington, each composed of the drainage areas of a stream or streams, as established in
Chapter 173-500 WAC as it existed on January 1, 1997.
Water Table - That surface in an unconfined aquifer at which the pressure is atmospheric. It is
defined by the levels at which water stands in wells that penetrate the aquifer just far enough to
hold standing water.
Water Typing System - Waters are classified according to WAC 222-16-031. Waters are
classified into four Types, S, F, Np, and Ns, based on whether the waters are shorelines ofthe
State, their level-of human and wildlife use, whether they are perennial streams, and other
characteristics. Complete criteria for the Water Typing System are found in BMC 20.14.720 of
this Chapter.
27
Critical Areas
Watercourse - Any portion of a channel, bed, bank, or bottom waterward of the ordinary high
water line of waters ofthe state including areas in which fish may spawn, reside, or through
which they may pass, and tributary waters with defined beds or banks, which influence the
quality of fish habitat downstream. This definition includes watercourses that flow on an
intermittent basis or which fluctuate in level during the year and applies to the entire bed of such
watercourse whether or not the water is at peak level. This definition does not include irrigation
ditches, canals, stormwater run-off devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses, except
where they exist in a natural watercourse that has been altered by humans.
W ell- A bored, drilled, or driven shaft, or a dug hole whose depth is greater that the largest
surface dimension for the purpose of withdrawing or injecting water or other liquids.
Wellhead Protection Area (WHP A) - The portion of a zone of contribution for a well,
wellfield, or spring, as defined using criteria established by the Washington State Department of
Ecology.
Wetlands - Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence
of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally
created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches,
grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and
landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally
created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those
artificial wetlands intentionally created from non~wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of
wetlands. For identifying and delineating a wetland, local government shall use the Washington
State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual.
Wetland Classes, Classes of Wetlands, or Wetland Types - The descriptive classes of the
wetlands taxonomic classification system of the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin, et al.
1979).
Wetland Edge - The boundary of a wetland as delineated based on the definitions contained in this
Title. -
Wetlands Mitigation Bank - A site where wetlands are restored, created, enhanced, or in
exceptional circumstances, preserved expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory
mitigation in advance of authorized impacts to similar resources.
Zone of Contribution - The area surrounding a well or spring that encompasses all areas or
features that supply ground water recharge to the well or spring.
20.14.300 WETLANDS.
Sections 20.14.310 through 20.14.360 of this Chapter pertain to Wetlands.
28
Critical Areas
20.14.310 DESCRIPTION & PURPOSE.
(a) Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with the Washington State
Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (1997), that are inundated or saturated by surface
or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
All areas within the city meeting the wetland designation criteria in the Identification and
Delineation Manual, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas
and are subject to the provisions of this Title.
(b) Wetlands help to maintain water quality; store and convey stormwater and
floodwater; recharge ground water; provide important fish and wildlife habitat; and serve as
areas for recreation, education, scientific study and aesthetic appreciation.
(c) The City's overall goal shall be to achieve no net loss of wetlands. This goal shall
be implemented through retention of the function and value of wetlands within the City. Wetland
buffers serve to moderate runoff volume and flow rates; reduce sediment, chemical nutrient and
toxic pollutants; provide shading to maintain desirable water temperatures; provide habitat for
wildlife; protect wetland resources from harmful intrusion; and generally preserve the ecological
integrity of the wetland area.
(d) The primary purpose of the wetland regulation~ is to avoid detrimental wetland
impacts and achieve a goal of no net loss of wetland function and values, and where possible
enhance and restore wetlands.
20.14.320 CLASSIFICATION & DESIGNATION.
(a) Wetland Ratings. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington State
Department of Ecology wetland rating system found in the Washington State Wetland Rating
System for Western Washington (Department of Ecology Publication #04-06-025) or as
amended hereafter. These documents contain the definitions and methods for determining if the
criteria below are met.
(1) Wetland Rating Categories
(i) Category I. Category I wetlands are those that meet any of the
following criteria:
a. Represent a unique or rare wetland type; or
b. Are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; or
c. Are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes
that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or
d. Are providing a high level of functions, scoring 70 points
or more out of 100 (DOE Wetlands Rating System, 2004); or
e. Are characterized as a national heritage wetland; or
f. Are characterized as a bo g; or
g. Are over one acre and characterized as a mature and old-
growth forested wetland.
(ii) Category II. Category II wetlands are those wetlands that are not
Category I wetlands and that meet any of the following criteria:
a. Provide high levels of some functions, being difficult,
though not impossible to replace; or
b. Perform most functions relatively well, scoring 51-69 out
of 100 points (DOE Wetlands Rating System, 2004).
29
Critical Areas
(iii) Category III. Category III wetlands are those wetlands that are
not Category I or II wetlands, and that meet the following criterion:
a. Provide moderate levels of functions, scoring between 30-
50 out of 100 points (DOE Wetlands Rating System, 2004).
(iv) Category IV. Category IV wetlands are those that meet the
following criterion:
a. Provide low levels of functions, scoring less than 30 out of
100 points (DOE Wetlands Rating System, 2004).
(2) Date of wetland rating. Wetland rating categories shall be applied as the
wetland exists on the date of adoption of the rating system by the local government, as the
wetland naturally changes thereafter, or as the wetland changes in accordance with permitted
activities. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications.
20.14.330 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - WETLANDS.
(a) Activities may only be permitted in a wetland or wetland buffer if the applicant
can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of
the wetland and other critical areas.
(b) Activities and uses shall be prohibited in wetlal1ds and wetland buffers, except as
provided for in this Title.
(c) Category I Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Category I,
except as provided for in the public agency and utility exception, reasonable use exception, and
variance sections of this Title.
(d) Category II and III Wetlands. With respect to activities proposed in Category
II and III wetlands, the following standards shall apply:
(1) Water-dependent activities may be allowed where there are no feasible
alternatives that would have a less adverse impact on the wetland, its buffers and other critical
areas.
(2) Where non-water-dependent activities are proposed, it shall be presumed
that alternative locations are available, and activities and uses shall be prohibited, unless the
applicant demonstrates that:
(i) The basic project purpose cannot reasonably be accomplished and
successfully avoid, or result in less adverse impact on, a wetland on another site or sites in the
general region; and
(ii) All alternative designs of the project as proposed, that would avoid
or result in less of an adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer, such as a reduction in the size,
scope, configuration, or density of the project, are not feasible.
(e) Category IV Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and
necessary impacts may be permitted in Category IV wetlands and associated buffers in
accordance with an approved wetland report and mitigation plan, and only if the proposed
activity is the only reasonable alternative that will accomplish the applicant's objectives. Full
compensation for the acreage and loss functions will be provided under the terms established
under BMC 20.14.340 (t) and (g).
(f) Wetland Buffers
(1) Standard Buffer Widths. The standard buffer widths presume the
existence of a relatively intact native vegetation community in the buffer zone adequate to protect
the wetland functions and values at the time of the proposed activity. If the vegetation is
30
Critical Areas
inadequate, then the buffer width shall be increased or the buffer should be planted to maintain the
standard width. Required standard wetland buffers, based on wetland category, are as follows:
Wetland Cate20ry Standard Buffer
I 200 ft
II I 00 ft
III 75 ft
IV 50 ft
(2) Measurement of W etland Buffers~ All buffers shall be measured
horizontally from a perpendicular line established at the wetland edge as surveyed in the field. The
width of the wetland buffer shall be determined according to the wetland category. The buffer for a
wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall be
the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. Only
fully vegetated buffers will be considered. Lawns, walkways, driveways, and other mowed or
paved areas will not be considered buffers.
(3) Increased Wetland Buffer Widths. The Director shall require increased
buffer widths in accordance with the recommendations of an experienced, qualified professional
wetland scientist, and the best available science on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is
necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site-specific characteristics. This
determination shall be based on one or more of the following criteria:
(i) A larger buffer is needed to protect other critical areas;
(ii) The buffer or adjacent uplands has a slope greater than fifteen
percent (15%) or is susceptible to erosion and standard erosion-control measures will not prevent
adverse impacts to the wetland; or
(iii) The buffer area has minimal vegetative cover. In lieu of increasing
the buffer width where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and
values, implementation of a buffer planting plan may substitute. Where a buffer planting plan is
proposed, it shall include densities that are not less than three (3) feet on center for shrubs and eight
(8) feet on center for trees and require monitoring and maintenance to ensure success. Existing
buffer vegetation is considered "inadequate" and will need to be enhanced through additional
native plantings and (if appropriate) removal of non-native plants when: (1) non-native or
invasive plant species provide the dominant cover, (2) vegetation is lacking due to disturbance
and wetland resources could be adversely affected, or (3) enhancement plantings in the buffer
could significantly improve buffer functions.
(4) Wetland Buffer Width Averaging. The Director may allow modification
of the standard wetland buffer width in accordance with an approved wetland report and the best
available science on a case-by-case basis by averaging buffer widths. Averaging of buffer
widths may only be allowed where the applicant and a qualified professional wetland scientist
demonstrates that:
(i) No feasible site design exists without buffer averaging.
(ii) It will not reduce wetland functions or functional performance;
(iii) The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing
physical characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the
wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a
narrower buffer in other places;
31
Critical Areas
(iv) The total area contained in the buffer area after averaging is no less
than that which would be contained within the standard buffer; and
(v) The buffer width is not reduced to less than 75 percent (75%) of
the standard width or thirty-five (35) feet.
(5) Buffer Consistency. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent
with the buffer requirements of this Chapter.
(6) Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in
accordance with this Title, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced
condition. Removal of invasive non-native weeds is required for the duration ofthe mitigation
bond.
(7) Buffer Uses. The following uses may be permitted within a wetland
buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this Title, provided they are not prohibited by
any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the
buffer and adjacent wetland:
(i) Conservation and Restoration Activities. Conservation or
restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife.
(ii) Passive Recreation. Low impact uses and activities which are
consistent with the purpose and function of the wetland buffer,and do not detract from its
integrity may be permitted within the buffer depending on the sensitivity of the wetland. Uses
may include:
a. Walkways and trails, provided that those pathways that are
generally parallel to the perimeter of the wetland may be located in the buffer area provided that:
i. They are no wider than six (6) feet, and generally
constructed with a surface that does not interfere with substrate permeability. Raised boardwalks
utilizing non-treated pilings may be acceptable; and
ii. They shall be limited to pedestrian use; and
iii. They shall not be allowed to fully enclose a habitat
area or buffer; and
iv. They are subject to closure (at the Director's
discretion) during critical spawning, migration or breeding time periods of the species present.
b. Wildlife viewing structures; and
c. Fishing access areas down to the water's edge that shall be
no larger than six (6) feet.
(iii) Stormwater Management Facilities. Stormwater management
facilities, limited to stormwater dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the
outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the buffer of Category III or IV wetlands only, provided that:
a. No other location is feasible; and
b. The location of such facilities will not degrade the
functions or values of the wetland.
(iv) Low Impact Development (LID) Facilities. LID facilities, may
be allowed within the buffer of Category III or IV wetlands only, provided that:
a. No other location is feasible; and
b. The location of such facilities will not degrade the
functions or values of the wetland.
32
Critical Areas
(g) Signs and Fencing of Wetlands
(1) Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland or buffer and
the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be
marked in the field in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur and is
subject to inspection prior to the commencement of permitted activities. This temporary marking
shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if
required, are in place.
(2) Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued
pursuant to this Chapter, the Director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along
the boundary of a wetland or buffer.
(i) Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel-coated metal face and
attached to a metal post, or another non-treated material of equal durability. Signs must be
posted at an interval of one (1) per lot or every fifty (50) feet, whichever is less, and must be
maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with
alternative language approved by the Director:
Protected Wetland Area
Do NQt Disturb
Contact City of Bremerton
Department of Community Development
Regarding Uses and Restriction
(3) Fencing
(i) The Director shall determine if fencing is necessary to protect the
functions and values of the critical area. If found to be necessary, any permit or authorization
issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be conditioned to require the applicant to install a
permanent fence at the edge ofthe wetland buffer, when fencing will prevent future impacts to
the wetland.
(ii) Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in
this Subsection shall be designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including fish
runs, and shall be constructed in a manner that minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated
habitat.
20.14.340 MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS - WETLANDS.
Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall achieve equivalent or greater
biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be consistent with the state Department
of Ecology publication Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, 2004 (Publications
#04-06-013a & #04-06-013b), or as revised.
(a) Mitigation Shall Be Required in the Following Order of Preference:
(1) A voiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action.
(2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or
reduce impacts.
(3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment.
33
Critical Areas
(4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations.
(5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments.
(b) Mitigation for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation actions
shall address functions affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or
improvement and shall provide similar wetland functions as those lost, except when:
(1) The lost wetland provides minimal functions as determined by a site-
specific function assessment, and the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide
equal or greater functions or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed
through a formal Washington state watershed assessment plan or protocol; or
(2) Out-of-kind replacement will best meet formally identified watershed
goals, such as replacement of historically diminished wetland types.
(c) Preference of Mitigation Actions. Mitigation actions that require compensation
by replacing, enhancing, or substitution shall occur in the following order of preference:
(1) Restoring wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands.
(2) Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative
cover consisting primarily of non-native introduced species. 1'his should only be attempted
when there is a consistent source of hydrology and it can be shown that the surface and
subsurface hydrologic regime is conducive for the wetland community that is being designed.
(3) Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands in combination with
restoration or creation. Such enhancement should be part of a mitigation package that includes
replacing the impacted area meeting appropriate ratio requirements.
(d) Type and Location of Mitigation. Unless it is demonstrated that a higher level
of ecological functioning would result from an alternate approach, compensatory mitigation for
ecological functions shall be either in-kind and on-site, or in-kind and within the same stream
reach, sub-basin, or drift cell. Mitigation actions shall be conducted within the same sub-
drainage basin and on the site as the alteration except when the all of the following apply:
(1) There are no reasonable on-site or in-subdrainage basin opportunities or
on-site and in-subdrainage basin opportunities do not have a high likelihood of success, after a
determination of the natural capacity of the site to mitigate for the impacts. Consideration should
include: anticipated wetland mitigation replacement ratios, buffer conditions and proposed
widths, hydro geomorphic classes of on-site wetlands when restored, proposed flood storage
capacity, potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity);
(2) Off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved
wetland functions than the impacted wetland; and
(3) Off-site locations shall be in the same sub-drainage basin unless:
(i) Established watershed goals for water quality, flood or
conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify
location of mitigation at another site; or
(ii) Credits from a state certified wetland mitigation bank are used as
mitigation and the use of credits is consistent with the terms of the bank's certification.
( e) Mitigation Timing. Mitigation projects shall be completed with an approved
monitoring plan prior to activities that will disturb wetlands. In all other cases, mitigation shall
be completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the activity or
34
Critical Areas
development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing
fisheries, wildlife, and flora.
(1) The Director may authorize a one-time temporary delay, up to one-
hundred-twenty (120) days, in completing minor construction and landscaping when
environmental conditions could produce a high probability of failure or significant construction
difficulties. The delay shall not create or perpetuate hazardous conditions or environmental
damage or degradation, and the delay shall not be injurious to the health, safety, and general
welfare of the public. The request for the temporary delay must include a written justification
that documents the environmental constraints that preclude implementation of the mitigation
plan. The justification must be verified and approved by the city and include a financial
guarantee.
(f) Mitigation Ratios
(1) Acreage Replacement Ratios. The following ratios shall apply to
creation or restoration that is in-kind, is on-site, is the same category, is timed prior to or
concurrent with alteration, and has a high probability of success. These ratios do not apply to
remedial actions resulting from unauthorized alterations; greater ratios shall apply in those cases.
These ratios do not apply to the use of credits from a state certified wetland mitigation bank.
When credits from a certified bank are used, replacement ratiqs should be consistent with the
requirements ofthe bank's certification. The first number specifies the acreage of replacement
wetlands and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands altered.
Category I
Category II
Category III
Category IV
6-to-1
3-to-1
2-to-1
1.5-to-1
(2) Increased Replacement Ratio. The Director may increase the ratios
under the following circumstances:
(i) Uncertainty exists as to the probable success of the proposed
restoration or creation;
(ii) A significant period of time will elapse between impact and
replication of wetland functions;
(iii) Proposed mitigation will result in a lower category wetland or
reduced functions relative to the wetland being impacted; or
(iv) The impact was an unauthorized impact.
(g) Wetlands Enhancement as Mitigation
(I) Impacts to wetland functions may be mitigated by enhancement of
existing significantly degraded wetlands, but must be used in conjunction with restoration and/or
creation. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce a wetland report that
identifies how enhancement will increase the functions of the degraded wetland and how this
increase will adequately mitigate for the loss of wetland area and function at the impact site. An
enhancement proposal must also show whether existing wetland functions will be reduced by the.
enhancement actions.
(2) At a minimum, enhancement acreage shall be double the acreage required
for creation or restoration under BMC 20.l4.340(t)(1). The ratios shall be greater than double
the required acreage where the enhancement proposal would result in minimal gain in the
35
Critical Areas
performance of wetland functions and/or result in the reduction of other wetland functions
currently being provided in the wetland.
(3) Mitigation ratios for enhancement in combination with other forms of
mitigation shall range from 6: 1 to 3: I and be limited to Class III and Class IV wetlands.
(h) Wetland Mitigation Banks
(1) Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved for use as
compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when:
(i) The bank is certified under Chapter 173-700 WAC; and
(ii) The Director determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides
appropriate compensation for the authorized impacts; and
(iii) The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and
conditions of the bank's certification.
(2) Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be consistent with
replacement ratios specified in the bank's certification.
(3) Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to
compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the bank's certification. In
some cases, bank service areas may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage basin
for specific wetland functions.
(i) Wetland Mitigation Monitoring. The mitigation plan shall include a program
for monitoring construction of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project.
A protocol shall be included outlining the schedule for site monitoring, and how the monitoring
data will be evaluated. A monitoring report shall be submitted as needed to document
milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The
compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance
standards have been met, but not for a period less than five (5) years.
20.14.350 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - SUBDIVISIONS.
The subdivision and short subdivision ofland in wetlands and associated buffers is
subject to the following:
(a) Land that is located wholly within a wetland or its buffer may not be subdivided.
(b) Land that is located partially within a wetland or its buffer may be subdivided
provided that an accessible and contiguous portion of each new lot is located outside of the
wetland and its buffer.
(c) Access roads and utilities serving the proposed subdivision may be permitted
within the wetland and associated buffers only if the city determines that no other feasible
alternative exists and when consistent with this Title.
20.14.360 WETLAND REPORT.
Critical area reports for wetlands must meet the requirements ofthis Section.
(a) Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical area report for wetlands shall
be prepared by a qualified professional who is a certified professional wetland scientist or a non-
certified professional wetland scientist with a minimum of five (5) years experience in the field
of wetland science and with experience preparing wetland reports.
(b) Area Addressed in Wetland Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a
critical area report for wetlands:
(1) Th~ proj ect area of the proposed activity;
36
Critical Areas
(2) All wetlands and recommended buffers within three hundred (300) feet of
the project area; and
(3) All shoreline areas, water features, floodplains, and other critical areas,
and related buffers within three hundred (300) feet ofthe project area.
(c) Wetland analysis. A critical area report for wetlands shall contain an analysis of
the wetlands including the following site- and proposal-related information at a minimum:
(I) A written assessment.and accompanying maps of the wetlands and buffers
within three hundred (300) feet of the project area, including the following information at a
mInImum:
(i) Wetland delineation and required buffers;
(ii) Existing wetland acreage;
(iii) Wetland category;
(iv) Vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic characteristics;
(v) Soil and substrate conditions;
(vi) Topographic elevations, at two-foot contours, and
(vii) A discussion ofthe water sources supplying the wetland and
documentation of hydrologic regime (locations of inlet and outlet features, water depths
throughout the wetland, evidence of recharge or discharge, evidence of water depths throughout
the year - drift lines, algal layers, moss lines, and sediment deposits).
(2) A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded
prior to the current proposed land use activity.
(3) A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses
methods to protect and enhance on-site habitat and wetland functions.
(4) Functional evaluation for the wetland and adjacent buffer using a local or
state agency staff-recognized method and including the reference of the method and all data
sheets.
(5) Proposed mitigation, if needed, including a written assessment and
accompanying maps of the mitigation area, including the following information at a minimum:
(i) Existing and proposed wetland acreage;
(ii) Vegetative and faunal conditions;
(iii) Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions including an analysis
of existing and future hydrologic regime and proposed hydrologic regime for enhanced, created,
or restored mitigation areas;
(iv) Relationship within watershed and to existing waterbodies;
(v) Soil and substrate conditions, topographic elevations;
(vi) Existing and proposed adjacent site conditions;
(vii) Required wetland buffers (including any buffer reduction and
mitigation proposed to increase the plant densities, remove weedy vegetation, and replant the
buffers);
(viii) Property ownership; and
(ix) Associated wetlands and related wetlands that may be greater than"
three hundred (300) feet from the subject project.
(6) A scale map of the development proposal site and adjacent area. A
discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect wetlands after the project site has
been developed; including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs.
37
Critical Areas
(7) A bond estimate for the installation (including site preparation, plant
materials and installation, fertilizers, mulch, stakes) and the proposed monitoring and
maintenance work for the required number of years.
(8) Title Notification. All activity in critical area protection areas shall be
accompanied by a title.
(d) Additional Information. When appropriate, the Director may also require the
wetland report to include an evaluation by the state Department of Ecology or an independent
qualified expert regarding the applicant's analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed
mitigating measures or programs, and to include any recommendations as appropriate.
(1) If the development proposal site contains or is within a wetland area, the
applicant shall submit an affidavit, which declares whether the applicant has knowledge of any
illegal alteration to any or all wetlands on the proposed site and whether the applicant previously
had been found in violation ofthis Chapter. If the applicant has been found previously in
violation, the applicant shall declare whether such violation has been corrected to the satisfaction
of the jurisdiction.
(2) The Director shall determine ifthe mitigation and monitoring plans and
bonding measures proposed by the applicant are sufficient to protect the public health, safety,
and welfare, consistent with the goals, purposes, objectives anod requirements ofthis Chapter.
20.14.400 CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS.
Sections 20.14.410 through 20.14.450 pertain to Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
20.14.410 DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE.
Groundwater from aquifers provides a source of potable water and contributes to stream
discharge/flow. Critical aquifer recharge areas contribute to the recharge of aquifers, springs
and/or wells and are susceptible to contamination of water supplies through infiltration of
pollutants through the soil. City residents rely on an essential life-sustaining safe drinking water
supply. A significant portion of the City's drinking water comes from groundwater supplies in
aquifers. The primary goals of groundwater protection regulations are to protect groundwater
quality by maintaining the quantity of recharge; avoiding or limiting land use activities that pose
potential risk of aquifer contamination and; to minimize or avoid adverse impacts to groundwater
protection areas through the application of performance standards, and to comply with the
requirements of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, Washington Administrative Code, and the
requirements of the Wellhead Protection Program.
20.14.420 CLASSIFICATION AND DESIGNATION.
Critical AquiferRecharge Areas are those land areas that contain hydrogeologic
conditions that facilitate aquifer recharge and/or transmission of contaminants to an underlying
aquifer. Critical aquifer recharge areas under this section may be established based on general
criteria, specifically designated due to special circumstances, or based on scientific studies and
mapping efforts. Factors considered in the identification of critical aquifer recharge areas include
depth to water table, presence of highly permeable soils (specifically Group A Hydrologic soilsJ~.
presence of flat terrain, and the presence of more permeable surficial geology. Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas may be placed in one ofthe following categories:
38
Critical Areas
(a) Category I Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas: Category I critical aquifer
recharge areas are those areas where potential for certain land use activities to adversely affect
groundwater is high. Category I critical aquifer recharge areas include:
(1) Areas inside the five-year time of travel zone for Group A water system
wells, calculated in accordance with the Washington State Source Water Assessment Program.
(2) Ten-year time-of-travel zones in wellhead protection areas are included as
critical aquifer recharge when a well draws its water from an aquifer that is at or above sea level
and is without an overlying protective impermeable layer.
(3) Areas identified as regionally significant aquifer recharge areas and
identified as such by the City are:
. Gorst Basin Aquifer recharge area, and
. Other areas that may be identified in the future
(b) Category II Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas: Category II critical aquifer
recharge areas are areas that provide recharge to aquifers that are current or potentially will
become potable water supplies and are vulnerable to contamination based on the type ofland use
activity. These include the following:
(1) Highly Permeable Soils (Group A Hydrologic Soils). The general
location and characteristics of Group A Hydrogeologic soils in the City is given in the Soils
Survey of Kitsap County by the u.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). The soil survey information is available at the Department of
Community Development.
(2) Areas above Shallow / VashonPrincipal Aquifers. Surface areas above
shallow, principal aquiferes) which are not separated from the underlying aquifers by an
impermeable layer that provides adequate protections to preclude the proposed land use from
contaminating the shallow aquiferes) below, are considered aquifer recharge areas of concern.
20.14.430 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(a) Allowed Activities: The following activities are allowed in critical aquifer
recharge areas and do not require submission of a Hydrogeological Assessment:
(1) Construction of structures and improvements, including additions,
resulting in less than five percent (5%) or 2,500 square feet (whichever is greater) total site
impervious surface area that does not result in a change of use or increase the use of a hazardous
substance.
(2) Development and improvement of parks, recreation facilities, open space,
or conserVation areas resulting in less than five percent (5%) total site impervious surface area
that do not increase the use of a hazardous substance.
Standards for development shall be in accordance with the provisions below and
the requirements of other underlying city regulations.
(3) On-site domestic septic systems releasing less than 14,500 gallons of
effluent per day and that are limited to a maximum density of one (1) system per one (1) acre.
(4) Residential Use of Pesticides and Nutrients. Application of household
:.."-
pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers that do not exceed times and rates specified on the
packaging.
(5) Residential storage or use of petroleum and petroleum products.
(6) Activities which have a potential contamination source below threshold
amounts as set forth in applicable statues of the Revised Code of Washington or local
39
Critical Areas
regulations. The purpose of this clause is to allow for small-scale and residential activities
thought to have no significant impacts to critical aquifer recharge areas.
(b) Prohibited Activities: The following activities and uses are prohibited in Category
I critical aquifer recharge areas.
(1) Landfills, including hazardous or dangerous waste, municipal solid waste,
special waste, and wood waste;
(2) Underground Injection Wells. Wells which meet the requirements of
Chapter 173-218 WAC and Chapter 173-200 WAC with the exception of 5B22, 5D2, 5G30,
5W12, 5W32, 5R2l, 5S23;
(3) Commercial mining and washing of metals, hard rock, sand and gravel;
(4) Chemical wood preservation and/or treatment Facilities;
(5) Storage, processing, or disposal of radioactive substances;
(6) Commercial activities that are not connected to an available sanitary
sewer system;
(7) Use or storage of pesticides listed as "state restricted use pesticides" by
WAC 16-228;
(8) Within 1600 feet of Twin Lakes, any use of pesticides, and use fertilizers
above agronomic rates; "
(9) Oil and Gas Drilling as defined in WAC 332-12-450 and WAC 173-218.
(10) Underground storage of hazardous substances as regulated by WAC 173-
360;
(11) Use, storage, treatment, or production of perch lor ethylene (PCE), other
than in closed-loop systems that do not involve any discharge of PCE;
(12) Petroleum refining, reprocessing, storage and petroleum-product pipelines;
(13) ElectroplatinglmeHil finishing.
(14) Activities that wouid significantly reduce the recharge to aquifers
currently or potentially used as a potable water source; and
(15) Activities that would significantly reduce the recharge to aquifers that are
a source of significant base flow to a regulated stream.
20.14.440 ALLOWED USES WITH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
(a) General Requirements: Any activity not specifically exempted through BMC
20.14.430 as allowed or prohibited may be permitted in a critical aquifer recharge area if all of
the following criteria are met (A list of specific uses with a potential threat to ground water can
be found ih BMC 20.l4.440(b):
(1) Hydrogeological Assessment:
(i) For Category I aquifer recharge areas the applicant must show
through a hydrogeological assessment, that the proposed activity will not cause significant
impact to aquifer quality or recharge. The hydrogeological assessment will be evaluated and
treated as a special use review and be reviewed by the Department, the health district, affected
tribes, and affected water purveyors. An incompatible activity can be denied by the Director;
(ii) For Category II aquifer recharge areas a hydrogeological
assessment may be required. The scope of the report shall be based on site specific conditions.
The hydrogeological assessment will be evaluated and treated as a special use review and be
reviewed by the Department, the health district, affected tribes, and affected water purveyors.
An incompatible activity can be denied by the Director. [rhe need for additional information will
40
Critical Areas
be determined by the Department, the health district, and the affected water purveyor. Based on
the report, controls, mitigation, and/or other requirements will be established as a prerequisite for
the development proposal being approved.
(2) The proposed activity must comply with the source water protection
requirements and recommendations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
State Department of Health, Washington Department of Ecology, and the Kitsap County Health
District; and
(3) The proposed activity shall be designed and constructed in accordance
with the Title 15 BMC Municipal Utilities; and
(4) The applicant must explore Low Impact Development site design
alternatives and implement them where economically feasible. Low Impact Development
techniques can include, but are not limited to:
(i) Rainwater harvesting;
(ii) Reverse slope sidewalks;
(iii) Vegetated roofs;
(iv) Bioretention areas (rain gardens) and;
(v) Pervious pavement.
(b) Potential Threats to Groundwater: Specific uses with potential threat to
groundwater can include, but are not limited to the following. Uses meeting the listed
performance standards may be allowed ifthe criteria ofBMC 20.14.440 are met.
(1) Anything that is not exempt per BMC 20.14.430;
(2) All storage tanks proposed to be located in a critical aquifer recharge area
must comply with local building code requirements and must conform to the following
requirements:
(i) All new aboveground storage facilities proposed for use in the
storage of hazardous substances or hazardous wastes shall be designed and constructed so as to:
a. Not allow the release of a hazardous substance to the
ground, ground waters, or surface waters;
b. Have a primary containment area enclosing or underlying
the tank or part thereof; and
c. A secondary containment system either built into the tank
structure or a dike system built outside the tank for all tanks.
(3) ,-.. Vehicle Repair and Servicing
(i) Vehicle repair and servicing must be conducted over impermeable
pads and within a covered structure capable of withstanding normally expected weather
conditions. Chemicals used in the process of vehicle repair and servicing must be stored in a
manner that protects them from weather and provides containment should leaks occur.
(ii) No dry wells shall be allowed in critical aquifer recharge areas on
sites used for vehicle repair and servicing. Dry wells existing on the site prior to facility
establishment must be abandoned using techniques approved by the state Department of Ecology
prior to commencement of the proposed activity.
( 4) Water reuse proj ects for reclaimed water must be in accordance with the
adopted water or sewer comprehensive plans that have been approved by the State Departments
of Ecology and Health.
(i) Use of reclaimed water for surface percolation must meet the
ground water recharge criteria given in Chapter 90.46.080(1) and Chapter 90.46.010(10) RCW.
41
Critical Areas
The State Department of Ecology may establish additional discharge limits in accordance with
Chapter 90.46.080(2) RCW.
(ii) Direct injection must be in accordance with the standards
developed by authority of Chapter 90.46.042 RCW.
(5) Automobile Washers as defined in WAC 173-216.
(6) Chemical treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities as defined in WAC
173-303-182.
(7) Hazardous Waste Generators. Including but not limited to: Boat repair
shops, biological research facilities, dry cleaners, furniture stripping, motor vehicle service
garages, photographic processing, printing and publishing shops, medical and dental facilities,
etc. as defined in WAC 173-303.
(8) Junk Yards and Salvage Yards as defined in WAC 173-304, Best
Management Practices to Prevent Storm water Pollution at Vehicle Recycler Facilities (WDOE
94-146).
(9) On-Site Sewage Systems (Large Scale) as defined in WAC 173-240.
(10) On-Site Sewage Systems (< 14,500 gal/day) as defined in WAC 246-272.
(11) Pesticide Storage and Use as defined in RCW 15.54 and WAC 17.21.
(12) Sawmills as defined in WAC 173-303 and 173-304, WDOE publication
number 95-53, Best Management Practices to prevent Storm water Pollution at Log Yards.
(13) Solid Waste Handling and Recycling Facilities as defined in WAC 173-
304.
(14) Wastewater Application to Land Surface as defined in WAC 173-216 and
173-200, and WDOE Land Application Guidelines, Best Management Practices for Irrigated
agriculture.
(15) New impervious surface area exceeding 20,000 Square feet.
(16) Beneficial use ofbiosolids as defined in WAC 173-308.
(17) Golf Courses provided:
(i) Fertilizer use is not above agronomic rates,
(ii) Pesticides are managed and applied by properly licensed personnel,
and use of all pesticides is approved by the affected water utility;
(iii) The golf course allows for periodic monitoring by the Department or
an affected water utility.
(18) Non-commercial gravel and sand mining provided the extraction of
materials remains no less than ten (10) feet above the level of the aquifer.
(c) Affected Agency Review: The City will notify Kitsap County Health District
and affected water utilities and will request them to comment during the preliminary phases of
the City's review process on all proposed projects defined in BMC 20.14.440 (b) or other uses
not explicitly allowed or prohibited in BMC 20.14.430. The City in conjunction with these
agencies may approve, deny, or condition proposals.
(d) Inspection: City personnel may inspect at reasonable times, upon presentation of
credentials, as part of its Wellhead Protection Program any activity that is known to manage or
potentially manage hazardous materials.
20.14.450 HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT.
The assessment shall address the impact the proposed land use will have on both the
quality and quantity of the water transmitted to the aquifer.
42
Critical Areas
(a) The assessment shall be submitted to the Department and shall address, at a
minimum, the following criteria:
(1) Surficial soil type and geologic setting;
(2) Location and identification of wells within 1,000 feet of the site;
(3) Location and identification of surface water bodies and springs within
1,000 feet ofthe site with recharge potential;
(4) Description of underlying aquifers and aquitards, including water level,
gradients and flow direction;
(5) Available surface water and groundwater quality data;
(6) Effects of the proposed development on water quality;
(7) Sampling schedules required to assure water quality;
(8) Discussion of the effects of the proposed development on the groundwater
resource;
(9) Recommendations on appropriate BMPs (Best Management Practices) or
mitigation to assure no significant degradation of groundwater quality; and
(10) Other information as required by the Kitsap County Health District.
(11) The assessment shall also address the types of pesticides, herbicides and
fertilizers that can safely be used for the care of landscaping p'roposed by the applicant.
(b) The hydrogeologic assessment shall be prepared by a professional
geologist/hydrologist or by a soil scientist with a strong background in geology (see Section
19.150.365).
. (c) Applications for development or operations with underground storage of
petroleum products will be processed using the appropriate procedure as specified in existing
Kitsap County ordinances.
(d) Analysis for a specific parcel(s), using the criteria outlined below, will be
employed to confirm if the soils present require a recharge area designation. Data collection will
include, at a minimum, six soil logs to a depth of ten feet (or to a depth four feet below the
lowest proposed excavation point whichever is greater) for each acre in the parcel(s) being
evaluated. At least one well, two hundred feet or greater in depth with an adequate drilling
report, must be available within one mile. The associated data shall be analyzed and included in
the hydrogeologic assessment to determine the presence of highly permeable soils with the
recharge area designation.
20.14.500 FREQUENTL Y FLOODED AREAS.
Sections 20.14.500 through 20.14.530 of this Chapter pertain to Frequently Flooded
Areas.
20.14.510 DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this Chapter to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare,
and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas caused by
flooding. In addition, this section will give special consideration to anadronomous fish habitat in
combination with BMC 20.14.700 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. :,;
43
Critical Areas
20.14.520 CLASSIFICATION AND DESIGNATION.
Classifications of flood hazard areas shall be consistent with the 100-year floodplain
designation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Flood Insurance
Program.
20.14.530 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
AU development proposals shall comply with Section 17.60 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
for general and specific flood hazard protection. Development shall not reduce the base flood water
storage ability. Construction, grading or other regulated activities that would reduce the flood water
storage ability must be mitigated by creating compensatory storage on or off-site. Base flood data and
flood hazard notes shall be shown on the face of any recorded plat or site plan including, but not
. limited to, base flood elevations, flood protection elevation, boundary of floodplain, and zero rise
floodway.
20.14.600 GEOLOGICALL Y HAZARDOUS AREAS.
Sections 20.14.600 through 20.14.660 of this Chapter pertain to Geologically Hazardous
Areas.
20.14.610 PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Section is to protect human life and property from potential risks
related to development on or near geologically hazardous areas. Geologically hazardous areas
include areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, geologic events, landslides, and moderate and steep
slope areas. This section classifies geologically hazardous areas and sets development standards
for development and clearing in or near geologically hazardous areas.
20.14.620 CLASSIFICATION.
The following categories shall be used in classifying geologically hazardous areas:
(a) Areas of High Geologic Hazard are areas meeting either ofthe following two
criteria:
(1) Areas with slopes greater than forty percent (40%) with vertical relief of
ten (10) or more feet; or
(2) Areas with slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) with vertical relief of
ten (10) or more feet, and any of the following characteristics:
(i) Unstable Soil or Shoreline classified as "Unstable" (U), "Unstable
Old Slides" (UOS), "Unstable Recent Slides" (URS), or "Intermediate" (I) by the US
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, US Geologic Survey, the Washington
Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas, or qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer;
(ii) Groundwater Seepage or springs present on the slope, areas
underlain by impermeable silts or clays, or mappable emergent water;
(iii) Erosion Hazard as indicated by potential for stream or wave
incision or as classified as 'highly erodible' or 'potentially erodible' by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
(iv) Seismic Areas subject to liquefaction from earthquakes such as
hydric soils as identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and areas that have
been filled to make a site more suitable.
(b) Areas of Moderate Geologic Hazard are any areas with slopes of thirty percent
(30%) or greater and vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet, and any areas with slopes of fifteen
44
Critical Areas
percent (15%) to thirty percent (30%) with vertical relief often (10) or more feet and any of the
characteristics per BMC 20.14.620(2)(i) - (iii) above. Seismic hazard areas subject to
liquefaction from earthquakes, areas with hydric soils, and areas ofloose fill shall be classified
as Moderate Geologic Hazard Areas regardless of percent slope.
(c) -Site Specific Determination. Site specific geological reports may be used to
determine the classification of a potentially geologically hazardous area in ether of the following
cases:
(1) When an applicant questions the information the Department must rely on
to determine whether a location is classified as a Geologically Hazard area, the applicant may
submit an appropriate site specific geological report. If supportable by the geological report the
Department may make a non-geologically hazardous determination.
(2) The Department is authorized but not mandated to require submittal of a
geological report for any proposal on a site with slopes of fifteen percent (15%) or greater and
vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet, or potential seismic hazard areas. Requests by the
Department for submittal of a geological report may be made when slope percentages are poorly
documented, or when it is deemed through site visit, close proximity to mapped areas of unstable
soils, previously prepared geological reports in the vicinity, or other pertinent information that a
probably likelihood of soil instability per BMC 20.14.620(2)(D - (iv) above exists on the site.
The Department shall not make requests for geological reports in cases where slope percentages
are well documented and there is a probable likelihood of stable soil characteristics on the site.
20.14.630 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
The following standards shali apply to any land or vegetation modification or
construction within a geologically hazardous area as classified per Section 21.14.620 above, and
its buffer as described herein. The Depchiment will approve, approve with conditions or deny
the development proposal base on its ability to meet the development standards. The
Department will also consider any proposed mitigation measures or buffer reductions included in
a Geotechnical Report per BMC 20.14.630( c) below.
(a) Areas of High Geologic Hazard as classified per BMC 20.14.620( a) shall be
subject to the following standards:
(1) Building and Impervious Surface Buffer. No construction of any structure
or impervious surface is allowed within fifty (50) feet of the top and toe of the slope, unless
reductions supportable by a Geotechnical Report are approved.
(2) Native Vegetation Buffer. Native vegetation shall be in place from the toe
of the slope to twenty-five (25) feet beyond the top of the slope, unless modifications supportable
by a Geotechnical Report are approved. Native vegetation shall meet the standards ofBMC
20.14.630(g) below.
(b) Areas of Moderate Geologic Hazard as classified per BMC 20.14.620(b) above
shall be subject to the following standards:
(I) Building and Impervious Surface Buffer. No construction of any structure
or impervious surface is allowed within twenty-five (25) feet of the top and toe of the slope,
unless reductions supportable by a Geotechnical Report are approved.
(2) Native Vegetation Buffer. Native vegetation shall be in place from the toe
of the slope to 25 feet beyond the top ofthe slope, unless modifications supportable by a
Geotechnical Report are approved. Native vegetation shall meet the standards ofBMC
20~14.630(g).
45
Critical Areas
(c) Reductions with Geological or Geotechnical Report. Modifications and/or
reductions to the buffers prescribed per BMC 20.14.630a(1 )-(2) and BMC 20. 14.640b(1 )-(2)
above may be granted if a geotechnical or geological report demonstrates that modified or
reduced buffers, through design and engineering solutions, will provide protection to the
proposed development and adjacent properties equal to that of the standard buffer. Such reports
are subject to third party review per BMC 20.14.660(h). Reductions shall utlilize the Mitigation
and Performance Standards listed per BMC 20.14.650 to the greatest possible extent.
Requirements for geotechnical and geological reports are outlined in BMC 20.14.660.
(d) Buffer Increase: Should the Department determine based on a Geological or
Geotechnical Report that greater buffers than required per BMC 20.14.630a(1 )-(2) and BMC
20. 14.640b(1 )-(2) above are necessary to protect the proposed development and adjacent
properties, greater buffers may be required. The Department may require an applicant to submit
a geotechnical report with any proposal for land alteration that is located within two hundred
(200) feet of an area of high or moderate geologic hazard if it determines through site visit,
review of available documents, or history of prior events in the area, that the proposal could
potentially require increased buffers to ensure safety.
_,,", (e) Elimination of Danger Trees: Within high or moderate geologic hazard areas
removal of danger trees may be allowed only if such activity is approved by the Department,
provided a certified arborist in the State of Washington makes a written determination that the
trees proposed for elimination present a legitimate safety hazard.
(f) Vegetation Thinning: Within high or moderate geologic hazard areas, minor
pruning of vegetation or trees for view enhancement may be allowed only if such activity is
approved by the Department. The following are allowable methods and techniques for
vegetation thinning, except that mature or old growth trees shall only be treated per method
BMC 20.14.630(f)(5);
(1) Tree Thinning: The selective removal of branches in the inner crown of
the tree, provided no more than 25% of a tree's leaf-bearing crown is removed. An even
distribution of interior small branches and foliage on remaining limbs shall be maintained to
avoid over-thinning.
(2) Tree Raising: The removal of the lower branches of a tree in order to
provide clearance for passage or vistas. After raising, the height of the pruned portion shall not
exceed one-third of the total tree height, provided that removal of branches from the lower
portion shall not exceed 25% of the tree's leaf bearing crown.
(3) Tree Reduction: Reducing the height or spread of a tree for clearance or
vistas byselectively removing leaders and terminals of branches. Cuts should be made to lateral
branches at unions, whereby the cut branch is at least one-third the diameter of the stem at the
union. No more than 25% of a tree's crown mass shall be removed, unless it can be
demonstrated that further reduction is necessary for functions such as utility clearance.
(4) Tree Topping: Topping shall be used as a last resort when it can be
demonstrated that methods (1)-(3) above are not feasible, or when it can be demonstrated by a
certified arborist that topping is less harmful to the particular species of tree than other listed
methods. Topping is the indiscriminate cutting of branches and laterals to stubs at a specific tree.
height or spread, often exceeding 25% of a tree's crown mass. Topping is harmful to a tree and
creates unsightly regrowth that requires future trimming at frequent intervals.
(5) Pruning Mature Trees: Mature and old growth trees are more susceptible
to permanent damage or death from pruning. Pruning of mature trees should only be done as a
46
Critical Areas
corrective or preventative measure, such as the removal of decayed, rubbing, or crowded
branches.
(6) Brush Removal: Clearing of non-invasive brush, shrubs, natural grasses
and other such vegetation shall be the minimum necessary to maintain vistas, passage and other
necessary functions.
(g) Native Vegetation: Native vegetation shall be of appropriate plant selection and
species to perform slope stabilization and erosion prevention functions. The Department may
require vegetation enhancement with appropriate species, and may call for an analysis of the
relationship between vegetation and slope stability per BMC 20.14.660( e)(1). Valid scientific
resources such as Washington State Department of Ecology documents Vegetation Management:
A Guide For Puget Sound Bluff Property Owners, and Erosion Control Using Vegetation should
be consulted when vegetation is proposed for slope stabilization and erosion control purposes.
(h) Erosion Control: Clearing or grading of any area within a high or moderate
geologic hazard area or within two hundred (200) feet of the high or moderate geologic hazard
area shall be limited to the period between May 1 to October 1, unless the applicant provides an
erosion and sedimentation control plan prepared by a qualified professional licensed in the state
of Washington that specifically and realistically identifies methods of erosion control for wet
weather conditions. All land modification proposals shall be consistent with the guidelines set
forth in BMC 15.04.042 System Development and Construction Standards. The faces of all cut
and fill slopes shall be protected to prevent erosion as required by the engineered erosion and
sedimentation control plan.
(i) Stormwater Runoff: At no time shall concentrated stormwater runoff be
allowed to flow directly over a moderate or high geologically hazardous areas or its buffer on a
subject site or on neighboring properties. To reduce potentially harmful stormwater runoff
discharge from impervious surfaces, the Department may approve reductions to required parking
standards, provided it can be demonstrated that such reductions would not significantly impact
neighboring properties. Stormwater discharge shall meet all standards set forth in BMC
15.04.042, System Development and Construction Standards.
(j) Significant Development Risk: In cases where a geotechnical report indicates a
significant risk to public health, safety and welfare, the Department shall deny or require revision
of the site development proposal
(k) Utilities, Trails, and Roads: The following activities are allowable within
geologically hazardous areas and buffers provided it can be demonstrated through a geotechnical
report that construction will not significantly increase landslide or erosion risk:
(1) Public or private trails approved by the Department per the provisions of
this Chapter;
(2) Public or private utilities;
(3) Public roads and related infrastructure.
(1) On Site Sewage Disposal: On-site sewage disposal should be avoided in areas of
high geologic hazard and their buffers. In cases where such areas cannot be avoided, review by a
geologist or a geotechnical engineer licensed in the state of Washington will be required in
coordination with the Kitsap County Health District.
(m) Construction for Earthquake Loads: All construction must meet the
requirements of the City Building Code as set forth in Chapter 17.04 BMC.
47
Critical Areas
20.14.650 MITIGATION, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS &
REQUIREMENTS.
(a) The following project design and location techniques are preferred in areas of
moderate or high geologic hazard and their buffers. The Department may condition or modify
development proposals to require incorporation of such design techniques in cases where their
application would increase public safety and welfare without substantially altering the allowable
scope and scale of the proposal:
(I) Minimize soil disturbance and vegetation removal;
(2) Cluster structures to maintain natural topography;
(3) Minimize building footprints and impervious surface areas;
(4) Construct roads, walkways and parking areas to parallel natural contours;
(5) Provide access in areas ofthe site with less sensitivity;
(6) Avoid toe armoring at the base of banks, bluffs and near shorelines. Toe
armoring is only an acceptable engineering solution when it meets the provisions ofBMC
20. 1 4.660(b ) below, and all requirements of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program and other
Sections of this Chapter.
(7) The following performance and mitigation standards shall apply to
seismically hazardous areas;
(i) Avoid construction of structures using unreinforced masonry
materials in areas of hydric soils, fill, or other soils prone to liquefaction from earthquakes;
(ii) When redevelopment is proposed on a site containing hydric soils,
fill, or other soils prone to liquefaction from earthquakes encourage replacement or removal of
existing unreinforced masonry structures;
(iii) Use appropriate building footing techniques such as pilings on
sites containing hydric soils, fill, or other soils prone to liquefaction from earthquakes;
(iv) A void construction of essential public facilities, other potential
emergency response facilities, and largescale public gathering places on sites underlain by know
surface fault lines.
20.14.660 SPECIAL REPORTS.
Whenever development is proposed in a geologically hazardous area as defined in BMC
20.14.620, or when the Department determines that additional soils and slope analysis is
appropriate on a particular site per BMC 20.14.620( c), the applicant is required to submit a
geotechnical or geological report that evaluates the surface and subsurface soil conditions on the
site.
(a) Qualifications: Geotechnical reports shall be prepared by a qualified
professional (defined in BMC 20.14.200 under qualified professional).
(b) General Provisions: Report recommendations for earthwork, clearing or siting
structures in geologically hazardous areas shall be based on existing site conditions rather than
measures that have not yet been successfully approvedor constructed (e.g. slope re-contouring,
retaining walls, bulkheads etc.). Shoreline bulkheads and retaining walls may only be utilized as
an engineering solution where it can be demonstrated that:
(1) An existing structure or existing publicfacility such as roads cannot be
safely maintained without such measures;
(2) Other non-structural methods of beach stabilization have been considered
and determined infeasible; and
48
Critical Areas
(3) The resulting stabilization structure is the minimum necessary to provide
stability for the existing structure and appurtenances.
(c) Minor Repairs: Minor repair activities on existing permitted structures (i.e. those
that do not involve design modifications, changes in structure location, and/or demolition or
abandonment of failed structure and replacement with new structures) are not subject to the
following project submittal requirements.
(d) Geological Reports: A Geological report is required for site development
proposals that involve development activities within a geological hazardous area or its buffer per
BMC 20.14.630( c) above, but do not require an engineered solution. The following minimum
information is required:
(1) Description of surface and subsurface conditions, including ground
materials, vegetation, surface drainage, groundwater, and a preliminary geologic hazard
assessment which includes the location of structures and the identification of the slope and/or
coastal processes occurring at the site and factors that contribute to them;
(2) Review of available information, literature, and mapping;
(3) Detailed description of slope and other topographic features; and
(4) Conceptual siting of structure and general recommendation which include
methods and practices that avoid and/or reduce slope and shore impacts. Minimum
recommendations should include upland and slope drainage control, groundwater control, site
vegetation management, and erosion control.
(e) Geotechnical Reports: A Geotechnical report is required when the Department
or Geological Report determines that a site development proposal requires additional site
information such as engineering design recommendation, slope stability analysis, subsurface
exploration and testing, coastal process analyses, or construction recommendations. Depending
on the level of activity proposed, the report will either be a more limited Geotechnical Slope
Evaluation Report, or a full Geotechnical Design Investigation Report as described below:
(1) Geotechnical Slope Evaluation Report: A Geotechnical Slope Evaluation
Report is required when slope stability analyses are confined to existing surface and lor drainage
conditions, including the relationship of natural and constructed slope features to proposed
changes in environmental conditions such as drainage, vegetation removal and slope geometry.
The following minimum information is required:
(i) All information under (d) above;
(ii) Subsurface data, exploration logs, and testing data, when required
by the geotechnical engineers;
(iii) Estimated (or surveyed) site plan with ground surface profiles and
typical cross-sections;
(iv) Relative location of Ordinary High Water (OHW) on the surface
profile and cross-sections which include Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) for the site
location, where applicable;
(v) Soil strength parameters;
(vi) Stability analysis of existing site;
(vii) Analysis of the relationship of vegetation and slope stability; and.
(viii) Conceptual site development plans and cross-sections.
(2) Geotechnical Design Investigation Report: A Geotechnical Design
Investigation Report is required for site development activities that propose design and
constructionrneasures at the slope crest, face and/or toe. If a designed structure does not impact
49
Critical Areas
slope stability or coastal processes, the report will not be required to perform all items listed
under this section, as long as each item is addressed and the report details why a particular item
does not apply. The following information is required:
(i) All the information required under Subsection (e)(1) above;
(ii) Geotechnical requirements and measures to reduce risks;
(iii) Geotechnical criteria used for any designs including all critical
dimension, lateral earth pressures, soil bearing pressures, location and limits of structure on or
near the slope, maximum constructed slope angles, minimum soil reinforcement embedment, soil
compaction requirements, and structure heights;
(iv) Temporary construction slope stability recommendation and
analyses of proposed final site stability measures;
(v) Required construction specification and construction monitoring
procedures;
(vi) Revegetation and surface and groundwater management
requirements;
(vii) Evaluation of erosion potential and recommendations for erosion
avoidance and any proposed mitigation measures;
(viii) Detailed tabulation of all basic geotechnical engineering test
results pertinent to design and construction, and when required for clarification, detailed
examples oftests conducted for the project; and
(f) Revisions to Geotechnical Reports: Further recommendations shall be provided
by the geotechnical engineer should there be additions or exceptions to the original
recommendation based on the plans, site condition, or other supporting data. Ifthe geotechnical
engineer who revises the plans and specification is not the same engineer who prepared the
geotechnical report, the new engineer shall, in a letter to the Department, express his or her
agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and state
whether the plans and specification conform to his or her recommendations.
(g) Plan and Specification Review: When the engineered solutions are proposed,
the geotechnical engineer shall submit a statement that in his or her judgment, the plans and
specifications (if prepared by others) conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical report
and that all portions of the site which are disturbed or impacted by the proposed development
have appropriate measures or specification that permit construction to occur while addressing
slope stability so that the work does not create additional risk. The statement shall also indicate
whether or not a relative gain in slope stability will be achieved after construction is complete.
(h) Monitoring and Third Party Review:
(1) To protect public health, safety and welfare, the Department may call for a
Third Party Review of any geotechnical report in cases where it determines there may be
substantial damage to life, property or the environment should a proposed engineered solution
fail. When a third party review is required, costs incurred for a qualified third party geotechnical
engineer to perform the review shall be borne by the applicant.
(2) Where revegetation or plantings are proposed as a method to ensure slope
stability, a monitoring program shall be included as a part of the approved geotechnical report.
To ensure that the performance standards of the approved geotechnical report are met, the
vegetation shall be monitored for a minimum of five (5) years. A longer monitoring period may
be required by the City based on either the initial report, or a review of subsequent monitoring
50
Critical Areas
reports. The monitoring reports shall be submitted on August 1 st of each year during the
monitoring period.
(i) Construction Inspection: A final inspection report shall be provided by the
geotechnical engineer stating that construction has or has not implemented the design
recommendations of the geotechnical report, and evaluating of any deviation from the design
recommendations.
20.14.700 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS.
Section 20.14.700 through 20.14.770 ofthis Chapter pertain to Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas.
20.14.710 DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE.
The intent of these regulations is to avoid impacts to streams, riparian habitat,
anadromous fish, and wildlife conservation areas where such avoidance is feasible and
reasonable. This section ofthe city code contains standards, guidelines, criteria and requirements
intended to identify, evaluate and mitigate potential impacts to habitat conservation areas within
the city and to enhance degraded habitat and streams in appropriate cases. In appropriate
circumstances, impacts resulting from regulated activities ma):' be minimized, rectified, reduced
and/or compensated for, consistent with this Chapter. The regulations are to: manage land so as
to maintain fish and wildlife species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic
distribution so that isolated subpopulations are not created and achieve no net loss in fish or
wildlife habitat, or stream functions.
20.14.720 CLASSIFICATION AND DESIGNATION OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS,
Classification and Designation of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas is an
ongoing process, while not all of the following critical habitat conservation areas are known to
exist in the City their designation here allows for future categorization for protection. The
following categories shall be used for relevant development standards ofBMC 20.14.730.
(a) Streams and Shorelines: All streams and shorelines which meet the criteria for
Type S, F, Np or Ns waters as set forth in WAC 222-16-030 of the Department of Natural
Resources Water Typing System.
(1) Type S Water means all waters, within their bankfull width, as inventoried
as "shorelines of the state" under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to
Chapter 90.58 RCW including periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands.
(2) Type F Water means segments of natural waters other than Type S
Waters, which are within the bankfull widths of defined channels and periodically inundated
areas of their associated wetlands, or within lakes, ponds, or impoundments having a surface area
of 0.5 acre or greater at seasonal low water and which in any case contain fish habitat or are
described by one of the following four categories:
(i) Waters, which are diverted for domestic use by more than 10
residential or camping units or by a public accommodation facility licensed to serve more than
10 persons, where such diversion is determined by the Department to be a valid appropriation of
water and the only practical water source for such users. Such waters shall be considered to be
Type F Water upstream from the point of such diversion for 1,500 feet or until the drainage area
is reduced by 50 percent, whichever is less;
51
Critical Areas
(ii) Waters, which are diverted for use by federal, state, tribal or
private fish hatcheries. Such waters shall be considered Type F Water upstream from the point of
diversion for 1,500 feet, including tributaries if highly significant for protection of downstream
water quality. The Department may allow additional harvest beyond the requirements of Type F
Water designation provided the Department determines after a landowner-requested on-site
assessment by the Department ofFish and Wildlife, Department of Ecology, the affected tribes
and interested parties that:
a. The management practices proposed by the landowner will
adequately protect water quality for the fish hatchery; and
b. Such additional harvest meets the requirements of the water
type designation that would apply in the absence of the hatchery;
(iii) Waters, which are within a federal, state, local, or private
campgi-ound having more than 10 camping units: Provided, That the water shall not be
considered to enter a campground until it reaches the boundary of the park lands available for
public use and comes within 100 feet of a camping unit, trail or other park improvement;
(iv) Riverine ponds, wall-based channels, and other channel features
that are used by fish for off-channel habitat. These areas are critical to the maintenance of
optimum survival of fish. This habitat shall be identified based on the following criteria:
a. The site must be connected to a fish habitat stream and
accessible during some period of the year; and
b. The off-channel water must be accessible to fish.
(3) Type Np Water means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull
width of defined channels that are perennial non-fish habitat streams. Perennial streams are
waters that do not go dry any time of a year of normal rainfall. However, for the purpose of
water typing, Type Np Waters include the intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel
below the uppermost point of perennial flow. If the uppermost point of perennial flow cannot be
identified with simple, non-technical observations (see board manual section 23), then Type Np
Waters begin at a point along the channel where the contributing basin area is:
(i) At least 13 acres in the Western Washington coastal zone (which
corresponds to the Sitka spruce zone defined in Franklin and Dymess, 1973);
(ii) At least 52 acres in other locations in Western Washington; or
(iii) At least 300 acres in Eastern Washington.
(4) Type Ns Water means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull
width of the defined channels that are not Type S, F, or Np Waters. These are seasonal, non-fish
habitat streams in which surface flow is not present for at least some portion of a year of normal
rainfall and are not located downstream from any stream reach that is a Type Np Water. Ns
Waters must be physically connected by an above-ground channel system to Type S, F, or Np
Waters.
(b) Saltwater Shorelines, Lakes 20 Acres and Greater in Surface Area: Those
saltwater shorelines and lakes defined as shorelines of the state in the Shoreline Management Act
of 1971 and the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program as amended. Shorelines include: Type S
waters as set forth in WAC 222-16-030 (DNR Water Typing System) as amended; commercial "~,
and recreational shellfish areas; kelp and eelgrass beds; and forage fish s-pawning areas (i.e.
herring, smelt, and sand lance).
( c) Lakes Less than 20 Acres in Surface Area: Those lakes which meet the criteria
for Type F, Np, and N s waters as set forth in WAC 222-16-030 as-amended. This includes lakes
52
Critical Areas
and ponds less than 20 acres in surface area and their submerged aquatic beds, lakes, and ponds
planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal authority.
(d) Class I Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas:
(1) Habitats and species recognized by federal or state agencies for federal
and/or state listed endangered, threatened and sensitive species that have primary association
documented in maps or databases available to the City and that, if altered, may reduce the
likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term.
(2) Areas targeted for preservation by the federal, state, and/or local
government which provide fish and wildlife habitat benefits, such as the shared strategy process
for Puget Sound; and areas of primary association for anadromous fish and important waterfowl
areas identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(3) Areas that contain habitats and species of local importance. These areas
are identified by the City, including but not limited to those habitats and species that, due to their
population status or sensitivity to habitat manipulation, warrant protection. Habitats may include
a seasonal range or habitat element with which a species has a primary association, and which, if
altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long
term. Habitats of local importance can include attributes such as comparatively high wildlife
density; high wildlife species richness; significant wildlife breeding habitat, seasonal ranges or
movement corridors oflimited availability and/or high vulnerability. These habitats may include
cliffs, meadows, old-growth/mature forest, snag-rich areas, and urban natural open space.
(e) Class II Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas:
(1) Habitats for state listed candidate and monitored species documented in
maps or databases available to the City, which if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the
species will maintain and reproduce over the long term.
(2) Habitats that have been identified through maps, databases, reports, or
studies that include attributes such as comparatively high wildlife density; high wildlife species
richness; significant wildlife breeding habitat; seasonal ranges or movement corridors of limited
availability and/or high vulnerability. These habitats may include caves, cliffs, meadows, old-
growth/mature forests, snag-rich areas, talus slopes, and urban natural open space.
(f) Habitats and Species of Local Importance:
The City should accept and consider nominations for habitat areas and species to be
designated as locally important.
(1) Habitats and species to be designated shall exhibit the following
characteri sti cs:
(i)
based on existing trends:
(ii)
Local populations of native species are in danger of extirpation
Local populations of native species that are likely to become
endangered; or
(iii) Local populations of native species that are vulnerable or
declining.
(2) The species or habitat has recreation, commercial, game, tribal, or other
special value;
(3) Long-term persistence of a species locally is dependent on the protection,
maintenance, and/or restoration of the nominated habitat;
53
Critical Areas
(4) Protection by other county, state, or federal policies, laws, regulations, or
non-regulatory tools is not adequate to prevent degradation of the species or habitat in the City;
and
(5) Without protection, there is likelihood that the species or habitat will be
diminished locally over the long term.
(6) Areas nominated to protect a particular habitat or species must represent
either high-quality native habitat or habitat that has a high potential to recover to a suitable
condition and which is oflimited availability, highly vulnerable to alteration, or provides
landscape connectivity which contributes to the integrity of the surrounding landscape.
(7) Habitats and species may be nominated for designation by any person.
(8) The nomination should indicate whether specific habitat features are to be
protected (for example, nest sites, breeding areas, and nurseries), or whether the habitat or
ecosystem is being nominated in its entirety.
(9) The nomination may include management strategies for the species or
habitats. Management strategip.s must be supported by the best available science, and where
restoration of habitat is proposed, a specific plan for restoration must be provided prior to
nomination.
(10) The Director shall determine whether the nomination proposal is
complete, and if complete, shall evaluate it according to the characteristics enumerated in
subsection (i) and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission based on those findings.
..(11) The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing for proposals found
to be complete and make a recommendation to the City Council based on the characteristics
enumerated in subsection (i).
(12) Following the recommendation ofthe Planning Commission, the City
Council shall decide whether to designate a Habitat or Species of Local Importance by
resolution.
(13) Establishment of specific rules for protection. Within 120 days of the
effective date of an ordinance designating a species or habitat of local importance, the Director
shall develop an administrative rule addressing protection in compliance with this section.
(14) Development Standards. Regulated uses in designated Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Areas and/or buffers shall comply with the performance standards outlined
in this Section.
20.14.730 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
For the purposes of this title, a designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation area with
its buffer is a critical area. Those regulated uses identified below within designated fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas shall comply with the performance standards outlined in this
Chapter. A habitat management plan (HMP) is a site investigation to evaluate the potential
presence or absence of a regulated fish or wildlife species or habitat affecting a subject property
and proposed development.
(a) Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species
(1) No development shall be allowed within a habitat conservation area or
buffer with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary .
association, except that which is provided for by a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) established
by the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife or applicable state or federal agency.
54
Critical Areas
(2) Whenever activities are proposed adjacent to a habitat conservation area
with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary
association, such area shall be protected through the application of protection measures in
accordance with a HMP prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the City.
Approval for alteration of land adjacent to the habitat conservation area or its buffer shall not
occur prior to consultation with the Washington Department ofFish arid Wildlife for animal
species, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for plant species, and other
appropriate federal or state agencies.
(3) Bald eagle habitat shall be protected pursuant to the Washington State
Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 232-12-292). Whenever activities are proposed adjacent to a
verified nest, territory, or communal roost and, activities that are adjacent to bald eagle sites
within eight hundred (800) feet or within one half mile (2,640 feet) and in a shoreline foraging
area shall require an approved HMP. The City shall verify the location of eagle management
areas for each proposed activity. Approval of the activity shall not occur prior to approval of the
HMP by the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife.
(b) Anadromous Fish
(l) All activities, uses, and alterations proposed to be located in water bodies
used by anadromous fish or in areas that affect such water bodies shall give special consideration
to the preservation and enhancement of anadromous fish habitat, including, but not limited to,
adhering to the following standards:
(i) Activities shall be timed to occur only during the allowable work
window as designated by the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife for the applicable
speCIes;
(ii) If alternative alignment or location for the activity is not feasible
then activities shall be designed so that it will not degrade the functions or values of the fish
habitat or other critical areas;
(iii) Shoreline erosion control measures shall be designed to use
bioengineering methods or soft armoring techniques, according to an approved critical area
report, and
(iv) Any impacts to the functions or values of the habitat conservation
area are mitigated in accordance with an approved Habitat Management Plan.
(2) Structures that prevent the migration of salmonids shall not be allowed in
the portion of water bodies currently or historically used by anadromous fish. Fish bypass
facilities shall be provided that allow the upstream migration of adult fish and shall prevent fry
and jUveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed.
(3) Fills, when authorized by the Shoreline Master Program, shall not
adversely impact anadromous fish or their habitat or shall mitigate any unavoidable impacts and
shall only be allowed for a water-dependent use.
(c) Wetland Habitats. All proposed activities within or adjacent to habitat
conservation areas containing wetlands shall conform to the wetland development performance
standards set forth in BMC 20.14.300. If non-wetlands habitat and wetlands are present at the
same location, the provisions of this Chapter or the Wetlands Chapter, whichever provides
greater protection to the habitat, apply.
(d) Buffers and Building Setback Areas. The distance shall be measured from the
ordinary high water mark (OHM) or from the top of the bank where the OHM cannot be
identified. Buffers shall remain undisturbed natural beach or vegetation areas except where the
55
Critical Areas
buffer can be enhanced to improve its functional attributes, as approved by the Department.
Buffers shall be maintained along the perimeter of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, as
listed below in table 1 ofBMC 20.14.730. Refuse shall not be placed in buffers. Alteration of
buffer areas and building setbacks may be allowed for water-dependent and water-related
activities and for other development authorized by a HMP, Reasonable Use Exceptions, General
Exemptions, Standards for Existing (nonconforming) Development, and Variances in General
Exemptions, BMC 20.14.140.
Ns
Urban Commercial!
Industrial! Downtown
Waterfront
Urban Residential
Urban Conservancy
Freshwater Shorelines
of the State
Fish Habitat Waters
Year-round, non-fish
habitat
Seasonal, non-fish
habi tat
15 feet beyond buffer
15 feet beyond buffer
15 feet beyond buffe~
35 feet
175 feet
175 feet
S
Freshwater
F
Np
15 feet beyond buffer
15 feet beyond buffer
150 feet
50 feet
15 feet beyond buffer
35 feet
(1) Buffers: Where existing buffer area plantings provide minimal vegetative
cover and cannot provide the Cities water quality standards or habitat functions (per the
requirements of the Department of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife), buffer enhancement shall be
required. Where buffer enhancement is required a plan shall be prepared that includes plant
densities that are not less than three (3) feet on center for shrubs and eight (8) feet on center for
trees. Monitoring and maintenance of plants shall be required in accordance with BMC
20.14.770, Monitoring Program and Contingency Plan. Existing buffer vegetation is considered
"inadequate" and will require enhancement through additional native plantings and removal of
non-native plants when:
(i) Non-native or invasive plant species provide the dominant cover;
(ii) Vegetation is lacking due to disturbance and marine, stream, or
habitat resources could be adversely affected; or
(iii) Enhancement plantings in the buffer could significantly improve
buffer functions.
(2) Minimum Building Setback: Is the required horizontal distance between
the finished exterior wall of a structure and the edge of the buffer of the lot on which the
structure is located. All portions of a structure must be located away from the buffer a distance
equal to or greater than the minimum setback. Uses not requiring a permit defined in the City
Building Code as set for in Chapter 17.04 BMC may be permitted in the setback if the
56
Critical Areas
Department determines that such intrusions will not adversely impact the fish and wildlife
habitat conservation area.
(3) Stream Buffer Measurement: Streams shall be classified according to
the stream type system as provided in WAC 222-16.031, Interim Water Typing System. Stream
buffer areas are defined by these classifications, as shown in BMC 20.14.730 Table 1 above.
Buffers shall be measured from the ordinary high water mark (OHM) or from the top of the bank
where the OHM cannot be identified. The buffer width shall be increased to include streamside
wetlands which provide overflow storage for storm waters, feed water back to the stream during
low flows or provide shelter and food for fish. In braided channels, the OHM or top of bank shall
be defined so as to include the entire stream feature.
(4) Buffer Averaging: Buffer widths may be modified by averaging buffer
widths as long as the total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than the
required buffer prior to averaging, and as set forth below. A buffer enhancement plan shall be
required for any request for buffer averaging. The enhancement plan shall be similar to a
mitigation plan, and include provisions for mitigation monitoring and contingency plans. Buffer
width averaging shall be allowed only where the applicant demonstrates through a report
prepared by a qualified biologist or habitat specialist with five (5) years experience that:
(i) Buffer averaging is necessary tOe avoid a hardship caused by
circumstances to the property;
(ii) The habitat contains variations in sensitivity due to existing
physical characteristics, or the buffer varies in characteristics and it would benefit from a wider
buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places;
(iii) Lower intensity land uses would be located adjacent to areas where
the buffer width is reduced;
(iv) The widest portion of the buffer shall be the area where the habitat
is most sensitive.
(v) Buffer width averaging will not adversely impact fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas;
(vi) The buffer width may be reduced by thirty-five percent (35%) of
the standard buffer, but not less than thirty-five (35) feet unless provided for by a habitat
management plan.
(5) Buffer Reduction: Buffers may be reduced where the applicant
demonstrates through an approved HMP relying on Best Available Science and prepared by a
qualified specialist with five (5) years experience that through buffer enhancement the smaller
buffer would provide equal or better protection than the larger buffer. Enhancement techniques
can include, but are not limited to:
(i) Planting of native trees or shrubs, increasing the diversity of plant
cover types, replacing exotic species with native species, or re-establishing fish area adjacent toa
marine shoreline or stream where one currently does not exist will result in improved function of
the fish habitat.
(ii) Fish barrier removal to restore accessibility to resident or
anadromous fish,
(iii) Fish habitat enhancement using log structures incorporated as part
of a fish habitat enhancement plan,
(iv) Stream and/or retention/detention pond improvements:
57
Critical Areas
a. Removal or modification of existing stream culverts (such
as at road crossings) to improve fish passage and flow capabilities, or
b. Upgrade of retention/detention facilities or other drainage
facilities beyond required levels to provide a more naturalized habitat.
(v) Removal of existing bulkheads to improve fish spawning and
habitat areas.
(vi) Day-lighting a stream that was previously culverted or piped, or
day-lighting box culverts or trestles.
(6) Stormwater Management Facilities. Stormwater management facilities,
limited to stormwater dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the outer twenty-
five percent (25%) of the buffer, provided that:
(i) No other location is feasible; and
(ii) The location of such facilities will not degrade the functions or
values of the stream and/or habitat area shown through an approved HMP.
(7) Low Impact Development (LID) Facilities. LID facilities, may
be allowed within stream buffers, provided that:
(i) No other location is feasible; and
(ii) The location of such facilities wpl not degrade the functions or
values of the stream and/or habitat area shown through an approved HMP.
(8) Habitat Conservation Area Buffers: Habitat Conservation Area
Buffers shall be shown on the development site plans or final plat maps along with the notation
requirements identified in BMC 20.58.080.
(i) If an existing property has a previously delineated and approved
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area and associated buffer by the City, the approved
conservation area and buffer may remain in effect. Redevelopment, and/or additions outside of
the existing footprint shall be subject to the previously approved buffer, however a buffer
enhancement plan may be required in accordance if the habitat buffer area has become degraded
or is currently not functioning or if the habitat area and/or buffer maybe negatively affected by
proposed new development. If according to the buffer enhancement plan, additional buffer
mitigation is not sufficient to protect the habitat, the City may require larger buffers where it is
necessary to protect habitat functions based on site-specific characteristics.
( e) Class I Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas. All development as described
within this Chapter or within 200 feet of designated Class I Wildlife Conservation Areas shall
adhere to the following standards:
(1) All sites with known locations of Class I Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Areas or sites within 200 feet to known locations of Class I Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Areas will require, for all development permits, the submittal and approval of a Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) as specified in BMC 20.14.750. In the case of bald eagles, an
approved Bald Eagle Management Plan by the Washington State Department ofFish and
Wildlife, meeting the requirements and guidelines ofthe bald eagle protection rules (WAC 232-
12-292), as now or hereafter amended shall satisfy the requirements for a HMP. The requirement
for a HMP shall be determined during the SEP A/Critical Areas review on the project.
(2) All new development within 200 ft of habitat elements with which Class I
Fish and Wildlife have a critical habitat may require the submittal of a HMP as specified in BMC
20.14.750. The requirement for a HMP shall be determined during the SEPA/Critical Areas
review on the project.
58
Critical Areas
",:1!!I\;:';2m~tt~7~Q;W~Bl~i~'~jltWHaIite'l'.a~1~jt~t.'Qij!1~~i;M'~lj"""
Class I All developments within 200 ft of a designated Class I Wildlife Habitat
Conservation area shall have buffer widths determined by a mandatory
habitat Management Plan.
Class II All development within a Class II Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area shall
have the buffer widths be determined by the SEP A/Critical Area review on
the project and may require a Habitat Management Plan.
(t) Class II Fish and Wildlife Conservation Area. All new development within
Class II Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas may require the submittal of a HMP. A HMP shall
consider measures to retain and protect the wildlife habitat and shall consider effects of land use
intensity, buffers, setbacks, impervious surfaces, erosion control and retention of native
vegetation. The requirement for a HMP shall be determined during the SEP A/Critical Areas
review on the project.
(g) Stream Crossings. Any private or public road expansion or new construction
which is allowed and must cross streams classified within this Chapter, shall comply with the
following minimum development standards:
(1) Bridges or bottomless culverts shall be required for all fish bearing
streams. Other alternatives may be allowed upon submittal of a Habitat Management Plan which
demonstrates that other alternatives would not result in significant impacts to the Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Area, as determined appropriate through the Washington State
Department ofFish and Wildlife, Hydraulics Project Approval process. The plan must
demonstrate that salmon habitat will be replaced on a 1: 1 ratio.
(2) Crossings shall not occur in Salmonid spawning areas unless no other
feasible crossing site exists. For new development proposals, if existing crossings are determined
to adversely impact salmon spawning or passage areas, new or upgraded crossings shall be
located as determined necessary through coordination with the Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife;
(3) Bridge piers or abutments shall not be placed in either the floodway or
between the ordinary, high water marks unless no other feasible alternative placement exists;
(4) Crossings shall not diminish flood carrying capacity;
(5) Crossings shall serve multiple properties whenever possible; and
(6) Where there is no reasonable alternative to providing a conventional
culvert, the culvert shall be the minimum length necessary to accommodate the permitted activity
(Guidance for these projects cali be found in the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife
"Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts" deign manual 1999, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service "Guidelines for salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings" 2000).
(h) Stream Relocations. Stream relocations for the purpose of flood protection
and/or fisheries restoration shall only be permitted when adhering to the following minimum
performance standards and when consistent with Washington State Department ofFish and
Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval:
(1) The channel, bank and buffer areas should be replanted with native
vegetation in undisturbed riparian condition; and,
(i) For those shorelands and waters designated as Frequently Flooded--
Areas, a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington shall provide information
demonstrating that the equivalent base flood storage volume and function will be maintained.
59
Critical Areas
(ii) Relocated stream chanriels shall be designed to meet or exceed the
functions and values of the stream to be relocated.
(i) Pesticides, Fertilizers and Herbicides. No pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers
may be used in Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas or their buffers, except those approved by
the EP A and approved under a DOE Water Quality Modification Permit for use in Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area environments. Where approved, herbicides must be applied
by a licensed applicator in accordance with the safe application practices on the label.
G) Land Divisions and Land User Permits. All proposed divisions ofland and
land uses (Subdivisions, Short Subdivisions, Residential Cluster Developments, Conditional Use
Permits, Site Plan Reviews, and Binding Site Plans) which include Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas shall comply with the following procedures and development standards:
(1) The open water area oflakes, streams, and tidal lands shall not be
permitted for use in calculating minimum lot area.
(2) Land division approvals shall be conditioned so that all required buffers
are dedicated as open space tracts or an easement or covenant encumbering the buffer. Such
dedication, easement or covenant shall be recorded together with the land division and
represented on the final plat, short plat or binding site plan.
(3) In order to avoid the creation of non-conforming lots, each new lot shall
contain at least one building site that meets the requirements of this Chapter, including buffer
requirements for habitat conservation areas. This site must also have access and a sewage
disposal system location that are suitable for development and does not adversely impact the Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Area. .
(4) After preliminary approval and prior to final land division approval, the
Department may require the common boundary between a required buffer and the adjacent lands
be identified using permanent signs. In lieu of signs, alternative methods of buffer identification
may be approved when such methods are determined by the Department to provide adequate
protection to the aquatic buffer.
(k) Trails and Trail-Related Facilities. Construction of public and private trails and
trail-related facilities, such as benches, interpretive centers, and viewing platforms, may be
allowed in Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas or their buffers pursuant to the
following standards:
(1) Trails and related facilities shall, to the extent feasible, be placed on
existing road grades, utility corridors, or other such previously disturbed areas;
(2) Trails and related facilities shall be planned to minimize removal oftrees,
shrubs, snags and important wildlife habitat;
(3) Viewing platforms, interpretive centers, benches and access to them, shall
be designed and located to minimize disturbance of wildlife habitat and/or critical characteristics
of the affected conservation area; and;
(4) Trails, in general, shall be set back from streams so that there will be no or
minimal impact to the stream from trail use or maintenance. Trails shall be constructed with
pervious surfaces when feasible.
(5) Trails shall be generally limited to pedestrian use unless other more
intensive uses, such as bike or horse trails have been specifically allowed and mitigation has
been provided. Trail width shall not exceed five feeLunless there is demonstrated need, subject
to review and approval by the Department. Trails shall be constructed with pervious materials
unless otherwise approved by the Department.
60
Critical Areas
(6) Trails shall not be allowed to fuily enclose a habitat area or buffer.
(7) The Department may require closure of trails during critical spawning,
migration or breeding time periods of the species present.
(1) Utilities. Placement of utilities within designated Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas may be allowed pursuant to the following standards:
(1) Utilities maintenance activities involving no material change in size or
function shall be allowed within designated Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation areas,
subject to best management practices.
(2) Construction of utilities may be permitted in Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas or their buffers, only when no feasible or reasonable alternative location is
available and the utility corridor meets the requirements for installation, replacement of
vegetation and maintenance outlined below, and as required in the filing and approval of a HMP
which may be required by this Chapter.
(3) Construction of sewer lines or on-site sewage systems may be permitted in
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas or their buffers when the applicant demonstrates it
is necessary to meet State and/or local health code requirements; there are no other feasible
alternatives available; and construction meets the requirement of this section. Joint use of the
sewer utility corridor by other utilities may be allowed.
(4) New utility corridors shall not be allowed in Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas with known locations of federal or state listed endangered, threatened or
sensitive species, heron rookeries or nesting sites of raptors which are listed as state candidate
except in those circumstances where an approved HMP indicates that the utility corridor will not
significantly impact the conservation area;
(5) New utility corridor construction and maintenance shall protect the
environment ofFish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and their buffers by the following:
(i) New utility facilities, improvement, or upgrades to existing utility
facilities should take place within existing improved right-of-way or existing impervious
surfaces so that they do not increase the amount of impervious surfaces within the habitat area.
(ii) New utility corridors shall be aligned when possible to avoid
cutting or root damage to trees greater than 12 inches in diameter at breast height (four and one-
half feet) measured on the uphill side.
(iii) New utility corridors shall be revegetated with appropriate native
or equivalent vegetation at not less than pre-construction vegetation densities or greater,
immediately upon completion of construction or as soon thereafter as possible due to seasonal
growing constraints. The utility shall ensure that such vegetation survives;
(iv) Any additional corridor access for maintenance shall be provided
wherever possible at specific points rather than by parallel roads. If parallel roads are necessary,
they shall be of a minimum width but no greater than 15 feet; and shall be contiguous to the
location of the utility corridor on the side away from the conservation area.
(6) Utility corridor maintenance shall include the following measures to
protect the environment of regulated Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas:
(i) Utility towers should be painted with brush, pad or roller and
should not be sandblasted or spray-painted, nor should lead base paints be used.
(ii) Pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides: No pesticides or
fertilizers may be used in Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas or their buffers, except those
61
Critical Areas
herbicides approved by a licensed applicator in accordance with the safe application practices on
the label.
(m) Bank Stabilzation. A stream channel and bank may be stabilized when naturally
occurring earth movement threatens existing structures (defined as requiring a Building Permit
pursuant to the applicable building code), public improvements, unique natural resources, public
health, safety or welfare, or the only feasible access to property, and, in the case of streams and
marine shorelines, when such stabilization results in maintenance of Fish and Wildlife Habitat,
flood control and improved water quality. Where bank stabilization is determined to be
necessary, bioengineering or other non~structural methods should be the first option for
protection. Bulkheads and retaining walls may only be utilized as an engineering solution where
it can be demonstrated that an existing residential structure cannot be safely maintained or
setback without such measures, and that the resulting retaining wall is the minimum length
necessary to provide a stable building area for the structure. A variance pursuant to BMC
20.58.030 must be obtained in all other cases. The Department may require that bank
stabilization be designed by a professional engineer and geologist licensed in the State of
Washington with demonstrated expertise in hydraulic actions of shorelines. Bank stabilization
projects may also require a City grading permit and Hydraulic Project Approval from the
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. Nonstructural marine shoreline and stream bank
protective techniques are preferred to bulkheads or other types of marine shoreline and stream
bank armoring. Nonstructural techniques include but are not limited to vegetation plantings and
bioengineering. Guidance for these projects can be found from the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife's "Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines Manual" for determining
when, why, where, and what projects needs to be completed to protect an eroding bank.
(n) Fencing and Signs. Prior to approval or issuance of permits for land divisions
and new development, the Department may require the common boundary between a required
buffer and the adjacent lands be identified using fencing or permanent signs. In lieu of fencing or
signs, alternative methods of buffer identification may be approved when such methods are
determined by the Department to provide adequate protection to the buffer.
(0) Road/Street Repair & Construction. Any private or public road or street
expansion or construction which is allowed in a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area or
its buffer shall comply with the following minimum development standards:
(1) No other reasonable or feasible alternative exists and the road or street
crossing serves multiple properties whenever possible;
(2) Expansion or construction of any private or public road shall only be
allowed when adverse impacts cannot be avoided;
(3) Public and private roads should provide for other purposes, such as utility
crossings, pedestrian or bicycle easements, viewing points, etc.;
(4) The road or street construction is the minimum necessary, as required by
the Department of Public Works, and shall comply with the Department of Public Works and
Utilities standards; and
(5) Construction time limits shall be determined in consultation with the
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife inorder to ensure habitat protection.
(p) Other Allowed uses in Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas. Other activities
may be allowed using the standard for a category II wetland buffer.
62
Critical Areas
20.14.740 SPECIAL REPORTS.
Habitat Management Plan Requirements:
(a) General. If the city determines that impacts to habitats may occur as a result of a
development project, a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) shall be required. The applicant may
choose to complete a HMP to for a site specific analysis to better determine the impact to habitat
and to determine the appropriate buffer width for their project based on the site specific analysis.
The preparation and submission of this report is the responsibility of the applicant. The report
shall rely on Best Available Science as defined in WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and
shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a biologist with five (5) years of experience
preparing reports for the relevant type of habitat. The city may retain a qualified consultant at the
applicant's expense to review and confirm the applicant's reports, studies and plans. The HMP
shall clearly demonstrate that greater protection of the functions and values of critical areas can
be achieved through the HMP than could be achieved through providing the prescribed habitat
buffers. An applicant may propose to implement a HMP as a means to protect habitat buffers
associated with streams and/or fish and wildlife conservation areas. Approval for a HMP shall
not occur prior to the consultation with the appropriate federal or state agencies.
(b) Intent. HMPs are primarily intended as a means to restore or improve buffers that
have been degraded by past activity, and should preserve, and not reduce, existing high quality
habitat buffers. While not primarily intended as a means to reduce buffers, the HMP may
propose a reduction of the habitat buffer width where it is shown that the HMP will comply with
the other requirements of this Section.
(c) Effect of buffers. A HMP shall provide habitat functions and values that are
greater than would be provided by the prescribed habitat buffers. When habitat buffers are a
component of a HMP, they shall be at least the minimum size necessary to accomplish the
objectives of the HMP. The HMP may propose, but the City shall not require, a habitat buffer
containing a greater area than is required by the prescribed habitat buffer.
(d) Impact mitigation. The HMP shall encompass an area large enough to provide
mitigation for buffer reduction below the standard required buffers, and shall identifY how the
development impacts resulting from the proposed project will be mitigated as defined in BMC
20.14.750. The developer ofthe plan shall use the best available science in all facets ofthe
analyses. The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species
Management Recommendations, and/or bald eagle protection rules outlined in WAC 232-12-
292, as amended, may serve as guidance for this report.
(e) The assessment of habitats for the site and project shall at a minimum include the
following information:
(1) A map prepared at an easily readable scale, showing:
(i) The location of the proposed development site;
(ii) Property boundaries;
(iii) The relationship of the site to surrounding topographic, water
features, and cultural features;
(iv) Proposed building locations and arrangements;
(v) A legend which includes a complete legal description, acreage of
the parcel, scale, north arrow, and date of map revision.
(2). Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project area and
its associated buffer;
63
Critical Areas
(3) Identification of any species of local importance, priority species, or
endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with
habitat on or adjacent to the project area, and assessment of potential project impacts to the use
of the site by the species;
(4) A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management
recommendations, including Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife habitat management
recommendations, that have been developed for species or habitats located on or adjacent to the
project area;
(5) A detailed discussion ofthe direct and indirect potential impacts on habitat
by the project, including potential impacts to water quality;
(6) Enhancement of existing degraded buffer area and replanting of the
disturbed buffer area with native vegetation;
(7) The use of alternative on-site wastewater systems in order to minimize site
clearing;
(8) Retention of existing native vegetation on other portions of the site in
order to. offset habitat loss from buffer reduction;
(9) The need for fencing and signage along the buffer edge.
(10) A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation, proposed to preserve existing habitats and restore any habitat that was degraded prior
to the current proposed land use activity and to be conducted in accordance with the mitigation
sequencing required by this Chapter; and
(11) A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect
habitat after the project site has been developed, including proposed monitoring, maintenance,
and enforcement programs.
(f) When appropriate due to the type of habitat or species present or the project
conditions, the Director may also require the habitat management plan to include:
(1) An evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the
applicant's analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, to
include any recommendations as appropriate;
(2) A request for consultation with the Washington Department ofFish and
Wildlife or the local Native American Indian Tribe or other appropriate agency; and
(3) Detailed surface and subsurface hydrologic features both on and adjacent
to the site.
(g) Mitigation measures. Possible mitigation measures to be included in the report, or
required by the Director, could include, but are not limited to:
(1) Establishment of buffer zones;
(2) Preservation of critically important plants and trees;
(3) Limitation of access to habitat areas;
(4) Seasonal restriction of construction activities;
(5) Establishing phased development requirements; and
(6) Monitoring plan for a period necessary to establish that performance
standards have been met. Generally this will be for a period of seven to ten years.
(h) HMP adequacy. The HMP shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that
the habitat functions and values are improved by implementation of the HMP. If there is a
disagreement between the city and the applicant as to the adequacy of the HMP, the issue of plan
adequacy shall be resolved by consulting with the appropriate Federal or State agency. If the
64
Critical Areas
Federal or State agencies are not available in a timely manner, the applicant may choose to have
the city referlthe HMPs to a third party consultant at the expense of the applicant. After
I
consultation with such State departments or third party consultant, the Director shall make a final
decision on the adequacy of the HMP.
(i) Timing. A HMP must be developed and approved_either prior to preliminary plat
approval or issuance of the building permit, as applicable, and must be implemented before the
City grants either final plat approval or an occupancy permit, as applicable.
20.14.750 MITIGATION STANDARDS AND CRITERIA.
(a) The applicant shall avoid all impacts that degrade the functions and values of a
critical area or areas. Unless otherwise provided in this Title, if alteration to the critical area is
unavoidable, all adverse impacts to or from critical areas and buffers resulting from a
development proposal or alteration shall be mitigated using the best available science in
accordance with an approved Habitat Management Plan and SEP A documents, so as to result in
no net loss of critical area functions and values.
(b) Mitigation shall be in-kind and on-site, when possible, and sufficient to maintain
the functions and values of the critical area, and to prevent risk from a hazard posed by a critical
area.
( c) Mitigation shall not be implemented until after 'the city's approval of a HMP that
includes a mitigation plan, and mitigation shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
approved HMP.
(d) Mitigation Sequencing. Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts
have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas. When an
alteration to a critical area is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or
compensated for in the following sequential order of preference:
(1) A voiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action;
(2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude ofthe action and
its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps, such as
project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts;
(3) Rectifying the impact to habitat conservation areas by repairing,
rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions
existing at the time of the initiation of the project;
(4) Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation
and maintenance operations during the life of the action;
(5) Compensating for the impact to habitat conservation areas by replacing,
enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and
(6) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial
action when necessary.
Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures.
(e) Mitigation Plan Requirements. When mitigation is required, the applicant shall
submit for approval by the city a mitigation plan as part ofthe HMP. The mitigation plan shall
include:
(1) Environmental Goals and Objectives. The mitigation plan shall include a
written report identifying environmental goals and objectives of the compensation proposed and
including:
65
Critical Areas
(i) A description of the anticipated impacts to the critical areas and the
mitigating actions proposed and the purposes of the compensation measures, including the site
selection criteria; identification of compensation goals; identification of resource functions; and
dates for beginning and completion of site compensation construction activities. The goals and
objectives shall be related to the functions and values of the impacted critical area;
(ii) A review ofthe best available science supporting the proposed
mitigation and a description of the report author's experience to date in restoring or creating the
type of critical area proposed; and
(iii) An analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation
project.
(2) Performance Standards. The mitigation plan shall include measurable
specific criteria for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the mitigation project
have been successfully attained and whether or not the requirements of this Title have been met.
(3) Detailed Construction Plans. The mitigation plan shall include written
specifications and descriptions of the mitigation proposed, such as:
(i) The proposed construction sequence, timing, and duration;
(ii) Grading and excavation details;
(iii) Erosion and sediment control features;
(iv) A planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations,
size, spacing, and density; and
(v) Measures to protect and maintain plants until established.
These written specifications shall be accompanied by detailed site diagrams, scaled cross-
sectional drawings, topographic maps showing slope percentage and final grade elevations, and
any other drawings appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome.
(4) Monitoring Program. The mitigation plan shall include a program for
monitoring construction ofthe compensation project and for assessing a completed project
(BMC 20.14.760 monitoring and contingency plan). A protocol shall be included outlining the
schedule for site monitoring (for example, monitoring shall occur in years 1,3,5, and 7 after site
construction), and how the monitoring data will be evaluated to determine if the performance
standards are being met. A monitoring report shall be submitted as needed to document
milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The
compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance
standards have been met, but not for a period less than five (5) years.
(5) Contingency Plan. The mitigation plan shall include identification of
potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken if monitoring or evaluation
indicates project performance standards are not being met (BMC 20.14.760).
(6) Financial Guarantees. The mitigation plan shall include financial
guarantees, if necessary, to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully implemented. Financial
guarantees ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring program, and any
contingency measures shall be posted in accordance with Bonds to Ensure Mitigation,
Maintenance, and Monitoring (BMC 20.14.760).
(t) Innovative Mitigation
(1) The city may encourage, facilitate, and approve innovative mitigation
projects that are based on the best available science. Advance mitigation or mitigation banking
are examples of alternative mitigation projects allowed under the provisions of this Section
66
Critical Areas
wherein one or more applicants, or an organization with demonstrated capability, may undertake
a mitigation project together if it is demonstrated that all of the following circumstances exist:
(i) Creation or enhancement of a larger system of critical areas
and open space is preferable to the preservation of many individual habitat areas;
(ii) The group demonstrates the organizational and fiscal capability to
act cooperatively;
(iii) The group demonstrates that long-term management of the habitat
area will be provided; and
(iv) There is a clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at
the identified mitigation site.
20.14.760 MONITORING AND CONTINGENCY PLAN.
(a) A monitoring program shall be included as a part ofthe approved mitigation plan
for a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area. To ensure that the performance standards of
the approved mitigation plan have been met, the mitigation and/or buffer enhancement site(s)
shall be monitored for a minimum of five (5) years. A longer monitoring period may be required
by the City based on either the initial mitigation plan or a review of subsequent monitoring
reports. The monitoring reports shall be submitted on August I st of each year during the
monitoring period. ^
An acceptable surety device is required to ensure the applicant's compliance with the
terms of the mitigation agreement.
Performance Surety: All mitigation and buffer enhancement shall be completed prior to
final plat approval and/or building occupancy depending on the type of application. However,
when improvements cannot be completed prior to final acceptance due to weather conditions
which may negatively affect the success of the project, a performance surety may be used. The
performance surety shall equal one hundred fifty (150) percent of the cost ofthe mitigation
project, and the required improvements shall be installed in a satisfactory manner within six
months or less.
(1) Maintenance Surety: A maintenance surety shall be required on all
mitigation projects to ensure that the improvement successfully survives the monitoring periods
set above.
(i) Mitigation Projects: The amount of the maintenance surety shall
be equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the cost of the mitigation project and the term of the surety
shall reflect the term of the monitoring program.
(ii) Buffer Enhancement Projects: The amount of the maintenance
surety shall be equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the costs ofthe enhancement project and the
term of the surety shall reflect the term of the monitoring program.
(2) Monitoring Deposit: A cash deposit shall be submitted with all sureties
prior to final acceptance of the project to cover the estimated City's costs to review the yearly
monitoring reports and conduct a site inspection to ensure the performance standards are being
met.
(b) Long Term Maintenance. To ensure the long term success ofthe Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area, the applicant or their heirs or successors shall be responsible
for the long term maintenance of the habitat area and its associated buffer. The habitat and
buffer shall be kept clear of weeds, invasive plant material, lawn clippings, junk, debris,
intrusions or the like.
67
Critical Areas
SECTION 8. Table 040 of Chapter 20.02 ofthe Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Project Permit Processing Procedures" is hereby amended to read as follows:
Table 040 Project Permit Processing Procedures
TYPE I DIRECTOR DECISIONS
Application Type Determination of Notice of Notice of Notice of
Completeness Application Hearing Decision
(1) Administrative No No No No
determination! code
interpretation
(2) Alternative Setback No No No No
Approval
(3) Boundary Line No No No No
Adjustment
(4) Building and other Yes No No No
Construction Permits
(5) Clearing less than 2 acres No No No No
of forest
(6) Demolition Permit No No No No
(exempt from SEP A)
(7) Final Planned Unit No No No No**
Development
(8) Fill and Grading Permit No No No No
(exempt from SEPA)
(9) Home Occupation No No No No
Permit
(10) Landscaping or No No No No
Alternative Landscaping
Plan
(11) Minor Amendment No No No No
to an approved
Preliminary Plat
(12) Minor Amendment No No No No
to an approved
Preliminary PUD
(13) Minor Amendment No No No No
to other Permits not
listed
(14) Nonconforming use No No No No
Determinations
(15) Type I Permit or No No No No
Approval Revocation
(16) Recreational Vehicle No No No No ;',
90-day Permit
(17) Sign Permit No No No No
(18) Site Plan Review Yes No No No
(exempt from SEPA)*
68
Critical Areas
Application Type Determination of Notice of Notice of Notice of
Completeness Application Hearinl! Decision
(19) Temporary No No No No
emergency wetland or
stream pennits
(20) Modification of No No No No
Critical Areas Standards
(exempt form SEPA)***
* Applicable to Site Plan Review that is independent of and not part of a building or land use application.
** Director's decision on final POO plan shall be sent to parties of record.
*** Procedures for modification of critical areas are detailed within the specific sections of the critical
area regulations in Chapter 20.14 BMC.
TYPE II DIRECTOR DECISIONS
Application Type Determination of Notice of Notice of Notice of
Completeness Application Hearinl! Decision
(1) Administrative Yes Yes No Yes
Conditional Use Pennit
(2) Binding Site Plan Yes Yes No Yes
(3) Demolition Pennit Yes Yes No Yes
(requiring SEP A)
(4) Fill and Grading Pennit Yes Yes No Yes
(requiring SEP A)
(5) Nonconfonning No Yes No Yes
Administrative
Continuance*
(6) Type II Permit or No No No No
Approval Revocation
(7) Site Plan Review Yes Yes No Yes
(requiring SEP A)
(8) Shoreline Pennit Yes Yes No Yes
Revision
(9) Shoreline Substantial Yes Yes No Yes
Development Pennit
(10) Short Subdivision Yes Yes No Yes
(11 ) Wetland or stream Yes Yes No Yes
Assessment
(12) Wetland or stream Yes Yes No Yes
development permit
(13) Building and other Yes Yes No Yes
Construction Pennits
(requiring SEP A)
(14) Modification of Yes Yes No Yes
critical area standards
(requiring SEPA)**
*Notice of Application shall be mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and the
notice of decision shall be issued within 60 days.
**Procedures for modification of critical areas are detailed within the specific sections of the critical area
regulations in Chapter 20.14 BMC.
69
Critical Areas
TYPE III HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS
Application Type Determination of Notice of Notice of Notice of
COrnpleteness Application Hearing Decision
(1) Non-administrative Yes Yes Yes Yes
Conditional Use Permit
(2) Major PUD Amendment Yes Yes Yes Yes
(3) Major Amendment Yes Yes Yes Yes
Preliminary Subdivision
(4) Preliminary PUD Yes Yes Yes Yes
(5) Preliminary Subdivision Yes Yes Yes Yes
(6) Senior Housing Yes Yes Yes Yes
Complexes
(7) Shoreline Conditional Yes Yes Yes Yes
Use Permit
(8) Shoreline Variance Yes Yes Yes Yes
(9) Type III Permit No No No No
Approval Revocation
(10) Variance Yes Yes Yes Yes
TYPE IV CITY COUNCIL DECISIONS
Application Type Determination of Notice of Notice of Notice of
Completeness Application Hearing Decision
(1) Rezone for site~specific Yes Yes Yes Yes
property*
(2) Final Subdivision** No No No No
(3) Development Agreement Yes No No No
(4) Vacation of Subdivision Yes Yes Yes Yes
*The Hearing Examiner holds the open-record hearing and provides a recommendation to the City
Council.
** A final subdivision may be decided at a public meeting and it does not require a public hearing.
SECTION 9. Severabilitv. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion ofthis ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 10. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council the
day of
,2006
CECIL McCONNELL, Council President
70
Critical Areas
Approved this
day of
,2006
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
P AULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the
EFFECTIVE the
ORDINANCE NO.
day of
day of
,2006
,2006
R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Community Development\Critical Areas 2006.doc
71
Critical Areas
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Summary - The Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Chapter 20.14 of
Bremerton Land Use, Critical Areas Ordinance (CAD) Update. The CAD protects public
health, safety, and private property from harm due to building or activities in critical
areas. The CAD also protects the environment and priority natural habitats. The five
required categories of Critical Areas are: Wetlands, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas,
Frequently Flooded Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas, and Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas.
In 1995 the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) was amended to require
the use of Best Available Science or "BAS" when designating and protecting critical
areas. There is growing awareness that landscapes function as ecological units.
Actions and disruptions to the environmental processes in one part of the landscape
can influence the remaining parts, affecting its ability to function as a self-sustaining
ecosystem. All cities and counties are required to update their critical areas regulations
to include BAS, or state money will be withheld. The final deadline for Bremerton to
update its CAD without loosing state funds is early 2006. The last time Bremerton
updated its CAD was 1993, which was prior to the BAS requirement.
Findings of Heightened Significance - These findings are organized in two sections.
Section I includes general findings on the approach and conclusions of the CAD Update
as a whole. Section II includes findings of heightened significance related to delicate
topics or sections of the CAD that need augmented BAS documentation. Integration of
the CAD and the regulatory elements of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) are one area of heightened significance. There have been several recent growth
management hearings board cases on CAD I SMP integration, and CAD I SMP
integration has significant consequences for development regulations along
Bremerton's shorelines.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT - GENERAL
1. Project Description
The Update to Bremerton's CAD consists of clarification, reorganization and minor
updates necessary to bring the CAD in line with State requirements. Specifically, areas
of the existing Bremerton CAD that do not meet the BAS standard are rectified.
Bremerton is relying on quality examples that other Cities around the Puget Sound have
set in successfully updating their CAD's. Much of Bremerton is a long-established
urban environment with urban infrastructure. The proposed Bremerton CAD Update
reflects its urban character, while providing strong protections for Critical Areas.
1 of 15
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
2. Procedural History
The Bremerton CAO Update was drafted, reviewed and recommended for adoption
after a series of workshops with members of the public; a citizen's advisory committee;
a technical reviewer committee; and the Bremerton Planning Commission. The timeline
for workshops, public comment, hearings and review of drafts is summarized below.
Advertisement and publication efforts are also included to document extensive efforts to
solicit public comment.
2.1 Spring 2005: Citizens Advisory Committee. Multiple meetings convened for
education and community-based preference on the CAO.
2.2 Nov.-Dec. /2005: Staff Draft. DCD staff reviews CAC meeting tapes for
general guidance in preparing CAO. DCD Staff compiles and reviews BAS and
model codes.
2.3 12/20/05 Draft Review. Initial draft released by DCD staff for review and
comment.
~ All past participants including all CAC members, commentors and
Planning Commission members directly notified via e-mail, postal mail
and telephone calls.
~ 12/17/05 Newspaper Advertisement: Large commercial format public
information advertisements published in the Kitsap Dun newspaper.
.~ 12/22/05 Dedicated CAO web-page created. Initial CAO draft posted
on website.
2.4 12/20/05 State Agency Review. Draft circulated to State Agencies to begin
required 60-day comment period.
2.5 1/6/06 SEPA Review. Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) issued on
draft Critical Areas Ordinance.
~ 1/20/06 Comment Period. Expiration of DNS comment period.
~ 1/30/06 Appeal Period. Expiration of DNS appeal period, no appeals
filed.
2.6 1/17/06 Planning Commission Workshop. Regular planning commission
meeting held. Draft CAO reviewed in workshop format.
2.7 Newspaper Advertisements. Published in Kitsap Sun newspaper in large
commercial format.
~ 1/5/06
~ 1/12/06
~ 1/29/06
2.8 1/30/2006 - 2/20/2006 BKA T Advertisements. Public information slides post on
BKAT Television announcing CAO update and dates of all Planning
commission meetings and public workshop dates on the CAO.
2.9 1/24/2006 Technical Review Committee. Expert representatives from State
and local agencies and tribes convened. Planning Commission members in
attendance.
2.10 1/26/2006 Citizen's Advisory Committee. Citizen Advisory Committee
members convened. Planning Commission members in attendance.
2 of 1 5
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
2.11 2/07/06 Planning Commission Workshop. Special meeting. Further discussion
of draft CAO in workshop format. Second staff draft issued.
2.12 2/14/2006 Planning Commission Hearing. Public hearing on draft CAO.
2.13 2/28/06 Planning Commission Recommendation. Continued Public Hearing
and recommendation for City Council adoption on CAO Update.
3. Public Comment
Public comment was received throughout the duration of the CAO Update. Comment
was received in various formats including letters, e-mails, and public testimony at
hearings. The Planning Commission addressed the full range of comments received.
3.1 Individuals providing written comments including e-mail.
a. Richard Nerf, City Resident
b. Art Castle, Home Builders Association of Kitsap County
c. Allison O'Sullivan, Suquamish Tribe Fisheries Department
d. David Toyer, Barclays North inc.
e. Jeff Davis, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
f. John Cambalik, Puget Sound Action Team
3.2 Individuals providing verbal testimony at Planning Commission:
a. Richard Nerf, City Resident
b. Allison O'Sullivan, Suquamish Tribe Fisheries Department
c. Jeff Davis, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife
d. Roger Lubovich, City Attorney
e. Art Castle, Home Builders Association of Kitsap County
f. Jeff Hecker, Hecker Architects and City Resident
g. Dick Bruskrud, Mithun Architects and City Resident
4. SEPA Determination
The SEPA Environmental Impact Checklist for the proposed Section 20.14 CAO Update
is completed. The City of Bremerton reviewed the Checklist on the proposal and issued
a Determination of Non Significance (DNS) on January 6th, 2006. The public comment
period on the DNS expired on January 20, 2006. The appeal period on the DNS
expired on January 30,2006, and no appeals were filed. The basis for the DNS rests on
the fact that the CAO enhances protections for the environment in every category, and
the CAO incorporates BAS for the protection of critical areas.
5. Consistency
5.1 The proposal meets requirements of the Washington State Growth Management
Act (GMA). F3CW 36.70A.060(2) requires all counties and cities to adopt
3 of 15
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
development regulations to protect critical areas. In 1995 the GMA was
amended to require the incorporation of Best Available Science in the
development of Critical Areas regulations. Bremerton is required to show
substantial progress towards update of the CAO, and to incorporate BAS by
December 31,2005.
Best Available Science: The recommended CAO Update to Chapter 20.14 is
based on a wide range of BAS sources. A bibliography of BAS sources and
physical compilation of documents was prepared by the City and constitutes a
valid BAS record as presented to the Commission for review. (See Attachment
I). The BAS includes scientific information presented and available at the time of
the update, and sources are those using a valid scientific process. The science
relied upon is practically and economically feasible to be implemented at the
time of the update. The science relied upon is critically reviewed by qualified
experts, utilizes standard methods, and draws logical conclusions based on
quantitative methods. The recommended regulations of Chapter 20.14 are
within the bounds of the BAS record.
Minimum Requirements: The recommended CAO Update addresses the
minimum categories as defined by the GMA RCW 36.70A030(5) includes
"wetlands; areas with critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable
water; fish and wildlife habitat c~nservation areas; frequently flooded areas; and
geologically hazardous areas", in its definition of "Critical Areas". Each of these
five categories is explicitly addressed in a section of the proposed CAO Update.
5.2 The recommended CAO Update includes adequate protection for Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas as designated by WAC 365-190-080(5) as
those areas necessary for maintaining species in suitable habitats within their
natural geographic distribution so that isolated subpopulations are not created.
These areas include but are not limited to areas with which state or federally
designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary
association.
5.2 The recommended CAO Update is consistent with the City of Bremerton
Comprehensive Plan and Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) including
the following:
2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
· E4 Encourage conservation of critical areas and nonrenewable
resources.
· . E4b Preserve the integrity of riparian corridors and steep slopes
through the preservation of native plants and the replacement of
invasive, non-native plants with native plants.
4 of 1 5
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
. E6 Protect, preserve, and restore the habitats that support
Bremerton's diverse ecosystems.
. E6e Direct new development away from important aquatic habitats
such as areas use by salmon and Steelhead, Kelp and Eelgrass bed
and other priority habitats.
. E8 Protect and preserve Bremerton's unique marine and fresh water
resources.
Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies
. G3 The County and the Cities shall ensure environmental protection,
water quality and conformance with ESA requirements through best
management practices
. C4 The County's Comprehensive Plan policies shall promote...
techniques to protect and enhance significant open spaces, natural
resources...
5.4 The proposal will not adversely affect the public health, safety, general welfare,
or private property. The recommended CAO Update includes provisions and
regulations intended to protect the public health, safety, general welfare by
preventing development in environmentally sensitive areas.
5.5 The recommended CAO Update will result in minor modifications to the
development and use potential of certain areas. The CAO Update revises
certain buffer distances and use provisions in certain critical areas. Impacts to
development and use potential results from the necessity to incorporate BAS
and protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The CAO Update
also affords substantial protections to private property from damage or
destruction due to inappropriate development in critical areas. Additionally a
Reasonable Use Exception is included in the CAO to ensure that reasonable
use of all private property is maintained in all cases.
5.6. The recommended CAO Update does not create significant adverse impacts
on existing sensitive land uses, businesses or residents. The CAO includes
regulations to protect the public health, safety and public welfare and private
property from inappropriate development in or near Critical Areas. A SEPA
environmental review was conducted on the recommended CAO Update, and
no significant adverse impacts were found.
5.6 The recommended CAO Update included continuous and open public
involvement and adequate public notice. The CAO Update underwent
numerous public hearings, and public workshops, technical reviewer
workshops, and review at the Planning Commission level. All public hearings at
the Planning Commission level, as well as public workshops, were noticed with
5 of 1 5
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
formal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun, and dates were posted on the City of
Bremerton website. Drafts of the recommended CAO Update were
continuously posted to the City of Bremerton website, and paper copies were
made available for review at the Community Development offices at 345 6th St.,
and at public libraries.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT - HEIGHTENED SIGNIFICANCE
Wetlands
Wetlands and streams are environmentally sensitive and serve numerous natural
functions and values. These functions include wildlife and fisheries habitat, water quality
protection, flood protection, shoreline stabilization, stream flow, and ground water
recharge and discharge. In many situations these functions cannot be adequately
replicated or replaced.
The scientific literature supports protective buffers ranging from 25 to 300 feet of
relatively intact native vegetation to adequately protect wetland functions and values, to
provide sediment control and nutrient inputs to wetlands, and to protect important
wetland functions. The buffers that are included in the ordinance range from 50 to 200
feet and are reflective of the best available science.
Wetlands are identified and rated according to the Washington State Department Of
Ecology wetland rating system found in the Washington State Wetland Rating system
for Western Washington (DOE Publication #04-06-025). This is the best scientific
methodology available to classify wetlands in Washington State.
Appropriate wetland mitigation ratios - ratios of areas of wetland replacement and
enhancement to that altered or destroyed - are based on the BAS presented in
Guidance on Wetland Mitigation In Washington State, Published By Department of
Ecology, 2004. (Publication #04-06-0139 and #04-06-0126).
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
WAC 365-190-080 defines well head protection areas, sole source aquifers, special
protection areas, and other areas that are susceptible or vulnerable to ground water
contamination as areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable
water (also referred to as critical aquifer recharge areas).
Potable water is an essential life-sustaining element. Much of Bremerton's drinking
water comes from groundwater supplies. Once ground water is contaminated it is
difficult, costly, and sometimes impossible to clean up. Preventing groundwater
contamination is necessary to avoid exorbitant costs, hardships, and potential physical
harm to people. The revised code ensures that future impacts to Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas will be prevented.
6 of15
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
Guidance Document for Establishment of Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Ordinances,
by the Department of Ecology, 2000, includes scientific recommendations for protecting
groundwater, including limiting certain uses and the intensity of development in critical
aquifer recharge areas.
Frequently Flooded Areas
Flood hazard areas are subject to periodic inundation that results in loss of life and
property, health, and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental
services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and
impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
These flood losses are caused by development in areas prone to inundation that
increase flood heights and velocities, and when inadequately anchored, damage uses in
other areas. Uses that are inadequately floodproofed, elevated, or otherwiseprotected
from flood damage also contribute to flood loss.
Floodplain and stream connectivity are major elements in maintaining healthy riparian
habitat and off-channel habitats for the survival of fish species and ,conveyance of
floodwaters. If river, floodplains and other systems are not viewed holistically as
biological, geomorphological units, this can lead to serious degradation of habitat and
increase flood hazards, which, in turn, can contribute to listing of various fish species as
threatened or endangered and result in extraordinary public expenditures for flood
protection and relief.
Frequently flooded areas, including the 1 DO-year floodplain and the f1oodway, are
commonly mapped on flood insurance maps, often known as Flood Insurance Rate
Maps, or FIRMs. The amendments to the FFA regulations ensure that future
development only takes place outside of the floodplain.
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Geologically hazardous areas are subject to periodic geological events that results in
loss of life and property, health, and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and
governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures, and impairment of the tax
base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Geologic hazards may be exacerbated by development and human activity in sensitive
areas, and impacts resulting from geologic hazards may be reduced by limiting
development and human activity within or adjacent to the geologic hazard.
An excellent discussion found in Department of Ecology publication Coastal Landsliding
_on Puget Sound was relied on heavily for understanding of geologically hazardous
areas. Additionally, BAS reports from the City of Edmonds, City of Issaquah and King
County were used to help determine appropriate 'high' and 'moderate' hazard
7 of 1 5
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
classification criteria and development standards, which are supportable by the science.
The Geologically Hazardous Areas standards are based on the BAS, and are adequate
to protect public health safety and welfare from harm due to development in potentially
unstable or slide-prone areas.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas perform many important physical and
biological functions that benefit the City and its residents, including but not limited to:
maintaining species diversity and genetic diversity; providing opportunities for food,
cover, nesting, breeding and movement for fish and wildlife; serving as areas for
recreation, education and scientific study and aesthetic appreciation; helping to maintain
air and water quality; controlling erosion; and providing neighborhood separation and
visual diversity within urban areas.
Wetlands and streams are environmentally sensitive and serve numerous natural
functions and values. These functions include wildlife and fisheries habitat, water quality
protection, flood protection, shoreline stabilization, stream flow, and ground water
recharge and discharge. In many situations these functions cannot be adequately
replicated or replaced. The scientific literature supports inclusion of protective buffers
from streams to provide sediment control, nutrient inputs to downstream waters, large
woody debris, and other functions important to riparian areas.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has prepared management
recommendations for the preservation of priority habitat and species, which are based
on the best available science, and include, in some instances, recommended protective
buffer distances. The City used the PHR as a main source for determining the buffers
for Ns streams. The PHR shows on page 85 that buffers of 25' are acceptable for Np
streams. Furthermore several other urban jurisdictions have chosen very similar buffers
for this stream type including: Auburn at 25', Redmond at 25'-36', Edmonds at 10',
Kirkland at 25'-35', and King County at 25'. Bremerton is also including a 15' building
setback from the buffer for a total of 50'. The PHR further shows on page 85 that
buffers of 100' are acceptable for type Sand F streams. Moreover several other urban
jurisdictions have chosen very similar buffer widths for Sand F streams including
Auburn at 100' for Sand 75' for F, Redmond at 150' for Sand 100' for F, Edmonds at
150' for Sand 75' for F, and Kitsap County at 200' and 150' for F. .
Kelp and eelgrass beds have been identified and mapped by the Department of Natural
Resources in some areas. Herring and smelt spawning times and locations are outlined
in WAC 220-110-240 through 220-110-260. Locations for both may be found by
referring to Critical Spawning Habitat for Herring, Surf Smelt, Sand Lance and Rock
Sole in Puget Sound, Washington: A Guide for Local Governments and Interested
Citizens, March 2002, and the Puget Sound Environmental Atlas, Volumes 1 and 2.
Salmonid and anadromous fish may be more impacted by development and human
activity during some times than others. Such times are referred to as "fish windows,"
8 of 1 5
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
which have been documented by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The CAG
revisions have specific requirements to protect anadromous fish.
The Department of Natural Resources has classified watercourses according to a
stream-typing system based on channel width, fish use, and perennial or intermittent
status.
WAC 365-190-080(5) grants Bremerton the flexibility to make decisions in the context of
local circumstances, and specifically excuses local jurisdictions from being required to
protect "all individuals of all species at all time."
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (CAO) I
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SMP) INTEGRATION
Detailed findings on CAG I SMP integration are included in this section because several
recent Hearings Board cases and legislation provide important new direction. These
findings seek to document with clarity the Planning Commission's rationale for its
position on CAG I SMP integration, as well as the BAS used to arrive at conclusions for
saltwater shoreline buffers.
BACKGROUND - The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) of 1971 directed local
jurisdictions to create Shoreline Master Programs to provide local management of
shorelines of statewide significance in a manner which enhances the public interest,
protects against adverse impacts to public health, vegetation and wildlife, and fosters
development. In 1976 the City of Bremerton adopted an SMP, with substantial
amendments in 1988 and 1992. RCW 90.58.100 outlines the duties and required
program contents for local jurisdictions to use. This list requires that jurisdictions use an
integrated balance of natural and social sciences and all available information regarding
hydrology, geography, topography, ecology, economics, and other pertinent data.
Based on this guidance the City of Bremerton created a SMP that includes 25' shoreline
setbacks for urban conservancy lands, residential lands, and water-related or water-
enjoyment commercial uses, and 35' buffers for water-related industrial uses, 50'
buffers for non-water oriented commercial uses, and 0' buffers for water-dependant
commercial and industrial uses.
Prior to this CAG Update the policy of the City of Bremerton has been to allow the SMP
to function as the primary rule governing use and buffers of saltwater shorelines. In the
past, the City of Bremerton has not explicitly regulated saltwater shorelines within the
CAG based on the idea that the SMP would prevail as the comprehensive approach to
Shoreline Management. The SMP predates the Growth Management Act's call for
integration of BAS (1995), the existing SMP does not expressly integrate BAS, and in
some cases does not meet a BAS standard in the protection of shoreline natural
resources. Bremerton is not required to update its SMP until 2011.
9 of 1 5
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
At the start of its CAO update, Bremerton's initial approach was to continue a policy of
allowing the SMP to govern shorelines, and wait until the required SMP update to
substantially integrate BAS. However, two recent Growth Management Hearings Board
cases, and a special House Bill directly reject this approach. Hearings Boards and the
legislature have ruled that jurisdictions can not defer the use of BAS in the management_
of their shorelines, and must adequately address shorelines in their CAOs. The clear
message is that jurisdictions may not rely on old SMPs to 'section off' their shorelines
from Critical Areas review. In response to these mandates Bremerton is adjusting its
approach to integrate a BAS standard in the management of shorelines at the time of
the current CAO update.
CALLS FOR SMP / CAO INTEGRA TION - In July of 2003 the Legislature passed
House Bil/1933 (ESHB 1933) declaring shoreline management act "legislative intent".
ESHB 1933 relates to the integration of shoreline management policies with the growth
management act (GMA). It amended RCW 36.70A 480 to include provisions:
· (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areas
located within shorelines of the state at least equal to the level of protection
provided to critical areas by the local government's CAO adopted and
thereafter amended pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060(2)
. · (5) Shorelines of the state shall not be considered critical areas under this
chapter except to the extent that they qualify for critical areas designation
based on the definition of critical areas provided by RCW 36.70A.030(5)
· (6) If a local jurisdiction's master program does not include land necessary
for buffers for critical areas that occur within shorelines of the state, as
authorized by RCW 90.58.030(2)(f), then the local jurisdiction shall regulate
those critical areas and their required buffers pursuant to the CAO per RCW
36.70A.060(2).
These additions to ESHB 1933 clarify that marine shorelines already protected by the
SMP, which qualify as critical areas, should also be regulated by the CAO. The SMP
must provide a level of protection at least equal tothe CAO, and CAO buffers shall be
the more dominant regulation in cases where the SMP has not yet been updated using
BAS.
The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board directly upheld ESHB
1933 directives in the case with the most immediate relevance to Bremerton: Tahoma
Audubon Society, People For Puget sound and Citizens For A Healthy Bay vs.
Pierce County (CPSGMHB # 05-3-0004c - 'Pierce County'). Pierce County sought to
take the approach of relying substantially on an existing SMP in the management of
shorelines. The Board found that Pierce County's CAO document uniformly showed the
importance of shorelines in the life cycle of anadromous fish; however the document did
not afford any protection for anadromous fish through the CAO. The board reiterated
that many marine shorelines and their habitats are critical areas and should be-
1 0 of 15
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
protected under the CAD. The board held that Pierce County failed to comply with
RCW 36.70A.172 (1) which states: In designating and protecting critical areas under
this chapter, counties and cities shall include BAS in developing policies and
development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition,
counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection
measures necessary to preserve or enhance anaClromous fisheries. The Board ruled
against the County, directing them to integrate protection of critical shorelines in the
CAD.
A second case from the Western Hearings Board, Evergreen Islands, Futurewise and
Skagit Audubon Society vs. City of Anacortes (WGMHB #05-2-0016, 'Anacortes')
further reinforced the mandate to integrate CAD and SMP. In Anacortes the petitioners
challenged the City's buffer widths for several critical areas, including Shorelines.
Regarding shorelines, the City argued that the Board did not have jurisdiction over the
challenge to shoreline critical areas because shorelines are governed by the Shoreline
Management Act. The Board found that by updating its CAD, the City was making de
facto amendments to the City's SMP - following the intent of ESHB 1933. The ruling
suggests that CAD updates implicitly amend SMP's to the extent that there are
shoreline critical areas involved.
These cases and legislation lead to a key question, which we feel is adequately
answered by the proposed Bremerton CAD update and supporting BAS record.
How and to what extent will Bremerton's CAO Update integrate shoreline
management and incorporate BAS related to shorelines?
BREMERTON'S SHORELINE INTEGRA TION & BAS
Based on ESHB 1933 and Pierce County, Bremerton is integrating shoreline
management and shoreline BAS in the current CAD update. Extensive thought and
consideration went into the buffer widths in the Fish and Wild life Conservation Areas
section of the CAD, where saltwater shoreline environments are specifically addressed.
Staff analyzed a significant amount of BAS, considered the urban nature of the City,
reviewed the goals and policies of the GMA and SMP, and took guidance from the
Comprehensive Plan to determine buffer widths, and gave special consideration to
anadromous fish.
It is important to note at the outset that the bulk of the available science on wetland and
stream buffer widths in the literature relate to freshwater stream and land animal habitat.
A lesser amount of science is available specifically addressing marine waters. State
agency representatives admitted this fact to City staff during the CAD update, and the
Kitsap C~unties BAS White Paper notes "There is a scarcity of scientific data examining
the marine-riparian interactions" (Levings and Jamieson,2001). Given the slant of buffer
data towards freshwater environments, _the Bremerton CAD affords greater variance in
11 of 15
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
the protection of shoreline environments than freshwater environments, based on the
presence of fewer concrete benchmarks in the science of marine riparian environments.
Best Available Science - One of the most helpful BAS sources relied upon by
Bremerton in updating its stream and marine buffers is the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife's Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats -
Riparian (PHR) (Knutson and Naef, 1997). This document is based on numerous
supporting BAS sources and summarizes many other studies' buffer recommendations
for streams and shorelines. Starting on page 157, the PHR provides a table showing
the source and recommended buffer widths from other studies. These
recommendations vary greatly depending upon the habitat function being analyzed and
other factors - with most recommendations ranging between a width of 50' to over 200'
with outliers on both ends. Individual sources refE?renced in the PHR suggest that a 50'
buffer is the minimum buffer size needed for successful nutrient reduction (Castelle at
al. 1992) and that 50'-98' provides the minimal maintenance for most habitat functions
(Johnson and Ryba 1992). It must be emphasized again that most of these
recommendations pertain to freshwater stream environments, not saltwater shorelines.
It is unclear how such recommendations would translate to saltwater shorelines.
There are a number of studies that do support the establishment of riparian buffers
along marine shorelines although they do not identify specific widths based on direct
scientific evidence. For example Brennan et al. (2004) identify terrestrial insects as a
significant prey item for juvenile salmon ids rearing along near shore areas in King
County, but the study did not examine the distance back from the shoreline a buffer
would have to be to protect these insects' habitat. Similarly, Pentilla (2001) examined
the effects of riparian shading on the egg survival of forage fish important to salmonid
diet, but doesn't provide guidance on a threshold extent of riparian vegetation needed
for summer egg survival. These and other studies suggest that functional habitat for
species critical to the juvenile salmonid diet is an important consideration in saltwater
shoreline environments.
A quality discussion of habitat preservation in nearshore and estuarine areas is included
in the Kitsap Peninsula Salmonid Refugia Study (Kitsap County, 2000). This paper
references numerous past studies to document that "an important period in the typical
salmonid life-cycle is spent in the transitional area of the nearshore environment",
especially for sea-run cutthroat trout, Chinook, Chum, and Pink Salmon. (pg. 27). The
paper also suggests four primary functions of the nearshore environment utilized by
salmon ids:
· Foraging - Nearshore detritus-based foods are important for young salmonids.
(Also discussed above)
· Refuge - Shallow, covered nearshore areas are important areas for salmon ids
to take cover from predation.
· Physiological Transition - The mix of salt and freshwater in the nearshore is
important for salmon ids during their transition between breathing fresh and
saltwater.
12 of 15
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
. Migration Corridor - Juvenile and adult salmon swim largely in the nearshore
environment during their migrations in both directions.
To preserve these functions, the paper suggests protection mechanisms of disallowing
removal of native vegetation along saltwater shorelines, and reducing the impacts of
development in the form of docks, bulkheads, and roads. However, no numerical buffer
distances or quantitative mechanisms for preservation are proposed.
In summary, the City of Bremerton finds in the science well-documented buffer widths
ranging from roughly 50' to 200' for effective preservation of habitat in streams, but does
not find clear direction on appropriate buffer widths for saltwater shorelines. Bremerton
finds extensive general discussion of the importance of nearshore marine environments
to the habitat of salmonids, but does not find quantitative data on appropriate buffers
and preservation mechanisms. There is clear direction in the science that preservation
of native vegetation and avoidance of shoreline development such as bulkheads, docks,
roads and other structures is critical to nearshore salmonid habitat.
Balancing Considerations - ESHB 1933 and 'Pierce County' call for strong integration
of the CAD and SMP and incorporation of BAS in protection of the shoreline
environment. Bremerton acknowledges this directive, but also asserts that some
balancing of varied goals and objectives remains necessary in the preparation of the
CAD Update with regard to shorelines. In Bremerton's case integration of the SMP's
development regulations into the CAD still calls for heavy reliance on the goals, policies,
and shoreline designations of the existing SMP since a comprehensive update to the
SMP is not possible at this time. Further, we point out that the Shoreline Management
Act as written in the RCW clearly states that economic, navigational, recreational, and
access requirement must be balanced with environmental considerations when
managing the shoreline. As a jurisdiction that is already substantially urbanized,
Bremerton asserts that it must maintain a balance of some of these non-environmental
considerations with the science in updating its CAD to continue as a well-functioning
city.
Recommended Buffer Distances & Shoreline Protections
Bremertonhas consulted the science in incorporating new buffers for shoreline
environments and finds that for the city as a whole, the proposed CAD update affords
adequate protection to saltwater shorelines of the state, in line with BAS. This is to say
that within some particular urban shorelines the proposed buffers may not appear to
meet a science standard, but when viewed in the context of protections given to the
City's shoreline as a whole these deviations are acceptable. Many areas of the
Bremerton shoreline are already highly degraded, and redevelopment in these areas is
critical to the City's economic and social health, and public access. Bremerton's
approach to buffers is a balanced one, which allows generous shoreline buffers and
strict protectionsin areas characterized by non-urban natural shorelines, and reduced
buffers where the city is more urbanized.
1 3 of 15
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
Section 20.14.730 of the proposed CAG Update contains development standards and
buffers for fish and wildlife habitat areas. To integrate consideration of shorelines,
Bremerton proposes three sub-categories of buffer widths for saltwater shorelines of the
state as shown in 20.14.730 Table 1 (reproduced below).
Table 20.14.730: Water Type Buffer Standards
Water Type Attributes Min. Bldg. Setback Buffer Width Standard
S Saltwater Urban Commercial/Industrial 15' Beyond Buffer 25 Feet
Shorelines Downtown Waterfront / Core
. Urban Residential 15' Beyond Buffer 35 Feet
Urban Conservancy 15' Beyond Buffer 175 Feet
S Freshwater All 15' Beyond Buffer 175 Feet
Shorelines
The shoreline attributes, (eg. Urban Commercial/Urban Industrial etc.) are categories
already designated in the existing Bremerton SMP. These are included within the CAG
for the first time. It is important to note that a 15' building setback is in addition to the
buffer distance in all cases, and that requirements call for mandatory native vegetation
within the buffer itself.
To provide generous protection for non-urbanized natural shorelines (those designated
Urban Conservancy in the SMP), a 175' buffer distance is provided. This is consistent
with BAS recommendations for buffer distances that give excellent protection to habitat
in highly sensitive freshwater streams and wetlands. Here, the science standard is
clearly met, and Bremerton can be confident that existing natural nearshore habitats will
continue to provide high quality habitat for anadromous fish and other species.
Currently these environments receive buffers of 25' per the existing SMP.
Shorelines designated Urban Residential by the SMP comprises a substantial portion of
the Bremerton waterfront, and many of these are already built out. For Urban
Residential shorelines a buffer of 35' plus an additional 15' building setback is proposed
- an effective buffer of 50' from the shoreline for new structures. This is consistent with
'low end' buffer recommendations for freshwater shorelines - roughly 50' per the BAS.
However, it is not clear that this freshwater recommended buffer translates directly to
shorelines. Bremerton finds that the proposed 35' naturally vegetated buffer fulfills the
basic functions for anadromous fish: 1.) Foraging, 2.) Refuge, 3.) Physiological
Transition, 4.) Migration Corridor. Further, the regulations guard clearly against
construction of new bulkheads, docks etc. in the nearshore environment. Such
construction is not allowable unless a habitat management plan is prepared. Currently
buffers in the Urban Residential environment are 25' per the existing SMP.
The third category of protection is for those shorelines that are the most highly
urbanized and intensely developed. A buffer of 25' plus 15' building setback is
proposed for these areas, which include the SMP designations Downtown Waterfront,
Downtown Core, Urban Commercial and Urban Industrial. The proposed 25' buffer
distance is at or below the low end of the science for buffers of freshwater streams, but __
14 of 15
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
it is unclear how such a buffer would apply to a marine shoreline environment.
Protections of some habitat functions are included because vegetated shorelines are
required, and structures may not be built in the buffer without preparation of a habitat
management plan. Also note that these designations comprise a relatively small portion
of the Bremerton shoreline, and they are areas that have been urbanized or used for
industrial purposes for many decades. Currently buffers in these areas are 0' for water-
dependent uses, and 25'-35' for water-related uses per the existing SMP.
Bremerton asserts that by providing 1.) generous shoreline protections for existing
natural habitats, 2.) buffer distances meeting BAS with vegetated shorelines in
residential environments, and 3.) targeted areas of urban development, the
requirements for integration of the SMP in the proposed CAD Update are fully achieved.
III. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission concludes that the recommended CAD Update is consistent
with the Growth Management Act, Kitsap County-Wide Planning Policies, and the City
of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. The Commission conqludes that the recommended
CAD Update incorporates Best Available Science, and provides adequate protection to
Fish and Wildlife Habitat including special consideration to anadromous fish habitat.
The recommended CAOUpdateis adequate to protect the public health, safety, general
welfare and private property from inappropriate development in critical areas. The
recommended CAD is in line with recent Growth Management Hearings Board cases
regarding the integration of CAD and Shoreline Management Program regulations.
Based on the conclusions above, the Commission recommends Chapter 20.14 of Title
20, Land Use, to the Bremerton City Council for adoption.
Respectfully submitted by:
Executive Secretary
Approved by:
John Cockburn, Chair
1 5 of 15
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A - ATTACHMENT I
City of Bremerton's
Critical Area Ordinance
Best Available Science References
Growth Management Act Requirements
In 1995 the Washington State Growth Management Act was amended to require the
use of "Best Available Science" (BAS) when designating and protecting Critical Areas.
The Act requires that cities and counties include best available science in developing
policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical
areas. Five critical areas are identified by the GMA
(RCW 36.70A.030 [5]):
· Wetlands;
· Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas;
· Frequently flooded areas;
· Geologically hazardous areas and;
· Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
In addition, RCW 36.70A.172(1) states that special consideration must be given to
"measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries," which refers to
those species that reproduce in fresh water and migrate to salt water for some portion of
their life, returning to fresh water. The term "fisheries" commonly refers to stocks of fish
that are managed for commercial, recreational, cultural, or ceremonial uses (WDFW,
1997).
In response to this legislation, the State Office of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development (CTED) promulgated rules to guide cities and counties in identifying and
includingthe best available science in their critical area policies and regulations. These
rules are found under WAC 365-195-900-925. "
BAS Process
The City of Bremerton heavily relied upon the existing BAS literature determined by
other local, state and federal natural resource agencies to meet the BAS Criteria (WAC
365-195-905(2)). Review of BAS for local applicability to the City of Bremerton was
assisted by a Technical Review Committee, convened by the City and composed of
representatives from local, state and natural resource agencies, and various community
stakeholder groups. Committee members were guided by a duty and purpose of
assisting the city in determining what BAS is appropriate to consider" in updating the
CAO.
References
When applicable the references will be separated by the critical area section however
many references were used in several sections and are therefore listed as general
references. While this represents an extensive list of CAO citations, it may not be all
the best available science currently published on the subject.
1 of 7
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A - A TT ACHMENT I
General References
King County. 2003 BAS Review
Kitsap County, Department of Community Development. 2004. Kitsap County's Draft
Critical Areas Ordinance: Review of Best Available Science.
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. 2004. Website. City and
county codes for Washington State jurisdictions available at URL =
http://www. mrsc. org/codes. aspx
RCW 36.70A.172 Critical Areas - Designation and Protection - Best Available
Science.
WAC 365-190-080 Critical Areas.
WAC 365-195-900 Best Available Science.
Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development.
2003. Critical Areas Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas within the Framework of the
Washington Growth Management Act.
Washington State Departmentof Community Trade, and Economic Development. 2002.
Model Code Recommendations for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas, First
Edition, 2nd Draft. Prepared by Berryman & Henigar Inc., Adolfson Associates Inc., and
GeoEngineers, Inc. OCD, Olympia, WA.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2001. Focus: Riparian Areas. Washington
Department of Ecology. Available online at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0010023.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology. Digital Coastal Zone Atlas.
Available online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/SMNatlas_home.html
Other Jurisdictions Critical Area Ordinances and Best
Available Science Reviewed
City of Auburn, Bainbridge Island, City of Bellevue, City of Edmonds, City of Everett,
City of Issaquah, City of Kent, City of Mukilteo, City of Port Townsend
City of Tacoma, City of Shoreline, City of Redmond, City of Renton, Kitsap County,
Pierce County
2of7
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A - A TT ACHMENT I
Section 20.14.300 - Wetlands
Kitsap County Surface Water Resources Map. (includes all streams, wetlands, lakes
and marine waters of the Puget Sound) URL:
http://www.kitsapqov.com/dcd/qis/maps/Environmental/Streams and Surface WaterD
EC2005.pdf
Kitsap County Wetland and Hydric Soils Map:
http://www.kitsapqov.com/dcd/qis/maps/Environmental/WETLAN DS HYDRIC. pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2004. Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State Part 1: Laws, Rules, Policies, and Guidance Related to Wetland &
Mitigation & Part 2: Guidelines for Developing Wetland Mitigation Plans and Proposals
(Ecology Publications # 04-06-0 13a & # 04-06-0 13b)
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands
Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology Publication # 96-94).
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2004. Washington State Wetlands Rating
System - Western Washington (Ecology Publication # 04-06-025)
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1992. Wetland Buffers: Use and
Effectiveness, and Appendices (Ecology Publications #92-10 & 92-10a)
Washington State Department of Ecology & Washington State Depa rtment of Fish and
Wildlife. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science
& Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands (Ecology Publications
#05-06-006 & #05-06-008)
Section 20.14.400 - Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Bremerton-Kitsap County Board of Health Ordinance 2-1991, Rules and Regulations for
Public and Private Water Supplies.
Kitsap County Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Map. URL:
http://www.kitsapgov.com/dcd/qis/maps/environmental/Aq uifier Rechage Areas. pdf
(Accessed 11/24/05)
Kitsap Public Utilities District. Issue Paper: Well Construction and Decommissioning.
Volume 4 Appendix 2. May 20, 1997.
U RL: http://www.kpud. org/reference/docs/kc _groundwater/wellcons. pdf
Kitsap Public Utilities District. Issue Paper: Aquifer Water Balance (WB), Volume 4
Appendix 2. May 20, 1997. URL:
http://www . kpud. org/reference/docs/kc _groundwater/waterbal. pdf
3 of 7
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A - ATTACHMENT I
Puget Sound Action Team. 2005 "Low Impact Development Technical Guidance
Document for Puget Sound' URL:
http://www . psat. wa.qov/Publications/Ll D tech manual05/L1 D manual2005. pdf
RCW 18.104 - Water Well Construction Act (1971)
RCW 4320. Public Water Systems - Penalties and Compliance.
RCW 70.119A. State Board of Health.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. "Potential sources of drinking water
contamination index. URL: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/swp/sources1.html(Accessed
Nov. 2005)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Ground-Water Protection; Office of
Water. 1990. "Citizen's Guide to Ground-Water Protection"
WAC 173-160 - Minimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Wells.
WAC 246-290 - Drinking Water Regulatior)$ - State Board of Health
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2000. Guidance document for the
establishment of critical aquifer recharge area ordinances. (Ecology Publication # 05-
10-028)
Washington State Department of Health. 2005. Washington's Source Water
Assessment Program. DOH publication # 331-148
Section 20.14.500 - Frequently Flooded Areas
us Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1979. Flood Boundary and
Floodway Map, panel 15.
Section 20.14.600 - Geologically Hazardous Areas
Kitsap County, Department of Community Development. 2003. Kitsap County's Draft
Critical Areas Ordinance: Review of Best Available Science - Geologically Hazardous
Areas. Port Orchard, WA.
Kitsap County Geologically Hazardous Areas Map. URL:
http://www.kitsapgov.com/d cd/g is/maps/Envi ron menta I/Geohazards DE C2005. pdf
Soil Survey of Kitsap County Area, Washington. United State Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Washington State Department of Natural
Resources and Washington State University, Agricultural Research Center.
40f7
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A - A TT ACHMENT I
GIS Data Layer, Quaternary Geology and Stratigraphy of Kitsap County. Based on
Jerald Deeter 1979 thesis (VWJU).
http://www.kitsapgov.com/gis/metadata/enviro/stability.htm
City of Edmonds Best Available Science Report. 2004. Prepared by EDAW Inc.,
Seattle, WA.
City of Issaquah Best Available Science Report. 2004. Prepared by Issaquah Planning
Department, Issaquah, WA.
International Society of Arbiculture (ISA) Trees Are Good. Pruning Techniques.
www.treesaregood.com/treecare/pru n inQ matu re. aspx
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) How to Prune Trees.
www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/howtos/htprune/prun001.htm
Dr. Ed Gilman, University of Florida. Pruning Shade Trees In The Landscape.
Best Available Science Issue Paper: Snoqualmie Watershed Near Term Action Agenda
Implementation Project. March 2004.
Jefferson County Review of Best Available Science for 2004 Comprehensive Plan
and Development Regulations Update.
King County Best Available Science: Volume I Review of Science Literature. Chapter 5
Geologic Hazard Areas.
Thurston County Best Available Science / Guidance Geologic Hazard Areas. July 2005.
Shipman, Hugh. 2001. Coastallandsliding on Puget Sound: A review of
landslides occurring between 1996 and 1999. Washington Department of
Ecology. Report #01-06-019.
Washington Department of Ecology. Controlling Erosion Using Vegetation.
http://www . ecy. wa. Qov/proQ rams/sea/pubs/93-30/index. htm I
Washington Department of Ecology. Managing Vegetation on Coastal Slopes.
http://www.ecy.wa.Qov/proQrams/sea/pubs/93-31 /intro.html
USGS Seismic Hazards Investigation in Puget Sound (SHIPS). A U.S. / Canadian
Consortium to provide public information for mitigating a potential earthquake disaster in
the Pacific Northwest. http://walrus.wr.usgs.Qov/ships/
50f7
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A - A TT ACHMENT I
The Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network (PNSN). All about earthquakes and
geologic hazards of the Pacific Northwest.
http://www.pnsn.orgIlNFOGENERAL/faq.html.
International Building Code 2003. International Code Council, Inc. ISBN #1-892395-
56-8.
USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States.
http://earthquake.usqs.qov/reqional/qfaults/wa/sea . htm I.
Tsunamis on the Pacific Coast of Washington State and Adjacent Areas - A Selected,
Annotated Bibliography and Directory. Compiled by Connie J. Manson and Lee
Walkling. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Open File Report 98-4.
April, 1998.
Tsunami Inundation Map of the Port Townsend, Washington, Area. Washington State
DNR. August, 2002.
Tsunami Hazard Map of the Elliot Bay Area, Seattle, Washington: Modeled Tsunami
Inundation from a Seattle Fault Earthquake. Walsh, Titov, Venturato, Mofjeld,
Gonzalez. 2003.
Section 20.14.700 - Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Bellevue Critical Areas Update. Wildlife BAS Paper. March 2003. URL:
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/departments/Development/pdf. (Accessed 12/7/05)
Kitsap County Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map. URL:
http://www.kitsapqov.com/dcd/qis/maps/Environmental/Fish and Wildlife PHS.pdf
(Accessed 12/08/05)
Kitsap County Watershed Resource Management. URL:
http://www.kitsapqov.com/dcd/n r/wrm/ (Accessed 12/7/05)
KitsapCoLJnty, 2000. "Kitsap Peninsula salmonid Refugia Study." Port Orchard, WA
Knutson, K.L., and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management Recommendations for Washington
Priority Habitats and Species: Riparian. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildlife., Olympia.
181pp. URL: http://www.wdfw.wa.qov/hab/phsrecs.htm. (Accessed 12/7/05)
Ledwith, Tyler. 1996. "The effects of Buffer Strip Width on Air Temperature and Relative
Humidity in a Stream Riparian Zone." URL: watershed.org/news.sum_96/buffer.html
May, C.W. 2003. Stream-Riparian Ecosystems in the Puget Sound Lowland Eco-
Region: A Review of Best Available Science. Watershed Ecology LLC.
6of7
CAO ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A - ATTACHMENT I
Puget Sound Action Team: June 28,2005. Compiled and edited by Scott Redman,
Doug Myers, and Dan Averill. "Regional Nearshore and Marine Aspects of Salmon
Recovery in Puget Sound" URL:
http://www . psat. wa .gov/Programs/salmon _recovery/Reg ionalNearshore. pdf
Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. Watershed Profile
http://www.sharedsalmonstrateqv.orq/watersheds/watershed-eastkitsap.htm (Accessed
2/9/06)
WAC 232-12-014 Washington State Endangered Species
WAC 232-12-011 Washington State Threatened and Sensitive Species
WAC 222-16-030 Department of Natural Resources Water Typing System
Washington Environmental Council. 2004. Habitat Protection Tool Kit: A Guide to
Habitat Conservation Planning Under Washington's Growth Management and Shoreline
Management Acts. URL: www.wecprotects.org
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Map. Volume
IV: Birds. URL http://wdfw.wa.qov/hab/phs/voI4/saqe qrouse.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2005. Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems: A
Guide for Puget Sound Planners to Understand Watershed Processes (Publication #
05-06-013)
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2001. Focus: Riparian Areas. Washington
Department of Ecology (Publication # 00-10-023)
Water Resource Management Plan for Water Resource Inventory Area 15 (WRIA 15)
URL: http://www.kitsappeninsulawatershed.org (Accessed 12/9/05)
7 of 7
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: Andrea L. Spencer, AICP, Planning Manager~
Date: March 1, 2006
Re: Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
Why Critical Area Regulations?
The protection of critical areas is essential to preserving our natural environment and protecting the public's
health and safety, and private property. Protecting critical areas helps reduce exposure to risks, such as
landslides or flooding, and maintains the natural elements of our landscape.
Critical areas provide a variety of benefits: clean drinking water, enhanced water quality, wildlife habitat,
and managed flood risks, to name a few. Protection of critical areas is necessary to preserve these
benefits and to reduce the hazards associated with some critical areas. The functions and values of critical
areas, once lost, can be costly or even impossible to replace.
There are five types of critical areas:
. Wetlands
. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
. Frequently Flooded Areas
. Geologically Hazardous Areas
. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
Requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA)
All counties and cities are required by the Growth Management Act to designate and protect critical areas
functions and values. The GMA requires that counties and cities take legislative action to review and, if
needed, revise their critical area regulations to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the GMA
according to a seven-year cycle. That cycle mandated that the City of Bremerton adopt and update its
CAO on or before December 1, 2005, and every seven years thereafter. Each city and county in
Washington State has the responsibility to perform the complex task of identifying, designating, and
protecting those critical areas found in their local environment.
Because of other work priorities, such as adopting a new Comprehensive Plan and new zoning code, the
December 1, 2005 deadline has passed, arid technically the City is out of compliance. However, the City
has demonstrated substantial progress toward achieving compliance because the Planning Commission
has been completing their review of the CAG update during the months of December (2005), January and
February (2006). Although we are showing substantial progress towards adoption, the City must be in full
compliance with GMA to apply for any grants or loans such as Public Works Trust Funds (PWTF) or the
Water Quality Account funding (including Centennial Clean Water grants and loans). Public Works has
indicated that they anticipate applyinq for more than eiqht million dollars of qrants and loans of this type this
year, and in order to submit that application the city must be in full compliance with GMA. These
applications are usually completed in April, and therefore adoption of the CAG at this time is imperative.
Best Available Science (BAS) Mandate
In 1995, the Washington State Legislature added a new section to the GMA to ensure that counties and
cities include reliable scientific information when adopting policies and development regulations to
designate and protect critical areas. The new section to the GMA, RCW 36.70A.172 requires all counties
and cities in Washington to "include the best available science in developing policies and development
regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas." In addition, counties and cities are
required to give special consideration to conservation or protection measures to preserve or enhance
anadromous fisheries. Anadromous fish spawn and rear in fresh water and mature in the marine
environment, including salmon, steelhead and char (bull trout).
Science plays a central role in delineating critical areas and recommending strategies to protect their
functions and values. Following enactment of RCW 36.70A.172, science-basedrecommendationsucannot
simply be disregarded in favor of competing considerations. In other words, CAG regulations including
buffers and setbacks must be based on sound science or the regulations are invalid and can be stuck down
by the Growth Management Hearings Board or the courts.
It is important to note that Bremerton last updated its CAG in 1993, which was prior to the requirements to
include BAS. Therefore, a number of the existing regulations do not meet the BAS standard, and must be
brought into compliance.
What Constitutes the Best Available Science?
Local governments must identify, collect, and assess the available scientific information relating to the
protection of critical areas within their jurisdiction, and then determine which of that science constitutes the
"best available science." Local governments may accept or solicit scientific information from state and
federal agencies, universities, tribes, subject matter experts, and others, but the burden ultimately is on the
local government to determine whether the scientific information assembled in fact constitutes the best
available science. The City of Bremerton assembled and reviewed an extensive range of scientific reports,
papers, and documents, as well as a range of BAS reports prepared by other jurisdictions with similar
conditions as Bremerton.
A bibliography of Bremerton's BAS sources is found in Bremerton's Critical Areas Ordinance Best
Available Science References as attached to the proposed ordinance as "Exhibit A - Attachment I." The
full compilation of BAS documents is on file with the Department of Community Development. Findings on
how the recommended CAG specifically meets BAS standards are detailed in the Findings And
Determination of The City of Bremerton Planning Commission as attached to the proposed ordinance
as "Exhibit A."
Bremerton's CAO Update Strategy
The update to Bremerton's CAO consists of clarification, reorganization and updates necessary to bring the CAO
in line with State requirements. Specifically, areas of the existing Bremerton CAO that do not meet the BAS
standard are rectified. Bremerton is relying on quality examples that other Cites around Puget Sound have set in
successfully updating their CAO's, and a State model ordinance provided by CTED.
Much of Bremerton is a long-established urban environment with urban infrastructure. The Planning
Commission's recommended CAO reflects the City's urban character, while providing strong protections for
Critical Areas. The recommended CAO is not like Kitsap County's CAO, in that the County has extensive tracts of
privately-held rural and undeveloped resource lands that require different considerations.
The Update Process
The Bremerton CAO Update was drafted, reviewed and recommended for adoption after a series of workshops
and hearings with members of the public; a citizen's advisory committee; a technical reviewer committee; and the
Bremerton Planning Commission.
Several meetings were held with a Citizen's Advisory Committee during the spring of 2005. The outcome of those
meetings was a set of general citizen preferences and education about the CAO. Intensive work on the CAO
resumed in late 2005 after adoption of the new zoning code. DCD released an initial draft of the CAO for public
comment and review in December of 2005. Notice of the draft, and all-subsequent meetings was published in
large commercial format in the Kitsap Sun, advertised on BKA T television, and posted on the City of Bremerton
Website. In late 2005 and early 2006 workshops with technical scientific experts were conducted, as well as one
additional workshop with the initial Citizen's Advisory Committee.
The Bremerton Planning Commission participated in two public workshops and two public hearings during
January and February of 2006, with a formal recommendation to Council made on February 28, 2006. During the
review process the CAO advanced through a total of three drafts before arriving at the Planning Commission's
final recommendation. Full documentation of the procedural history of the CAO Update is included in the
Findings And Determination of The City of Bremerton Planning Commission as attached to the proposed
ordinance as "Exhibit A."
Incorporation of Comments
Comments were received by DCD staff and the Bremerton Planning Commission throughout the duration of the
CAO Update process. Full documentation of all comments received, and how they were responded to, are
included in the Summary of Public Comments as attached.
Substantial comments were received and incorporated from members of the Technical Review Committee. .')
These include comments from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; the Suquamish Tribe; the
Kitsap County Homebuilders Association; the Puget Sound Action Team, and other agencies. Substantial
comments were also received and incorporated from the Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities.
DCD worked closely with Public Works and Utilities, especially regarding the management of water resources.
Comments were also received and incorporated from several members of the public via written letter and during
public hearings.
DCD and the Planning Commission incorporated suggestions and requests made by commenting individuals and
agencies to the greatest extent possible, provided that these comments were supportable by Best Available
Science.
Summary of Public Comments
Bremerton 2005/2006 Critical Areas Ordinance Update
February 28, 2006
The following table includes record of public comments received by the Planning Commission
during the 2005 / 2006 CAG Update. Comments received via mail and e-mail are included, as well
as a synopsis of verbal comments received during public hearings*. Where revisions or edits were
made in response to comments a summary of the revision is provided.
* This table does not substitute for record of Hearing comments. For complete and accurate record
of public comment received during Hearings please see official hearing minutes.
Section Comment Revision I Response
20.14.100 Richard Nerf pointed out typos in 20.14.145 The errors were noted and corrected.
General and in 20.14.170. (1-17-06)
Provisions The Department of Fish and Wildlife In section 20.14.120 (c) the City makes reference to and adopts all
recommends adding Priority Habitat and of WDFW's maps.
Species maps and recommendations to this
section. (2-1-06) Section 20.14.120 (c) references several sources of maps and
mapping data to be used as guidelines for reference. The actual
Dick Bruskrud architect and local resident is location of critical areas must be determined on a site by site basis
concerned about the origin of the critical area according to the classification criteria found in this ordinance.
maps and errors within them. Will there be site
analysis in conjunction with the maps?
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests Various BMP's are detailed in each chapter where the regulations
adding an adaptive management component to are detailed.
the definition of Best Management Practices to
ensure protections to critical areas throughout
the lonq term life of a proiect. (2-1-06)
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests The definition of compensatory mitigation has been modified to
that the definition of compensatory mitigation apply to all critical areas.
should apply to other critical areas particularly
fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas not
just wetlands. (2-1-06)
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests This definition has been added.
the definition of fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas (e) should include sand
lance. (2-1-06)
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests The definition has been edited to include PHS, juvenile salmonids
the inclusion of juvenile salmon migration and habitat of species essential to the juvenile salmonid diet
corridors or simply fish habitat to the definition including sand lance habitat.
of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas. He also recommends including Priority
Habitat Species into the definition as well. (2-1- :\,
06)
1
The Home Builders Association would like the The definition from PSA T of LID has been added.
definition of Low Impact Development to be
added. (1-31-06)
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
adding the definition of Low Impact
development. (2-1-06)
The Puget Sound Action Team would like the
definition of Low Impact Development added to
this section. He suggests using the PSAT
definition found in the 2005 Low Impact
Development Technical Guidance Manual for
Puget Sound. (2-14-06)
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests The definition has been revised to ensure bulk heading has
the definition of mitigation be revised to mitigation measures and meets the standards for all critical areas.
exclude bulk heading a marine shoreline. (2-1- Discussion of bulk heading can be found in the geologically
06) hazardous areas chapter 20.14.650 (a) (6)
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests The definition or Riparian Habitat has been modified to include the
the addition of Chanel Migration Zone (CMZ) CMZ.
into the definition of Riparian Habitat. (2-1-06)
The Puget Sound Action Team suggests The examples of cumulative impacts have been removed.
removing the examples for cumulative Impacts
or Effects because it is not necessary in the
definition. (2-14-06)
The Puget Sound Action Team would like the The definition already makes reference to WAC 365-190-080 (5)
definition of Fish and Wildlife Habitat which defines fish and wildlife conservation areas. Additional
conservation Areas to include a citation to the citation of other specific documents is not necessary and has not
Puget Sound Recovery Plan's Chapter titled been included.
"Regional Nearshore and Marine Aspects of
Salmon Recover in Puget Sound". He would Part (b) has been modified to include "and species" and (e) has
also like (b) to read Habitats "and species" and been modified to include sand lance.
(e) to include sand lance. (2-14-06)
20.14.300 Richard Nerf pointed out a typo in 20.14.330 (0 The error was noted and corrected.
Wetlands (3) (iii) where it said project instead of protect.
(1-17-06)
The Home Builders Association believes the The buffers are being increased based on the Growth Management
buffers in place currently for wetlands are Act (GMA) requirements to include Best Available Science (BAS).
adequate and increasing the category III The BAS does not support the current buffers. The new buffer
buffers to 75' and the category IV buffers to 50' sizes were carefully chosen based on the Bremerton's urban
could have a negative impact on environment and the BAS recommendations.
redevelopment throuqhout the city. (1-31-06)
The Home Builders Association is concerned The mitigation/replacement ratios are based on the BAS and are
that the mitigation/replacement ratios will be designed to maintain no net loss of wetland functions and values.
extremely difficult and expensive. (1-31-06) Wetlands are very valuable and should not be easily removed or
replaced.
The Home Builders Association would like The proposed code along with the model code allows stormwater
stormwater facilities particularly ones using facilities within the outer 25% of category III and IV wetland buffers.
Low Impact Development (LID) to be allowed Section 20.14.330 (7) (iv) has been modified to allow for LID within
within the buffers of wetlands (1-31-06) the entire buffer of category III and IV wetlands.
2
20.14.400
Critical
Aquifer
Recharge
Areas
20.14.500
Frequently
Flooded
Areas
The Suquamish Tribe Fisheries Department
commented that the 1993 wetland rating
system from the Department of Ecology (DOE)
is outdated. She suggests using the updated
version of this document that uses a function
based rating system.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
using the updated version of the DOE Wetland
Ratin s Document. 2-1-06
The Suquamish Tribe Fisheries Department
does not support buffer reductions of more
than 25%, the proposed 75% proposed should
not be allowed unless it is supported by BAS.
1-20-6
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
protection of small isolated wetlands and at a
minimum compensatory mitigation for the loss
of these wetlands. (2-1-06)
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
allowing buffer averaging only where no
feasible alternative exists and if approved
widening of the buffer should occur within the
most sensitive portions of the buffer and
human intrusion should be discouraged. (2-1-
06
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
monitoring of forested wetland restoration
should occur for a period of no less than 10
ears. 2-1-06
Barclays North Inc. recommends adding
provisions allowing buffer reductions when
enhancing the wetland or buffer similar to the
provisions Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Areas 20.14.730 d 4 and 5. 2-10-06
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
including LID standards and references the
PSAT "Low Impact Development Technical
Guidance Manual For Puget Sound" as a good
source of information. (2-1-06)
The Puget Sound Action Team suggests
adding a standard that encourages LID
techni ues to treat stormwater. 2-14-06
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
listing impervious surfaces as a potential threat
to roundwater. 2-1-06
The Puget Sound Action Team suggests
adding a statement in BMC 16.140 Flood Plain
Management to ensure coordination with flood
area mitigation studies and local watershed
and salmon recover planning processes. He
also suggests the inclusion of LID for areas
that drain into flood hazard areas. 2-14-06
The City used the wrong reference to the DOE publication by citing
the older version of the document instead of the newer one. The
reference has been corrected.
20.14.330(4) (iv) requires that the buffer widths is not reduced to
less than 75% of the total width. This would allow for a maximum
of a 25% reduction which complies with BAS.
The City has included provisions for several different categories of
wetlands including category IV wetlands which include small
hydrologically isolated wetlands. Loss of these wetlands will be
protected by the provisions in the mitigation section, 20.14.340.
The code does not have s ecific exem tions from these rovisions.
20.14.330 (4) discusses the requirements for wetland buffer
averaging. Buffers may only be averaged if a qualified wetland
scientist determines it will not reduce the functions or performance
of the wetland, that the total area is no less than the original buffer
area, and that the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in
some places and a narrower buffer in other places. No additional
code chan es are necessar .
In 20.14.340 (h) additional wetland mitigation monitoring has been
added to require monitoring for a period necessary to establish that
performance standards have been met, but not for a period less
than five ears.
Wetland buffers are extremely fragile environments with the
purpose of filtering contaminants and increasing water quality
before it goes down stream. The provisions for buffer averaging
adequately allow for flexibility while maintaining the wetland quality.
LID standards have been included in general requirements,
20.14.440 (a) (4) for uses that have a potential threat to
groundwater.
New impervious surfaces exceeding 20,000 square feet have been
added to the 20.14.740 (b) (17), uses with potential threat to
round water.
BMC 17.60 Flood Plain Management is only one section of the
entire building code. Modifying one section of the building code
could impact other sections inadvertently. It is not in the scope of
the CAO update to revise the city engineer's responsibilities. This
issue may be resolved through the collaborative efforts of the City
and the home builders association by working together to create a
com rehensive count wide LID ordinance for future develo ment.
3
20.14.600 Richard Nerf pointed out spelling errors in The spelling errors were noted and corrected.
Geologically 20.14.630 (e) and in 20.14.660 (e) (2) (iii). (1-
Hazardous 17-06)
Areas. The Department of Fish and Wildlife does not The buffer reductions allowed in this section must be approved by
encourage buffer reductions in 20.14.630 (c) a geotechnical report and utilize mitigation and performance
because it can lead to emergency bank standards listed in 20.14.650 to the greatest extent possible.
armoring or bulkheading later which may lead Through these provisions the City has minimized the possible
to the loss of habitat. (2-1-06) impacts to habitat to the qreatest extent possible.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife Extensive provisions for vegetation thinning with attention to
recommends adding requirements for "danger preferable methods for the elimination of danger trees determined
trees", tree Iimbing, topping, or removal to be by a certified arborist have been added to section 20.14.630 (e)
supported by a qualified arborist and approved and 20.14.630 (D.
by the City. He also suggests the addition of
mitigation sequencing in the order of limbing,
high stump, and total removal. (2-1-06)
Barclays North Inc recommends changing the Vertical relief classification based on 10' ensures geologically
vertical relief in section 20.14.620 (a) 1 and (a) hazardous areas are adequately protected. Classification of
2 from 10 feet to 20 feet to cover a broader vertical relief of 20' is not supported by BAS.
ranQe of situations. (2-10-06)
The Department of Ecology's Costal Geologist Areas of moderate geologic hazard are defined in 20.14.620 (b)
thinks the notion of breaking out an and regulated in 20.14.630 (b).
intermediate class of steep slopes is very
reasonable and has been done by other
jurisdictions. It provides for identifying
hazardous slopes below 30% without triggering
a compulsory and rigorous review that would
be required for steeper slopes.
20.14.700 Richard Nerf pointed out the word "to" was The errors were noted and corrected.
Fish and missing from 20.14.720 (b) and the word
Wildlife dominant was misspelled in 20.14.730(d) (1)
Habitat (iii). (1-17-06)
Conservation The Home Builders Association believes the The buffers are being increased based on the GMA requirements
Areas current buffers for fish and wildlife areas are to include BAS. The BAS does not support the current buffers.
adequate and does not support increasing The new buffers are the within the ranges allowed by the BAS and
them. He points out that much of the BAS the City has chosen these buffers because of our urban
available is based in rural areas and does not environment. Staff reviewed many different sources of BAS to
adequately account for urban environments. ensure that our urban environment is accounted for.
(1-31-06)
The Home Builders Association supports buffer Reduction opportunities are included within 20.14.730 (5) (v)
reduction opportunities for day lighting piped or through the use of a Habitat Management Plan.
culvert streams. (1-31-06)
..
The Home Builders Association supports the 20.14.730 (d) states that buffer distances shall be measured from
continued use of the Ordinary High Water Mark the OHM.
(OHM) for measurement of the buffer instead
of the Channel Migration Zone (CMZ). (1-31-
06)
4
The Home Builders Association suggests
maintaining the buffer widths for marine
shorelines as they are currently in the
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) because
increasing them would inhibit redevelopment.
(1-31-06)
Jeff Hecker architect and local resident is
concerned that the increase of shoreline
buffers could adversely affect waterfront
property development. They would like more
clarity in the critical area regulations for how a
habitat management plans or any other special
reports will be assessed and then approved or
denied. (2-28-06)
Muthun Architects is concerned with the
increased shoreline buffer and setback widths
because this could hinder GMA goals
regarding density. The flexibility for reductions
through habitat management plans and special
reports is good, but there should be more
clarity as to the approval process regarding
these reports.
The Home Builders Association would like
stormwater facilities particularly ones using
Low Impact Development (LID) to be an
allowed use inside buffers because it could
reduce the intensity of some uses. (1-31-06)
Barclays North Inc recommends adding
provisions to allow buffers to count as passive
space and to allow storm water facilities in the
outer 25% of the buffer. (2-10-06)
The Suquamish Tribe Fisheries Department
recommends the City give special
consideration to anadromous fish and
protection to include an increase in marine
shoreline buffers by including marine
shorelines into the CAG and using BAS to
determine the appropriate buffers. (1-20-06)
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
implementing standard buffers of 250' for
marine shorelines. (2-1-06)
The Puget Sound Action Team strongly
recommends adding effective protections to
marine shorelines through set buffers of 250'
or site specific buffers based on Habitat
Management Plan analysis. (2-14-06)
Recent Growth Management Hearings Board cases have directed
the City to include marine shorelines into the CAG update and
must therefore rely on BAS to determine their buffer widths. The
widths chosen represent BAS, GMA goals, Comprehensive Plan
goals and several other factors. More information can be found on
this in the Planning Commission findings document.
Provisions have been added to 20.14.130 0) defining the decision
making process for special reports.
Provisions have been added to 20.14.730 (d) (6) for LID
stormwater facilities to be allowed in buffers provided no other
location is feasible and the location of such facilities will not
degrade the stream or habitat area shown through the use of a
HMP.
20.14.730 (d) (7) has been added to allow for stormwater facilities
within the outer 25% of stream buffers provided no other location is
feasible and the location of such facilities will not degrade the
stream or habitat area shown through a HMP.
Natural buffer areas may be counted towards passive use per the
provisions in the zonina code.
20.14.730 (b) has been added to protect anadromous fish. Table 1
in 20.14.730 has been edited to include marine shoreline buffers.
These buffers are based on BAS and several other factors.
Significant discussion on the designation and size of these buffers
can be found in Planning Commissions Findings.
5
The Suquamish Tribe Fisheries Department
urges the City to increase the minimum buffer
size for Ns streams and that the City refer to
the WDFW Management Recommendations
for Washington's Priority Habitats Riparian
(PHR) to determine the appropriate buffer. (1-
20-06)
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
increasing the proposed buffer widths as
follows. Type S should be 250'; Type F should
be 150'-200'; Type Np and NS should be 150'-
225'. He also suggests that table 1 include
buffer and setback requirements for type S
marine shorelines. (2-1-06)
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
buffer widths should be increased to extend to
the outer edge of an unstable slope along type
Ns or Np slopes and to increase the buffer by
100' of the windward side of a riparian area
with high blow down potential. (2-1-06)
The Suquamish Tribe Fisheries Department is
concerned about the potential for new impacts
on cultural resources resulting from land use
activities and would like to work cooperatively
with several local agencies to gain funding for
a county wide predictive model to determine
the resence of these resources. 1-20-06
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
the addition of the word "fish" to the title of
20.14.720 d 2-1-06
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
adding reference to the shared strategy
process and other relevant watershed planning
rocesses to 20.14.720 d 2. 2-1-06
Jeff Davis of the Department of Fish and
Wildlife suggests using the Channel Migration
Zone (CZM) where present instead of the OHM
for measurin buffers in 20.14.730 a. 2-1-06
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
the largest portion of the buffer surround the
most sensitive areas of the stream when
reducin or avera in buffer widths. 2-1-06
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
including a reference to the WDFW "Fish
Passage Design at Road Culverts" design
manual within 20.14.730 (d) for guidance on
desi n criteria for citizens. 2-1-06
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
removin "e uivalent" from 20.14.730 e
The City used the PHR as a main source for determining the
buffers for Ns streams. The PHR shows on page 85 that buffers of
25' are acceptable for Np streams. Furthermore several other
urban jurisdictions have chosen very similar buffers for this stream
type including: Auburn at 25', Redmond at 25'-36', Edmonds at 10',
Kirkland at 25'-35', and King County at 25'. Bremerton is also
including a 15' building setback from the buffer for a total of 50'.
The PH R shows on page 85 that buffers of 100' are acceptable for
type Sand F streams. Furthermore several other urban
jurisdictions have chosen very similar buffer widths for Sand F
streams including Auburn at 100' for Sand 75' for F, Redmond at
150' for Sand 100' for F, Edmonds at 150' for Sand 75' for F, and
Kitsap County at 200' and 150' for F. Bremerton is also including a
15' building setback from the buffer.
Table 1 has been modified to include the buffers for marine
shorelines.
This provision has not been added because the proposed buffers
are adequate protection for an urban environment. See response
on previous item for more detail.
The City looks forward to cooperating with all agencies for a county
wide model.
The addition of the word "fish" has been made to the title of
20.14.720 (d).
The shared strategy process has been added to 20.14.720 (d) (2).
The City has determined that measuring buffer widths from the
OHM will adequately protect habitat. Because of the urban nature
of the city many streams cannot migrate to any significant degree
nor is the CMZ known for the ma'orit of the cit 's streams.
This provision has been added to 20.14.300 (d) 4 & 5, buffer
averaging and reduction.
This reference has been added.
The word equivalent has been removed.
6
regarding vegetation in stream channel
relocations. (2-1-06)
The Department of Fish and Wildlife
encourages public education to promote non-
consumptive uses of fish and wildlife resources
through the "Watchable Wildlife Program". (2-
1-06)
The Department of Fish and Wildlife thinks
parks and recreation should conduct a
comprehensive study of the city to design new
trails with the least impact on habitat. The trail
section should include provisions to disallow
trails to encircle habitat areas and implement
trail closures during critical spawning,
breeding, or migrating time periods. Intrusions
into the buffers should be kept at a minimum.
(2-1-06)
The Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests
bank stabilization can lead to a reduction in
habitat function and should be used only when
no other feasible alternative exists. A
reference to WDFW "Integrated Stream bank
Protection Guidelines Manual" could help
guide citizens on why, where, when, and what
projects needs to protect eroding banks. (2-1-
06)
The Puget Sound Action Team suggests
addinq sand lance to 20.14.720(b)~ (2-14-06)
The Puget Sound Action Team suggests
adding the Puget Sound Recovery Plan's
Chapter titled "Regional Nearshore and Marine
Aspects of Salmon Recover in Puget Sound" to
our references. He would also like (b) to read
Habitats "and species" to 20.14.720 (d) (2). (2-
14-06)
The Puget Sound Action Team recommends
using the language found in the Port
Townsend CAO for Pesticides Fertilizers and
Herbicides 20.14.730 (i). (2-14-06)
Barclays North Inc recommends more stringent
recommendation requirements of habitats and
species of local importance, section 20.14.720
(0 8 and/or 9 to read shall instead of may. (2-
10-06)
The City did not include a provision for Watch able wildlife programs
because it is beyond the scope of this CAO update however it is
willing to work on through other avenues such as the parks plan.
Provisions have been added to section 20.14.730 (k) 6& 7 to make
sure trails do not impact habitat by disallowing trails to encircle
habitat areas and implement trail closures during critical spawning,
breeding, or migrating time periods. The City plans to develop a
parks master plan in the future and may have provisions for trail
uses with limited impacts on habitat.
This reference has been added to 20.14.730 U) Bank Stabilization.
Sand lance has been added to 20.14.720 (b).
The document has been added to the bibliography and 20.14.720
(d) 2 now includes "and species".
The City has used the language in the CTED model for the
Pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides section and finds this
language to be adequate.
The City does not support this recommendation because the intent
is to encourage citizens to nominate species not to require them to
know exactly how best to protect the species at the point of
nomination.
7
Message
Page 1 of 2
Geoffrey Wentlandt
From: Shipman, Hugh [HSH1461 @ECY.WA.GOVj
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11 :38 AM
To: Geoffrey Wentlandt
Subject: RE: Bremerton CAO Review
My apo!ouies fel( a slow (and limited) response.
I guess! should caveat this t)y sHying that I have not looked ()\/EH" the entire ordina.nce in ch:rtajl and have had onlv t'lCid tlrne to
~J!ance at a COUpli? of other ordinances, so you probably shouicln't attacJi too rnuch wei;Jht to illY thoughts.
Having saieJ that, ! tflink the notion or br,:,akin~l out an interrn,yJiErte class of steep slopes is V8(Y reasonable and has been done
other jurisdictions. It provides for identifyinfJ potentially hazardous slopes below 30%, without necessarily trl990}ring the rnore
compulsory and rigorous revis\iv that 90es with steeper SIOpfJS. Many of the~,e intermediatE, hillslopes may lx) reiativelystabie, but
under: sorne conditiorr3) E~ven quite gradual sJOpfJS can be susceptiblf3 to failures, 'ThH nonnal v\/arnjn~l si~F),s are thE: sarne as those
associated with sti"eper unstable ~,Iopes: previous histon; of rnOlfsment, hydrologic factors (and associated geologic conditions),
and undercutting. It certainly seerns prudent that if any of thE;se jnciicarofs are- present, a geotechnical f::vaJuation i;\loulej be
appropriate.
hugh
Htl9h Shiprni.m
Coastal Geologist
VV.~\
."
Ul
3'190 ^' -160th ;'\vent~s SE
p,~:,jj(0\/1.1(~) VVA, 9gG08..~:34S~?
42~j()'~9.109f)
. ecy. wa.gov/prqj (arns/seah,hor;:;!an. I,tml
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey Wentlandt [mailto:Geoffrey.Wentlandt@ci.bremerton.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 20064:22 PM
To: Shipman, Hugh
Cc: Andrea Spencer
Subject: Bremerton CAO Review
Hugh,
Thanks for getting back to me. Attached is a word file of Bremerton's draft Geologically Hazardous Areas section. The key
question we would like to have checked is the classification of our "Moderate Geologically Hazardous Areas". This is the
lowest threshold for GeoHazards classification in the draft, and we would like to make sure that it is adequate as,? minimum
threshold. The provision is highlighted in red and is numbered 20.14.620(b). For a little background, the provisiOh basically
says we will only classify slopes between 15% - 30% as a geohazard if there is some other soil instability characteristics,
seeps, erosion potential etc in the 15%-30% area. Later, provision 20.14.620(c)(iii) says we rrmy require a geological report
if we believe there is reason to suspect instability in the soils under the 15%-30% slope. Please let me know what you think.
Your thoughts on any other sections of the chapter such as the buffer standards, and our requirements for technical reports
are greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
,..., 1,,,,,,,,,, /r"'\A0.r
I
~~/f)~':./[)
,'"\,.,,{\,.
In
~.,
..cCQ,c'v,-<(_')
f\
o
f 1
;\.ft\.-~;:-:--f:;.-~r;;, ht~,,.
",. ~ ......{",.y,..
/1..~"::,i':,-".--1
I
\.
\
\
)
,
I
! {\
;',1J'
,
/
~~l
~---,^...........,
. ;i
/' ',--,. L/
,-J.(, Lt
''',-,,",\.
, ~- ,
}--".'
,......,.
'.-.
i
I
~..>__.d'~'--<-'
Ii
\'~~) r~ ((0,;:' ,~,j \\~D g,',lli, D,', \
1.-' t L,~-'::'/, ,~ " ")
n\ , '
\J U JAN 2, 11005 '
HOIV\E BUILDERS
ASSOCIA TION
OF KITSAP COUNTY
. C.....- I r,t'-'r'J'-t', r--Ie
. ,-~H-R' 4,- It\...;;C!'. """..'
BR....rJ1C \. ." " r-"""
i ';;":J' \.\:,-.,,1 ."",t-:\,;r=: np,\~,:X'!
GOM~Jlll'., I '- -.-"
January 31, 2006
Andrea Spencer, Planning Manager
Department of Community Development
City of Bremerton
345 6th Street, Suite 600
Bremerton, W A 98337
Dear Ms. Spencer,
We would like to provide comments on the City of Bremerton draft update Critical Areas Ordinance, These comments
are in addition to those I made at the January 24th Technical Review Committee meeting.
Wetlands - The City of Bremerton has few identified wetlands outside the city's watershed land base and the largest
effect will likely be on redcvdopment of existing parcels and buildings.
We believe that the city's current wetland buffas are adequate to maintain functions in an urban environment. We are
concerned that increasing Category III buffers from 50' to 75" and Category IV buffers from 25' to 50' in an urban,
largely built out environment could have a negative impact on redevelopment throughout the city.
We are also concerned with the substantially increase mitigation/replacement ratios. These will extremely difficult and
expensive to reach in the city's largely built out urban environment.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
We believe that the city's current stream buffers are adequate to maintain functions in an urban environment. Wehave
concerns with the proposed increase in Type II (F) category from the existing 50' to 100' to 150'and the Type III (Ns)
from 25' to 35'. Wesupport maintaining the Type III (Np) at 50'. Much of the BAS is based in rural, undeveloped and
natural environments and do not adequately account for existing urban environments. The changes proposed could have a
negative impact of redevelopment activity throughout the city. We also support the proposed significant reduction in
buffer widths when a currently culverted or piped stream is day lighted.
We supPOlithe city's continue use of "ordinary high water mark" (OHM) instead of channel migration zone throughout
the ordinance.
We support maintaining the existing huffer/setback for marine shorelines. All of the other recommendations woulq make
redevelopment of the city's shoreline areas unfeasible including all the new downtown redevelopment recently completed
(If under planning and construction.
~:--
/' ;-.:t:J/\',., NAN' , B
I I'," '.' . :
, &nj',~,\) .'.
~";,~",,,"-,~~/' , ..
52) i .!\~Jtu C:cnter V../ ay ~ f3rernertcl!1;, 'VV /\ 9831 ~~
20C,"5778 ~ Fax (360) 47~).~0313
'" '.,/\v\v.KitsJpf!lJi\.cunl
Alternatives and Flexibility
We support provisions that would provide the property owner or applicant the opportunity to utilize a Habitat
Management Plan to address buffers and other CAO related restrictions and mitigation, especially relating to wetlands and
fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, to insure that both new development and especially redevelopment has the
opportunity for creative and tlexible approaches to meeting the city's requirements.
We support your position that all urban uses are "high intensity" uses under the DOE model. However, we believe that
applicants should have a flexible path to complying with the ordinance's requirements. We also encourage you to
consider whether low impact development techniques reduce the intensity of uses. This could be a basis both for
flexibility as well as incentive for wide-spread use of LID techniques.
Integration with Low Impact DevcIopment Techniques
We strongly support the city's authorization to use approve stormwater facilities within the buffers of wetlands and
streams, especially if the facilities utilize low impact development techniques. Bioretention, for example can provide
water quality treatment, infiltration and sub surface flows to the streams and wetlands providing more environmentally-
fric;ldly stormvv'atcr management. Pervious paving materials should be encourage where authorized in butfers.
We believe that low impact development techniques reduce the intensity of uses. This could be a basis both for i1exibility
as well as incentive for wide-spread use of LID techniques and would encourage it's inclusion in the proposed ordinance.
The definition of Low Impact Development in the Puget Sound Action Team Puget Sound Technical Guidance Manual
should be included in the definition section.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.
Sincerely~/ /' ,/ /"
",/':&~l<;~~'/1:{
Art Castle, HIAE
Executive Vice President
01/19/2006 06: 20 360479: '
PAGE 01
FISHERIES DEPARTMENT
Phone: (360) 394-8437/8438
Fax: (360) 598-4666
www.suquamlsh.nsn.us
THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE'
P.O. Box 498 Suquamlsh, Washington 98392
FAX TRANSMISSION SHEET
Fisheries Fax #: (360) 598-4666
TODA Y'S DATE: _1 ,1;>..0 J 0lP # OF PAGES W/COVER: ~
TRANSMISSION TO: . CYl(i s .\..tu ~ c. 0 /WI d..h-.t~ lA LV)
TRIBE/COMPANY: (4 ~ ~~vhv\
FAX#:~?J - 52 ~'Z PHONE:
FROM: AkA ~ 01 ~A /\ \ \ Vu.- .
MESSAGE:
l.liYV\ W\.lAA;t S. DV\
&u~M1-A~. C)D(D
~
lAfd. ~~ y
C[ " .Jt.U.. bMi\ ~ (lNt\Yi'0 <E; J1i - I <i q L(
. RJ c1liAJ\ eA \le\-lD h W\. J M b . Y ~ tR ~ ~ ~Cjr
IF TRANSMISSION IS UNREADABLE
PLEASE PHONE (360) 394-8437/8438
01/19/2006 06:20
360479J
PAGE 02
FISHERIES DEPARTMENT
360/598-3311
Fax 360/598-4666
THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE
P.O. Bolt 498 Suquamish. Washington 98392
20 January 2006
Chris Hugo
City of Branerton
345 6. Street, $te. 600
Bremerton, WA 98337
Subject: City of Bremerton Updates to the Critical Areas Ordinance
The City ofBn:merton lies within the Suquamish Tribes "Usual and Accustomed Fishing Area"
(U & A). The Tribe seeks protection of all ~-te$etyed natw'al ftl$OW'CCS through avoidance of
impacts to habitat and natural systems. The Tribe urges the City ofBremerton to avoid land use
~isions that will impact natutal resources within the Tribes U & A. The Tribe has reviewed the
draft and has the following comments.
~~Mi$t -s:MiJRtIp Md ~,U9J19rWetla-
. Weda4 Ratinp - The 1993 wetland rating systenJ proposod is no longer coosiswnt
with best awlilable science. The rating system in the proposed amendments is based on
one that was developed by Ecology 12 years ago. Ecology recently revised this rating
systelll to incorporate new'infurmation. The updated rating system is based on a better
understanding of wetland functions, ways to evaluate them, and what is needed to protect
them. This fimction-based rating system represents the best available science fur rating
wetJauds in WaslUngton.
" Wetlud Bmffer Width Averaging - The Tribe does not support the reduction of buffer
more _ 25%. 75% is excessive and should not 00 allowed unless it can be supported
by BAS. Wetland buffers provide several iInportant protections for maintaining wetland
functioos. These include removing sediment; removing nutrient$; removing
contaminants such as fecal coliform bacteria, metals, and otber pollutants; providing
adjaceat upland habitats that are critical to life history needs of many wetland dependant
wildlife species; maintaining habitat connectivity; and creating and maintaining the
wetland's microclimate. For eumple, in a study of~land buffer effectiveness in King
and SRObomish Counties~ Cooke (in Castelle et at. 1992) fOWld that buffetS Jess than 50
feet were p-one to si~ificant reduction by hwnan disturbance and that some recently
established buffers had been completely removed through clearing of native vegetation.
Buffers greater than 50 feet had fewer human impacts. Other studies have shown that
trees in narrow buffers are more prone to windthrow, and thus that small buffers cannot
naaintain ~ons over time (pollock and Kennard 1998). The water quality functions of
small wetland buffers also degradr: over time, particularly if adjacent land uses generate
greater quantities of stonnwater sufficient to erode riUs and small channels in the buffer.
By establishing greater wetland buffers, the City can help to direct growth away from
these sensitive cO\I'ironments as urban density build-out occutS which supports Element E
uf1he Countywide Planning Policies
1
01/19/2006 06:20
360479J
PAGE 03
20.14.720 CI--H"acatioa aad D--utioa of Fiala .. WiJdIile Habitat Coaservatioa Areas
. SaItw1der ShortliM& - The Tribe recommends that the City give special consideration to
COfJ8erVation or protec;tioo JJleASUmi necessary to ~c or eobance anadromous
fisheriClS. The proposed buffef widths in the Shoreline M.asf.e{ Prognun will not protect
the fuactiona and values of the m&rine neanhofe. Like sttemn riparian areas, marine
riparian areas povide essential functions to the nearshore i~luding: delivery of wood
and sediment to the intertidal where it forms and maintains aquatic habitat; water quality
functioos of removing pollutants and nutrients from stoonwatef (a particularly important
functioa to protect commercial and recreational shellfish lU'CaS); input of detritus froo1
neat'SI1onl vegetation; input of terrestrial invertebrates; wildlife habitat; and microcJil'll8te
contro~ including shade. The need fOf bulkheads and retaining walls, that destn>y habitat
and habitat forming processes, could be minimized by requiring sufficient buffers. on
marine shorelines. The City should consider BAS and increase the buffers on marine
shorelisles to protect the functions and values of marine shorelines as critical salmon
habitat. 1be Tribe believes that the WAC still .requires that the City ensure that
reguJatioos protecting all critical ~ (as defined in WAC 365-190-(80) are consistent
with BAS oven if the City imends to protect marine critical areas in the SMMP portion
(or other portions) oftbe municipal code.
10.14.738 ~t Staadarda
. Table t: Streua BtdJer su.dantI - The Tribe also urges the City to increase the
minimum buffilr size for NS streams. Riparian areas are critical to the ecological
integrity of all upstream and downstream habitat areas and should be protected. BAS
suggests that maiotainiog buffer func::tioo depends both on the intensity of adjacent land
uses aqd the size of the buffer itself. To ensure consistency with BAS, the Tribe
reconJ.OICnds that the City refer to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Manasement :Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats - Riparian.
CIIItanI ~
. The Tribe is concemed about the potential fur new impacts on cultutal resources resulting
from pennitted.land use IKrtivities. The Tribe proposes that the County, Cities and local
Tribes work cooperatively to gain funding for the development of a countywide
predictive model for the presence of cultuml/archaeological reliOurces. Once high
probability areas are identified through application of mode~ development standards
could be developed for both the CAO and Shoreline Maoagmneot Master Program to
protect these afeQS &om impacts associated with inadvertent discovery.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions or would
like to di~uss these comments, please contact me directly at (360) 394-8447.
~r7
~
Alison O'SullivllD
Biologist, Environmental Program
Cc: Jeff Davis, Department ofFish and Wildlife
Ricl..-d Robohm, Department of Ecology
2
State of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Mailing Address: 502 High Ave. Suite 112, Port Orchard WA 98366, (360)895-3965, Fax (360) 876-1894
February 7, 2006
City of Bremerton
Planning Commission
345 Sixth Street, Suite 600
Bremerton, Washington 98337
Dear Commissioners:
SUBJECT: City of Bremerton; Draft Critical Areas Ordinance; Kitsap County,
Washington, WRIA 15
The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) appreciates this opportunity to
provide comments and suggestions regarding the draft ordinance addressing critical areas in the
City ofBremerton. The following comments are based on the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAG)
Staff Draft dated December 20, 2005.
Chapter 20.14.100 Description and Purpose
20.14.120 (c): WDFW recommends adding our Priority Habitats and Species maps and
recommendations into this section. PHS provides the information necessary to incorporate the
needs of fish and wildlife in land use planning. The PHS program addresses three central
questions:
. Which species and habitat types are priorities for management and conservation?
. Where are these habitats and species located?
. What should be done to protect these resources when land use decisions are made?
To answer these essential questions, the PHS Program:
. identifies habitats and species determined to be priorities based on defensible criteria;
. maps the known locations of priority habitats and species using GIS technology;
. provides information on the conditions required to maintain healthy populations of
priority species
. and viable, functioning priority habitats using best available science;
II provides consultation and guidance on land use issues affecting priority habitats and
speCIes;
Planning Commission
February 1,2006
Page 2 of 12
. distributes this information and makes it easily accessible.
PHS also furnishes products which enable the agency to provide competent and efficient
customer service. In this regard, PHS staff annually produce and distribute:
. Over 4,000 copies of the Priority Habitats and Species List. The PHS List identifies and
defines which species and habitats are priorities, and it outlines criteria used for choosing
them.
. Over 3,500 copies of Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats
and Species. These detailed documents identify the needs of fish and wildlife based on
the best available science. Guidelines for their incorporation in management decisions are
provided.
. Nearly 2,000 state-of-the-art Geographic Information System (GIS) maps which display
locations and extent of priority species and habitats on 29 million acres in Washington
State.
o Requesting PHS Maps and Digital Data. This information can be requested at
Vvww. wdfW. wa. gov/hab/release.
WDFW can provide these mapping and recommendation products to the city at their request.
20.14.155 Reasonable Use Exception, 20.14.165 Bonds and 20.14.170 Enforcement are all well
written and appear to prevent or reduce future potential impacts to critical areas.
Chapter 20.14.200 Definitions
WDFW is very supportive of the Best Management Practices (BMP's) definition. The city
monitoring component will ensure that onsite impacts will be addressed throughout the project.
WDFW suggests adding an adaptive management component to this definition to allow for
modifications that will ensure protections to critical areas throughout the IS.rojects life.
The compensatory mitigation definition only references wetlands. WDFW suggests that
compensatory mitigation also applies to other critical areas such as Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas, including streams and Priority Habitats and Species (PHS).
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (E) should also include sand lance. Sand lance is
an important prey species for marine fish (e.g., salmon) and mammals and therefore requires an
adequate degree of protection.
WDFW also suggests including juvenile salmon migration corridors within the definition or
simply including the Fish Habitat definition within Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas definition. This will further guide the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirement for
giving special consideration to anadromous fish species. WDFW recommends including PHS
into the definition as well. The following example is taken from the Mason County Critical
Areas Ordinance:
Planning Commission
February 1,2006
Page 3 of 12
B. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREA CATEGORIES.
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas include both aquatic and terrestrial areas within
Mason County. The approximate location and extent of critical fish and wilalife habitat areas
are displayed in the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife's (WDFW) Priority Habitat and
Species (PHS) Program database. Mason County will also use other available informationfor
these critical fish and wildlife habitat areas, including tribal and federal databases and local
knowledge. The follo'wing categories shall be used in classifying critical areas to be regulated
under this ordinance:
1. Commercial and recreational shellfish areas.
2. Kelp and eelgrass beds; herring. sand lance. and smelt spawning areas.
3. Naturally occurring lakes and ponds under twenty acres and their submerged aquatic beds
that provide fish or wildltie habitat.
4. Streams.
5. Salm'ater Shorelines, and Lakes 20 Acres and Greater in Surface Area.
6. Lakes. ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a ,governmental or tribal entity.
7. State Department of Natural Resources natural area preserves and natural resource
conservation areas.
8 Areas with which Federal or State endangered, threatened and sensitive species offish
and wildlife have a primary association. Those species known to be found in Mason
County are listed in Table 1. Protection of species habitats is determined by the State or
Federal listing, and their actual presence near the site subject to review. Other listed and
protected species may be found in J.,;Jason County, which are not in Table 1.
9. Areas that contain habitats and species of local importance as listed in Table 1 below.
Species of local importance may include, but are not limited to, State Candidate and
Monitor species.
WDFW recommends adding a definition for Low Impact Development. This definition could be
taken directly from the Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT) and Washington State University
Pierce County Extension "Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget
Sound" dated January 2005.
Example LID language could read as follows; "Low Impact Development (LID) will be required
to the greatest extent feasible for all new development containing impervious surfaces".
According to a study by Wigmosta et aI. 1994, the typical suburban development in the Pacific
Northwest is estimated to have approximately 90% less storage capacity than under naturally
forested conditions and although impervious surfaces themselves do not generate pollution, they
are the major contributor to hydrologic impacts that affect urban streams (May et aI., 1991).
Cumulative effects from development activities could have significant impacts on adjacent
waterways if not properly designed. Some examples of LID are:
Planning Commission
February 1,2006
Page 4 of 12
.:. Create graded swales and plant trees in amended soils to help provide storm water
Amended soils: adding topsoil, if necessary, mixed with organic matter, in order to
improve retention of storm water runoff.
.:. Permeable pavement for parking lots, driveways and alleyways.
.:. Grass parking lots with interlocking plastic grids.
.:. Rooftop rainwater harvesting
.:. Collection and reuse of residential stormwater runoff
Mitigation (D) may lead to some reduction in impacts to property, but will likely lead to a
reduction in function of critical areas. For example, bulkheading a marine shoreline would meet
an engineered solution, but will cut-off sediment inputs to the marine nearshore environment
and/or exacerbating shoreline erosion on adjacent properties. WDFW does not feel that this
would meet a true mitigation definition. We acknowledge that this concern would apply to
extreme cases, nonetheless, WDFW suggests further refining (D) to prevent loss of structure and
critical areas function within these cases. The addition of additional mitigation requirements or
compensatory mitigation for impacts to function of the critical area may be sufficient.
WDfW recommends including Channel Migration Zones (CMZ) to the "riparian habitat"
definition where referencing width measurements. The following definition taken from the
Shoreline Management Act (WAC 173-26) could be included within the "riparian habitat"
definition. The inclusion of the CMZ will provide additional protection to critical areas
associated with Gorst Creek, Heins Creek, Parrish Creek, Kitsap Creek and lower Anderson
Creek while improving public safety.
(6) "Channel migration zone (CMZ)" means the area along a river within which the channel(s)
can be reasonably predicted to migrate over time as a result of natural and normally occurring
hydrological and related processes when considered with the characteristics of the river and its
surroundings.
Chapter 20.14.300 Wetlands
WDFW encourages the City of Bremerton to adopt the new Washington Department of Ecology
(DOE) wetland rating system and guidance for protecting wetlands documents found at
www.ecv.wa.€!-ov/programs/sealbas wetlands. WDFW further recommends the protection of
small isolated wetlands or at a minimum compensatory mitigation for the loss of these wetlands.
Small isolated wetlands can be very important to native amphibian species, as well as, foraging
and nesting areas for waterfowl, and a seasonal water source for other important wildlife species.
20.14.330 (f)(4) WDFW encourages the city to allow butTer averaging only where no feasible
alternati ve exists. If approved, the widening of the buffer should occur within the most sensitive
portions of the wetland buffer. Human intrusions into these sensitive buffer locations should
then be discouraged.
Planning Commission
February 1,2006
Page 5 of 12
20.14.340 (5) monitoring of forested wetland restoration, enhancement or replacement should
occur for a minimum time period of 10 years. This will allow the city to better determine
whether the project meets the compensatory mitigation requirements as defined within the CAO.
The Planning Commissioners that attended the January 24, 2006 meeting with city staff and the
technical review team requested information regarding the placement of trails through wetland
and stream buffers. WDFW has addressed these issues within the Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas section of this letter.
Chapter 20.14.400 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
The majority of this section addresses aquifer protection for water quality purposes. While
WDFW supports the Washington State Department of Health requirements for the protection of
groundwater quality, we suggest going further to protect groundwater quantity. WDFW strongly
recommends the use the Low Impact Development (LID) standards through the adoption ~f the
PSA T and WSU Pierce Extension "Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for
Puget Sound. " The use of LID will reduce the harmful impacts of impervious surfaces on
groundwater recharge and modification of natural streamflow regimes within streams. LID also
can reduce wildlife habitat impacts through the retention of native trees and shrubs. At a
minimum, we encourage the city to apply LID within the mapped Category I and II Critical
Aquifer Recharge Areas. 20.14.440 should also list impervious surfaces as a potential threat to
groundwater.
Chapter 20.14.600 Geologically Hazardous Areas
20.14.630(C) allows for a reduction of the standard buffer setback. WDFW does not encourage
buffer reductions to these areas due to the potential public safety hazard and the structural bank
protection that typically occurs after a home or building is constructed. WDFW has experienced
local jurisdictions approving geo-technical reports stating that the slope setback buffer could be
reduced without the need for bank protection. Once the building is constructed, then the
landowner comes back to the local jurisdiction and WDFW requesting the need for bank
armoring or bulkheading. Armoring of steep slopes or bluffs lead to a net loss of habitat
function. Natural slope failures or natural erosion rates help maintain nearshore or stream
processes through the input of spawning substrate, leaf litter and large woody debris. The loss of
these input sources has a dramatic impact on fish habitats and often leads to the loss of viable
fish habitats.
20.14.630(e) WDFW recommends adding a requirement for "danger tree" or tree limbing,
topping, or removal be supported by a qualified arborist and approved by the city prior to
clearing activities. Tree removal can exacerbate slope instability in certain circumstances and
thus result in property damage and wildlife habitat removal. Through the review of a qualified
geologist and arborist, these potential impacts can be reduced. WDFW suggest adding a
mitigation sequence to these vegetation removal projects that would include in preferential order:
limbing, high stump, and total removaL
Planning Commission
February 1,2006
Page 6 of 12
Chapter 20.14.700 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
The Description and Purpose (20.14.710) section is very well expressed. This combined with the
other protection standards within the CAOwilllikely go a long way to protecting fish and
wildlife resources within the City of Bremerton.
20.14.720(b) and (d) WDFW strongly recommends that the City of Bremerton include marine
shorelines within the CAD until such time that the Shorelines Master Program (SMP) is updated.
This will go further towards giving special consideration to anadromous species under GMA and
aid the city in meeting ESHB 1933 for the coordination of the CAD and SMP updates. WDFW
suggests adding juvenile salmon migration corridors to this section.
WDFW recommends adding "fish" to 20. 14.720(d) so that it reads "Class I Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Areas". We also recommend adding "species" within subsection (1) so that the
paragraph.begins "Habitats and species recognized by federal or state agencies...".
20. 14.720(d)(2) WDFW strongly recommends referencing the Sfiared Strategy process and other
watershed planning processes within the City of Bremerton or surrounding areas. This will
provide furthe~ guidance to restoration efforts for salmon recovery.
WDFW is extremely supportive of20.14.720(f) establishing a process for nominating habitats
and species of local importance. As requested by the Planning Commission members in
attendance at the Technical Review Team meeting, WDFW has enclosed examples from other
jurisdictions that have adopted similar programs and will provide further technical assistance at
your request.
20.14.730 Development Standards subsection (a) Buffer and Setback Areas references the
measurement beginning from the ordinary high water mark (DHWM) or from the top of the
bank. WDFW recommends adding CMZ where present to this buffer measurement. By
measuring the buffer from the CMZ (if present) the landowner is further protected from the
stream channel migrating over time or through an immediate flood response, and this will protect
property and personal safety while allowing for natural stream functions to occur.
The draft CAD 20.14.730 Table 1 proposes a 200-foot standard buffer width for Type S waters.
This is 50-feet shy of meeting the WDFW Management Recommendations for Washington's
Priority Habitats - Riparian (PHR) buffer recommendations. The CAO also proposes ISO-foot
buffers for Type F waters and 50-foot buffers for Type NP and 35-foot for NS waters. The PHR
document recommends 150-200 feet for Type F waters, 150-225 feet for Type NP and NS
streams. It appears that the draft CAD is within the ranges suggested for protection within BAS
for Type Sand F waters, however, the proposed buffers are within the minimum range of the
recommended buffer widths. The proposed buffers for Type NP and NS waters fall significantly
short of the recommended buffers.
Planning Commission
February 1,2006
Page 7 of 12
Type NP and NS streams provide significant functions to downstream fish habitat quality and
habitat forming processes, and they provide important wildlife habitat. These streams need to be
afforded an adequate degree of protection for this reason. Streambank stability, slope__stability,
sediment transport, stream temperatures, woody debris input, water quality and quantity are all
extremely important for these small streams and for the fish-bearing waters that are located
downstream. Any human-caused modification to anyone of these functions can have an impact
on fish habitat and thus fish production. In addition, these streams and their associated riparian
areas are critical for wildlife species as breeding, migration, and foraging habitats.
According to the PHR, the proposed 50-foot buffer for Type NP stream within the draft CAO
will provide limited shade function, minimum pollution filtration, mourning dove habitat,
minimal pileated woodpecker and some neo-tropical migrant birds, black-capped chickadee
habitat. This proposed buffer would not provide adequate water temperature control (range 35-
151 feet), large woody debris (L WD) (range 100-180 feet), filter sediments (range 100-300 feet),
filter pollutants (range 13-600 feet), erosion control (range 100-125 feet), microclimate influence
(range 200-525 feet),instream habitat (range 50-100 feet), and wildlife habitat (range 50 for some
small songbirds-984 feet for great blue heron).
The 35-foot buffer on Type NS streams will provide minimal water temperature control (range
35-151 feet), minimal large woody debris input (l 00-180 feet allows for adequate wood loading),
nutrient reduction (13-52 feet). This buffer will not provide sediment filtration (range 100-300
feet), adequate large woody debris input, 80-100 percent shading (range 59-151 feet), erosion
control (range 100-125 feet), microclimate influence (range 200-525 feet), or wildlife habitat
(range 50-984 feet). Attached are the tables taken from the PHR appendices describing the
summary of science and the protection allowed to stream functions.
The PHR also recommends increasing the buffer widths when a Priority Habitat and Species
(PHS) is present. Furthermore, it recommends adding 100-feet on the windward side of riparian
areas with high blow down (or windthrow) potential, as well as, extending the buffer to the outer
edge of an unstable slope along Type NP and NS waters. This may be an opportunity to utilize
the "Provisions for Increasing Buffer".
Table 1 does not provide any buffer and setback requirements for Type S shorelines (marine).
Specific Marine Riparian Buffer Recommendations
Recentstudies conducted in Kitsap County by WDFW, the Suquamish Tribe, and the City of
Bainbridge Island have documented juvenile Puget Sound chinook salmon from south, central
and north sound, as well as the Strait of Juan de Fuca rivers and streams, and all of these salmon
migrate within marine areas of east Kitsap County.
,,-
,
The National Research Council defines riparian areas as transitional between terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems and is distinguished by gradients in biophysical conditions. ecological
processes and biota_ They are areas which surface and subsurface hydrology connect
Planning Commission
February 1, 2006
Page 8 of12
waterbodies with their adjacent uplands. They include those portions of aquatic ecosystems.
Riparian ecosystems are adjacent to perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, lakes and
estuarine-marine shorelines. Although marine riparian systems have not been as well studied as
freshwater riparian systems, many researchers believe that riparian systems serve similar
functions regardless of the salinity of the water body (Brennan and Culverwell, 2004). These
functions include soil and slope stability, sediment control, wildlife habitat, microclimate, water
quality, nutrient input, fish prey production (insects which juvenile salmon consume), habitat
structure (e.g. large woody debris input) and shade (Brennan and Culverwell, 2004; Lemieux et.
al. 2004).
The Precautionary Principle: "Do no further harm" is important to protecting the marine
nearshore ecological functions and values. By requiring adequate buffers to protect marine
shorelines, Kitsap County will minimize the need for restoration. This is important especially
given uncertainty of success and the expense to society.
We recommend the city utilize the guidance contained within the Critical Areas Assistance
Handbook published November 2003 by the Washington State Department of Community, Trade
and Economic Development (CTED) to establish buffer widths for marine shorelines. CTED
recommends 250-foot riparian habitat areas for Type S waters including marine shorelines.
WDFW strongly recommends that future CAD drafts include some protection criteria for critical
areas located within marine shorelines. These protections could be in the form of standard
buffers (250-feet as recommended in CTED's guidance document) or through a Habitat
Management Plan process that allows for a more site-specific protection approach. Please see
the attached Port Townsend example taken from their Draft Shoreline Master Program "Chapter
6 Environmental Protection" dated October 13,2005.
It is also important to note that some streams listed in Table 1 (e.g., Kitsap Creek) support coho
salmon and cutthroat trout up to the headwaters. The stream typing maps, like most maps,
contain some inaccuracies. These inaccuracies will need to be reviewed on a site or project
specific basis. The East Kitsap Salmon and Steelhead Limiting Factors Analysis prepared by the
Washington Conservation Commission can be used for existing stream conditions and more
accurate fish presence mapping.
Further, there are several important streams located within the City of Bremerton Watershed.
While the north of Old Belfair Highway is currently operated for drinking water and forestry
uses, the south side contains a golf course with some timber harvesting activities. The south side
of the Old Belfair Highway is harvested under "conversion option harvest plans" to allow for
future development proposals. This is important because there is a perception that the city is
completely developed and these larger buffers may not be applicable.
20.14.730(3) and (4), similar t<?the wetland buffer averaging, WDFW recommends that the
largest buffer surround the most sensitive areas of the stream.
Planning Commission
February 1,2006
Page 9 of 12
WDFW suggests including a reference to our "Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts" design
_manual within 20.14.730(d). This reference provides the most recent guidance on fish passage
design criteria for citizen's proposing new stream crossings or replacement of existing stream
crossings. This document can be found online at www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/engineer/cm/toc.htm.
20.14.730(e) Regarding the use of "equivalent" vegetation in stream channel relocations. worn
bdims this provision will have significant aoverse impacts on fish ana lVilolife.
As native vegetation goes through smssion, wilolife use ana oiversity changes, as 00 the insect community ana microbial community. It is important to note
that these associations are linkeo in many ways ana the mooification of one of the links can result in odderious effects to all titIhrr links. wilolife species
have aoapteo to cmain life nrros (fooo, wata, com) ana are typically attacheo to one or many plant assaciations ano succrssion prrioos. This is an
important natural praccss, ano intmuptions willlikdy result in or/tITious impacts to native wilolife oiversity ano populations.
Allawing native vegetation to be replaceo with "equivalent" goes against "best available science" on plant associatians ano succession. First, it will oifficult at
best for city staff to oetrotine whetha a proposeo equivalent ooes inorro provioe similar ~nction to a site. It apens the ooor for brauti~ing our buffers with
more ornamental type vegetation, ana thus likely resulting in a loss of structure ana ~nction to the buffa arra.
The introouction of "equivalents" to a site may result in inaraseo wataing nrros, oisease that may be oetrimental to existing native vegetation; ana
altaation of inscct populations that are important foov sources for amphibians, biros ano fish. Introoucti~ "equivalents" in the past have resultev iJisrase
introouctions (e.g., Suvoen oak orath), insect infestations (e.g., gypsy moth), anvoisplacement of native wilolife populations by invasive exotic wilolife
species (e.g., European starling) that can aoaptmore reaoily to the alteration of the native habitat.
Requiring the use of native vegetation will not only provive staff a more v1inev critaia, thus provioing the citizens a more accurate unverstanoing of the
requirement, it will also avoiv unforeselfl consequences of "equivalent" vegetation.
20. 14.730(h) Trails anv Trai~Relateil Facilities. WOFW encourages public eoucation regarving fish ana wi/cJlife resources anv we promote nl1n
consumptive uses offish anv wilolife resources through our "watcharl wilolife program." while these wilvlif~viewing activities can contribute significantly
to local ana state economies, it is important that trails aojacent to critical areas buffers be well thouglollt. Trails can impact wilolife migration routes; they
can oisrupt wilolife freoing, breroing ana resting activities; trails can reouce the ~nction of the critical area by reoucing the effective protections arouno the
critical arra; arIO they can impact critical arras through a reouction in quality (oomestiaMmal wastes, garbage, yaro waste oisposal, ete.!.
WOFW acknowleoges the value of critical areas open space within an urban anv urbanizing area anv suggest that a comprehensive stuvy coulo be completeo
through a inoiviiJual process or through a Parks ancRearation planning process that wau/v take a comprehensive loak at these areas ano allow for some trail
systems in areas less sensitive to human oisturbance ana normal trail construction activities. Trails shoulo not be alloweo ta enclose a critical artlllll this
will leao ta impacts to wi/ofife usage. It may be possible to mitigate or reouCf potential impacts to fish anv wi/olife resource through the implementation trail
closures outing critical spawning, migrating or bmoing time paioos or perhaps Oily timing restrictions that woulv avoio high wilolifr use ptTioos.
Trail construction o'Jes reouce the structure ano ~nction of critical arras anil their associateo buffers. Thrr10re, WOFW strongly recommenos siting the
trai~ outsioe of the critical ara buffers. Some minor intrusions into the buffer may occur with minimal impact to the buffer ~nction anv fish ano wi/olife
resources. One example of this woulo be a Ilarrow pier structure that lrails to an observation point. These observation points IilD be kept tv a minimum to
avoio impacts to fish ano \ViWlife resources. WDFW can pravioe plrther teclwiwl assistallce an this issue at t.~e City.s request.
Planning Commission
February 1,2006
Page 10 of 12
20.14.730(j) Bank Stabilization will ultimately lead to a reduction or loss of habitat function.
Stream and marine bank erosion is necessary to maintain stream and nearshore habitats that fish
species depend on. Armoring these banks, even with bio-engineered techniques, still will lead to
a reduction in habitat forming processes. It is important to only allow these projects where no
other feasible alternative exists and avoid the future need all together through proper planning.
WDFW suggests referencing the "Integrated Stream bank Protection Guidelines Manual"
(ISPG) as a guidance document for determine why, where, when, and what project needs to be
completed to protect an eroding bank. This document can be viewed on the WDFW website at
\!'.iWW. wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg.
Priority Habitats and Species of Local Importance could be included within the updated CAO.
At the request of City staff and Planning Commission members, WDFW has included the
following example taken from Mason County's Critical Areas Ordinance.
H HABITATS AND SPECIES OF LOCAL IlvfPORTANCE -- LISTING & DELISTING
IMPORTANT HABITATS & SPECIES
1. Locally significant species are those which are not state listed as threatened, endangered or
sensitive, but which live in Mason County, and the species is special importance to the citizens
of Mason County for cultural or historical reasons, or the county is a critically significant
portion of their range. Mason County is a critically significant portion of the range of a species
when any of the following conditions apply:
a. The species would be extirpatedfrom the state of Washington ifit is extirpatedfrom
Mason County; or
b. The species' population would be divided into non-viable populations if it is extirpated
from Mason County, where the isolated populations are critical to the survival of the
species; or
c. The species is listed as a state monitor or candidate species and A;fason County is a
significant portion of the range of the species and significant reduction or extirpation
of the species from It.;fason County would result in changing the status of the species
to that of state endangered, threatened, or sensitive.
2. Locally significant habitats are those habitats in which significant species live, or which is of
special importance to the citizens of Mason County because they have been determined to
contribute to the variety of habitats or diversity of species.
3. Regulations prepared to protect locally important habitat and species shall consider and,
where possible, support the economic development of Mason County and the use of resource
lands and resources industry, enhance the affordability ofhollsing, and otherwise promote the
achievement of other goals in the Mason County Comprehensive Plan.
4. The process for listing or delisting an important habitat or species in NJason County shall be
an amendment to this section of the Interim Resource Ordinance. This action may be initiated
by request of the State Department ofFish & Wildlife, the Skokomish Tribe, the Quinault Tribe
and/or the Squaxin Island Tribe, County staff, or interested citizens. Any such request shall
be in writing and shall include:
a. The common and scientific names of/or species under consideration,'
Planning Commission
February 1,2006
Page 11 of 12
b. Habitat location on a map (scale 1:24,000);
c. The reasons for the request, including:
(I) declining or increasing population,
(2) sensitivity to habitat manipulation.
d. Habitat management recommendations, including potential uses and restrictions of
the habitat areas, seasonally sensitive areas, and other guidelines necessary for the
protection of the nominated species.
e. Other supporting documentation, including an analysis which weighs the non-environmental
impacts of the proposal, addressing economics and land use, against
the benefits of the proposed listing.
5. The written request and supporting data may be evaluated by a qualified wildlife biologist or
equivalent professional selected by the County.
In addition to the above, the County shall consider thefollowingfactors when evaluating the
request:
a. The specificity and scientific validity of the iY!formation about the nominated species
needs and behaviors;
b. The sufficiency of habitat areas currently available to sustain the species over time;
and
c. The versatility of the proposed habitat area to sustain species other than the one
being nominatedfor local species of importance designation.
Planning Commission
February 1,2006
Page 12 of 12
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions, please
contact me at 360-895-3965.
Sincerely,
...... \'.'. . \; :n ..' ~ .'
~~~?
Jeff Davis
Habitat Program
JD:jd
Enclosure:
Port Townsend Draft Shoreline Master Program Chapter 6
cc: WDFW File Olympia
Andrea L. Spencer, City of Bremerton Dept. of Community Development
Tim Gates, CTED
Richard Robohm,WDOE
John Cambalik, PSA T
Alison O'Sullivan, Suquamish Tribe Fisheries Dept.
Millard Deusen, WDFW GMA Coordinator
Stephan Kalinowski, WDFW Region 6 Habitat Program Manager
Citations:
Brennan, 1S., and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of
Riparian Functions in Marine Ecosystems. Published by Washington Sea Grant
Program Copyright 2005, UW Board of Regents Seattle, W A. 34 p.
Lemieux, J.P., Brennan, J.S., Farrell, M., Levings, C.D., and Myers, D. 2004.
Proceedings of the DFO/PSAT sponsored Marine Riparian Experts Workshop,
Twawwassen, BC, February 17-18, 2004. Can. Man. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No.
2680. viii+83 p.
May, Christopher W., Richard R. Homer, James R. Karr, Brian W. Mar, Eugene
B. Welch. 1991. The Cumulative Effects of Urbanization on Small Streams in the
Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion. Puget Sound Research 98' Proceedings.
Wigmosta, M.S., S.J. Burgess, and 1M. Meena. 1994. Modeling and Monitoring
to Predict Spatial and Temporal Hydrologic Characteristics in Small Catchments.
USGS Water Resources Technical Report No. 137.
Nicole Ward
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cambalik, John [JCambalik@PSAT.WA.GDV]
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:21 AM
Nicole Ward
Jeff Davis (E-mail); Robohm, Richard; Tim Gates (E-mail); Beale, Harriet
Bremerton Proposed CAD Update: PSA T Informal Comments
Importance:
High
Attachments:
model ord definitions - PSAT Informal Comments. doc; cover sheet 17.60 Floodplain
Management - PSAT Informal Comments. doc; Frequently Flooded Areas - PSAT Informal
Comments. doc; Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas - PSAT Informal Comments. doc;
DraftFishWLHab2 - PSAT Informal Comments. doc; 2899.ESA.070505.pdf
~I'.,",',..,",,:,
i.. ,:c.".'': :,~.'.;':::.',
,'""c",,,,_,.c.
~....
'WI,.
~.::,~:-.<
_,__",,:_~,:__v"..,
;'--"'-.,>'
i!!l1:iY;
l"-'---""':
~:<;'i:_<,_,!_N_'
~I.jii:
'-.';'.':-.'............
;'.',':-::;-..~.~
.. -=........ '....'.
.. '-."
.~~
2899.ESA.070S0S.
pdf (736 KB)
Nicole,
model ord cover sheet 17.60 Frequently Flooded
lefinitions - PSAT 1.. Floodplain M... Areas - PS...
Critical Aquifer
Recharge Area...
DraftFishWLHab2 -
PSAT Informa...
Attached are our informal comments on Bremerton's proposed CAO updates for staff to
consider when finalizing the draft for tonights Planning Commission meeting. Our informal
edits (pink type) and comments (behind the light yellow highlighted text) are noted for
the following sections:
20.14.200 Definitions
BMC 17.60 Building and Construction Floodplain
Management
20.14.500 Frequently Flooded Areas
20.14.400 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
20.14.700 Fish and wildlife Conservation Areas
<<model ord definitions - PSAT Informal Comments.doc>> <<cover sheet 17.60 Floodplain
Management - PSAT Informal Comments.doc>> <<Frequently Flooded Areas - PSAT Informal
Comments.doc>> <<Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas - PSAT Informal Comments.doc>>
<<DraftFishWLHab2 - PSAT Informal Comments.doc>>
Also attached is the section of the City of Port Townsend's CAO that we refer to in one of
our comments on 20.14.700, the Fish and Wildlife Area's section of your CAO.
<<2899.ESA.070505.pdf>>
Our review is not comprehensive but is focused around two of the Puget Sound Action Team
partnership's core conservation priorities for Puget Sound, nearshore habitat and
stormwater management.
A formal comment letter, signed by our director, will be developed after review of the
Planning Commission's final version of the proposed CAO.
Please let me know if you have any questions and if we can be of further assistance.
Thank you for the oppotunity to provide informal verbal and written comment on this early
draft.
John Cambalik, Regional Liaison
Clallam, Jefferson, and Kitsap
puget Sound Action Team
PO Box 3622
Sequim, Washington 98382
Phone: 360-582-9132
Fax: 360-582-9132 (please call first)
Email: jcambalik@psat.wa.gov
Website: www.psat.wa.gov
1
This is a staff draftfor review a
'mment
site watersheds, I OO-year floodplains, shorelines or shorelines of statewide significance, liparian
areas, and wetlands.
Critical Facility - A facility for which even a slight chance of flooding, inundation, or impact
from a hazard event might be too great. Critical facilities include, but are not limited to, schools,
nursing homes, hospitals, police, fire and emergency response installations, and installations that
produce, use, or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste.
Critical Species - All animal and plant species listed by the state or federal government as
threatened or endangered.
[~ri~llla~i.~e..!rrip~ct~:llr~ffe~t~...?:l'RF~gm~ir.~a,;ll1~t~w~l1!~f;~~f~P!*,~th~tl1~r'.#til~ly.~#
:.e...c...o..........i.~.o......gl...C.......a.......l..... o........r.........'.c.... d. t...i...c.... al.. ...a.....r......e......a......s.......tl..U....ll... c.........t......i....o.........n..........sF.a.......n...........d.. ......Y:a. ...lu. ....es.,...'... C. ..........u.... ..rn...........u.........l.....a......t....l...~...... e.........l....m....p.........a.........c.'. t.....s.'.,r. ..e.,..s,.....u.... . .l.".t.....""..' :.'.p...~.n.. .......,.t. .,h..,.....e........:,.....e,....f. fi......e..,.,..'.c........t........s......'...'...o..........f
.~~'.~9ti<j~;~r#..~e~Sd..to:o~:iWe~~.ct~it~..,<jm,e\...~tfect.~bt;aJ1~~j~H~~fJ1Jac~:.~p,~:.,~ij~ir.~.p~niqlJlar
tim~......Ifi.~.:..tr~.,c:~tl1bip,~ti9~.:Q[.th7~'e.,stfe9tsf:~Il(i:~~ y~~!illl~.~g.'s~y.,it~h,tl1,~n~Mi1is~t~cl~hR~;Jhat
~M~I,~):Je.tl:Ie,:.focus'ofcun1ulativ.dj inpa~tall(l!ysi!i:(ln(ijchCl~ges,topoli,~.i~~,(lnct',pefIl'1!ttirlg
d~~i~i()hs, .
D
Developable Area - A site or portion of a site that may be utilized as the location of
development, in accordance with the rules of this Title.
Development - Any activity upon the land consisting of construction or alteration of structures,
earth movement, dredging, dumping, grading, filling, mining, removal of any sand, gravel, or
minerals, driving of piles, drilling operations, bulkheading, clearing of vegetation, or other land
disturbance. Development includes the storage or use of equipment or materials inconsistent
with the existing use. Development also includes approvals issued by the [city/county] that
binds land to specific patterns of use, including but not limited to, subdivisions, short
subdivisions, zone changes, conditional use permits, and binding site plans. Development
activity does not include the following activities:
A. Interior building improvements.
B. Exterior structure maintenance activities, including painting and roofing.
C. Routine landscape maintenance of established, ornamental landscaping, such as lawn
mowing, pruning, and weeding.
D. Maintenance of the following existing facilities that does not expand the affected area;
septic tanks (routine cleaning); wells; individual utility service connections; and individual
cemetery plots in established and approved cemeteries;
Development Permit - Any permit issued by the [city/county], or other authorized agency, for
construction, land use, or the alteration of land.
Director - The [ director] of the [ city/county] planning department or other responsible official,
or other city staff granted the authority to act on behalf of the director.
CAO Staff Draft
Wetlands p. 5 of 212120
December 20. 2005
This is a staff draft for review an
nment
E
Elevated Building - A building that has no basement and its lowest elevated floor is raised
above ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, post, piers, pilings, or columns.
Emergent Wetland - A wetland with at least thirty percent (30%) of the surface area covered by
erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation extending above the water surface as the uppermost
vegetative strata.
Erosion - The process whereby wind, rain, water, and other natural agents mobilize and
transport particles.
Exotic - Any species of plants or animals, which are foreign to the planning area.
F
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas - Areas necessary for maintaining species in
suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated subpopulations are
not creat~~.~s.~esi!SI1ated~y.~ A; c:365~1~?-08?(~). .!h:~seare~si~clll~~:/.\ ............\...
A ....:Ar~~l~~i!p....~~iSl,1~~tate..oI..[~.(le.fal.ty.d~sighat~d.~!iaan.gyr~d.,..!hr~.~t~Ileg,..911~l.;s~l1.~ifiy~
'species.ha~e :lprjITl.Clry.i~.~99i:ltioIl; ... .' ..........
B. Habitats 'and spic:iesof local importance,. including but not limited to areas designated as
priority habitat by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife;
C. Commercial and recreational shellfish areas;
D. Kelp and eelgrass beds;
E. Herring[,iT1asIl1hlt,all(js~Jm'l~]i2'~)spawningareas;. . ....
F. Naturally occurring ponds under twenty (20) acres and their submerged aquatic beds that
provide fish or wildlife habitat, including those artificial ponds intentionally created from dry
areas in order to mitigate impacts to ponds;
G. Waters of the state, including lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground
waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the
state of Washington;
H. Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a govemmental or tribal
entity;
1.
1.
State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas; and
Land essential for preserving connections between habitat blocks and open spaces.
Fish Habitat - Habitat that is used by fish at any life stage at any time of the year, including
potential habitat likely to be used by fish that could be recovered by restoration or management
and includes off-channel habitat.
Flood or Flooding - A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of
normally dry land areas from the overflow of inland waters and/or the unusual and rapid
accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source.
Flood Insurance Map - The official map on which the Federal Insurance Administration has
delineated the areas of special flood hazards and include the risk premium zones applicable to
the community. Also known as "flood insurance rate map" or "FIRM."
CAO Staff Draft
Wetlands p. 6 of 212120
December 20, 2005
I......
"'nbtcited in,
i...i~eY'~r~.~."yerYi;"p
11....~.pec;iesand.\'fE(s~~.~
Ic2_:'udecJ.h.ere.>...<{~c~J. ,:.);:j
This is a staff draft for review a
lmment
offactors including: bedrock, soil, slope gradient, slope aspect, geologic stmcture, ground
water, or other factors.
Low Intensity Land Use - Land uses which are associated with low levels of human
disturbance or low habitat impacts, including, but not limited to, passive recreation, open space,
or forest management land uses.
Lowest Floor - The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area, including the basement. An
unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or
storage in an area other than a basement area, which is not considered a building's lowest floor,
provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the stmcture in violation of the
applicable requirements of this Title.
Manufactured Home - A stmcture, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a
permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached
to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational
vehicle."
Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision - A parcel (or contiguous parcels) 9f land divided
into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale.
Mine Hazard Areas - Areas that are underlain by, adjacent to, or affected by mine workings
such as adits, gangways, tunnels, drifts, or airshafts, and those areas of probable sink holes, gas
releases, or subsidence due to mine workings. Factors that should be considered include:
proximity to development, depth from ground surface to the mine working, and geologic
material.
Mitigation - A voiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse critical areas impacts.
Mitigation, in the following sequential order of preference, is:
A. A voiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
B. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps, such as project
redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts;
C. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and habitat
conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the
conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project;
D. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through
engineered or other methods; .
E. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action;
CAO Staff Draft
Wetlands p. 11 of212120
December 20, 2005
(b) Category II Aquifer Recharge Areas:
Category II critical aquifer recharge areas are areas that provide i"echarge to aquifers that
are current or potentially will become potable water supplies and are vulnerable to
contamination based on the type of land use activity. These include the following:
(1) Highly Permeable Soils (Group A Hydrologic Soils). The general
location and charactelistics of Group A Hydrogeologic soils in the City of
Bremerton is given in the Soils Survey of Kitsap County by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). The soil survey information is available at the Department of
Community Development.
(2) Areas above Shallow Principal Aquifers. Surface areas above
shallow, principal aquiferes) which are not separated from the underlying
aquifers by an impermeable layer that provides adequate protections to
preclude the proposed land use from contaminating the shallow aquiferes)
below, are considered aquifer recharge areas of concern. This generally
includes principal aquifers in subsurface hydrogeological units Ogl, Ogla,
Og2, and portions of Og3 that are within three hundred feet of the ground
surface these include:
. Ogla, Gorst Basin Aquifer Recharge Area
. Og3, Manette North Aquifer Recharge Area
(3) Areas with high concentration of Group B water well system and
private domestic wells. Locations with well concentrations of thirty six
wells or more within a one-half mile radius of the proposed land use are
considered aquifer recharge areas of concern.
20.14.430 lDey~lqp%erit~1~pd~~~l__ . ......... .
Standards for development shall be in accordance with the provisions below and the
requirements of other underlying city regulations
(a) A hydrogeological report will be required on sites that have been identified as
having characteristics with high infiltration rates, or having a high aquifer recharge or
infiltration potential for land uses identified in 20.14.440 of this section, unless the City
determines unnecessary upon coordination with agencies withjurisdiction (Kitsap
County Health District and/or affected water utilities). This evaluation shall apply to
impacts on both groundwater and surface water, as it relates to recharge areas, (see
requirements in special reports 20.14.460)
(b) Affected water utilities, tribes and the Kitsap County Health District will be notified
and requested to comments during the preliminary phases ofthe City's review
process on the proposed land use and potential impacts. The utility may recommend
appropriate mitigation to reduce potential impacts. The Department of Community
Development will consider these recommendations in developing appropriate permit
. conditions.
CAO Staff Draft
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Page 2 of 6
December 20, 2005
This is a staff draft for comment ant, ,eview
:'B>:>~';'Q">"'\"'j"Y7p;':"""'6""'<'@'
ion", ' ...,~.,,--: .'..":'-, -.-" - '. ,~-':
~~:I~ltil'tll~:~
The BMC regulates development of Frequently Flooded Areas
(FFA) in two chapters, 20.14 and 17.60. Updates to the FFA
require amendments in both chapters. Although chapter 17.60 is
not part of the core CAO, amendments are necessary in this
chapter to ensure consistency between both chapters and
compliance with the best available science requirements.
Proposed Changes:
. 17.60.070 - Updating the mailing address of the Department
of Community development
. 17.60.250,17.60.300,17.60.310,17.60.310, & 17.60.320-
Addition of the wording "one (1) foot or more above the base
flood elevation" to buildings being constructed in flood
hazard areas. This change will reduce insurance rates by as
much as 40% and increase the level of safety.
CAO Staff Draft
Page 1 of 1
December 20,2005
. . :f~.firn~fft ~e1.j{.W:~'i~ii~#Sft\,,ji<y,,W\'.rt
a<idastatinleritto'~c)~oil17(60:l40ii" .
t~eC" e" . 'rcli;l~
. Wit!"
.:19Cfl
:. ~!a~l
This is a s tafJ draft for review ana l..-Umment
20.14.500 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Sub-Sections:
20.14.510 Description and Purpose
20.14.520 Classification and Designation
20.14.530 Development Standards
20.14.510 Description and purpose
It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in
specific areas caused by flooding. In addition, this section will give special
consideration to anadronomous fish habitat in combination with section
20.14.700 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
20.14.520 Classification and Designation
Classifications of flood hazard areas shall be consistent with the 1 OO-year floodplain
designation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Flood
Insurance Program.
20.14.530 Development Standards
All development proposals shall comply with Section 17.60 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code for general and specific flood hazard protection. Development shall
not reduce the base flood water storage ability. Construction, grading or other
regulated activities that would reduce the flood water storage ability must be
mitigated by creating compensatory storage on or off-site. Base flood data and flood
hazard notes shall be shown on the face of any recorded plat or site plan including,
but not limited to, base flood elevations, flood protection elevation, boundary of
floodplain, and zero rise f1oodway.
f~il\f'1~~fllll~~';<<~~;;I=~~lQ
~t€lI1(JJlrcJ$:!
CAO Staff Draft
Frequently Flooded Areas Page 1 of 1
December 20, 2005
Second Staff Draft based on Technical Review, Planning Commission, and Citizen Comn.....,tl.
{ii)'(~~;t~~~r~g;.;~~~~~Siri().t~~l"J~S~.tiR~S:'lplvyi~i~m:'fi:~~~IpitQ#;:J?f
~il~1.tA!;1~a~~'?oota2~~Sr';. .' '" '~rti;VY~~nw~to~.
(1~i:;';;;{ .....~:N~...Vy~s~~.me~~i~Ii .........t~,C>(na ...,........~l\}'~!~Es.~ti
fl\~f~t~~l.fiJ~,~~~:rJlt\0!~
,.,........ ......~!.~.. ..... ..........J.~~1'8~..~.~~~11y..~?~~PJ~.1i:Qx.i:!mal;>gy:~fgrQ!lficl.p,h;:mfiyl
~'~........I1+J()if'ype;~;'I3;t9('~H..:Wat~is:
(b) Saltwater Shorelines, Lakes 20 Acres and Greater in Surface Area:
Those saltwater shorelines and lakes defined as shorelines of the state in the
Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program
as amended. Shorelines include: Type S waters as set forth in WAC 222-16-030
(DNR Water Typing System)~~aJ.11~ng~di~~mmercial and recreation al shellfish
~re~s;.K~lpa~~~~I~r~~~~egs ',if . ., .
fis~.(ipawpii1g;~r~~~ e:"';Che . . .
(c) Lakes Less than 20 Acres in Surface Area: Those lakes which meet the
criteria for Type F, Np, and Ns waters as set forth in WAC 222-16-030 as
amended. This includes lakes and ponds less than 20 acres in surface area and
their submerged aquatic beds, lakes, and ponds planted with game fish by a
governmental or tribal authority.
(d) Class I Fish and~il~lifeS?nservation Areas:
(1) Habitatsaii(L~pesjes:recognized by federal or state ag<:ncies for
federal and/or state listed endangered, threatened and s'ensitive
species th~dni~&'pfirri[rYi.a~g()Biatibh'!is'documented in maps or
databases available to the City ofBremerton and that, if altered, mllY
reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce
ov~~.t~~l~.~~te~m. .
(2) .Ary~(i"t~rgete9Jor preservation ,by the federal, stat(;:,andJor local
government which provide fish and wildlife habitat benefits, such as
areas of primary association for anadromous fish and important
waterfowl areas identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(3) Areas that contain habitats and species oflocal importance. These
areas are identified by the City, including but not limited to those
habitats and species that, due to their population status or sensitivity
to habitat manipulation, warrant protection. Habitats may include a
seasonal range or habitat element with which a species has a primary
association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the
species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. Habitats of
local importance can include attributes such as comparatively high
wildlife density; high wildlife species richness; significant wildlife
breeding habitat, seasonal ranges or movement corridors of limited
availability and/or high vulnerability. These habitats may include
cliffs, meadows, old-growth/mature forest, snag-rich areas, and urban
natural open space.
(e) Class II Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas:
I CAO 2nd Staff Draft Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Page 3 of;(rlQ20
February 7. 2006
1-.I.C.i...i.s.~.:.~:.m.'..;~...e."..ili.'.~.'.;e.t.........;.W.t.~A.....~....]........:.~~.'...:,.d. .-.f....c..~...~.-.}c.;e.~.~......~.'.....t...!...:........a.i.l:.;.....~.'...ll...'.;.~...t.;.!...,.1
,,[,?rage .tigh./We;, g"gge~t. a4dmg I there.",;:::
Second Staff Draft based on Technical Review, Planning Commission, and Citizen Comft._.d.
development authorized by Reasonable Use Exceptions, General Exemptions,
Standards for Existing (nonconforming) Development, and Variances in General
Exemptions, section 20.14.140 of this chapter.
.~.
!S~ftWiltef:
s
Freshwater
F
Np
Ns
.~lllfu@fr;~hcit~)i11~s,qf:tli~
S~llt~
Freshwater Shorelines of the
State
Fish Habitat Waters
Year-round, non-fish habitat
Seasonal, non-fish habitat
15 feet beyond buffer
15 feet beyond buffer
15 feet beyond buffer
150 feet
50 feet
35 feet
15 feet beyond buffer
200 feet
(1) Buffers:
Where existing buffer area plantings provide minimal vegetative cover
and cannot provide the minimum water quality (per the Department of
Ecology's Stormwater Manual for the Puget Sound Basin) or habitat
functions (per the requirements of the Department of Ecology and Fish
and Wildlife), buffer enhancement shall be required. Where buffer
enhancement is re~~~r~~~..Bl~.~.....se~l.1 b~PE~g~:~~.,.t?~t}n?ltl4~sRI~~t
4e~~.~!i~~...t.~~.~~r.~.?~t~;!~~~...~ht~~~)~~~):cf~~t,qh.s.?~terifQt~hm1:).$a;I19.~hi~~
(~):f~~t.9hf~Ilt~r~otig~~s. Momtormg and maintenance of plants shall be
required in accordance with Section 20.14.770, Monitoring Program and
Contingency Plan. Existing buffer vegetation is considered "inadequate"
and will require enhancement through additional native plantings and
removal of non-native plants when:
(i) Non-native or invasive plant species provide the dominate cover;
(ii) Vegetation is lacking due to disturbance and wetland resources
could be adversely affected; or
(iii) Enhancement plantings in the buffer could significantly improve
buffer functions.
t2)Mffirm~JiiYB'~~I~Jrtg.&~t~.!t:k~i!~!lj~f~qiW:~ah6~bri,t~1';d'; '.. '. ..... ..
........ ''';'.+>'''''., . .... .".' "",.' . .......,. .,....,:..0)'..,'..:.,,, .......,.,....,.,.., .,.,....,
~~t~. i ..; .' .~l1e.cl.ext~rt?fi:~~lI;;qf;~~tfugWt. '. .:..:t:cl
.6ft.B!W'~:isloAat~clf:~1 .
ew th~j '. ra'disili
rylinq lqr
. ... . . . li~cl<. .... .' ....... ...... .f$i
~#t~fitii....... ....,...,;............t.~~c..,,:i;~ntw~t?8~l~jlri~f~._ic...
!YjmJife.I1a;9itl3,t~()Il~~!!Ya;!i 9Q.'~r?al
(3) Stream Buffer Measurement:
I CAO 2nd Staff Draft Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Page 7 of ;,Q?f!20
February 7, 2006
Formatted
Second Staff Drafl based 011 Technical Revie'w, Planning Commission, and Citizen Comfl,_..t.
(6) Where there is no reasonable alternative to providing a conventional
culvert, the culvert shall be the mibimum length necessary to
accommodate the permitted activity.
(h) STREAM RELOCATIONS
Stream relocations for the purpose of flood protection and/or fisheries restoration
shall onlybe permitted when adhering to the following minimum performance
standards and when consistent with Washington State Department ofFish and
Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval:
i. The channel, bank and buffer
areas should be replanted with native vegetation in undisturbed riparian
condition; and,
ii. For those shorelands and waters
designated as Frequently Flooded Areas, a professional engineer licensed
in the State of Washington shall provide information demonstrating that
theequivalent base flood storage volume and function will be maintained.
HI. Relocated stream channels shall
be designed to meet or exceed the functions and values of the stream to be
relocated.
i(ij.~~STICI])~S;;j?E~T~I~J.t~::~])..:!f~'~~CI])~~
~'9".B~.~ti~j~e:s,.'.h~IP.Wide.s...()r...fertiI~'~'~fsr~~~:be::.ys6~..j~ris~<f~~;~ifa!if~
Conservatiori.Areas.or:.theiri" .' ers~'ie,xcept..tli()se.:apphiyti<:l'bytlie'.EPA.\~iid
.~pp~q.~Ml1~~e;'..;~])9~;Pr~"'" ...... .~~Ij!Xi.~()~~ff~~fi~6R~r~t..:[~~:~~.~.w.ri~hi~11?
~i 19Itf~'.B~~t~~.i....g;9~e.l"v.~tl.............. t;~y:~f,~p\*9.~e~~~.;~~~re:'~~~~()~~g,..~~.~p~~i~e:s
Ulllst..:.b.e....~ppFt::d..by .a:'.lic.en.se.9'..applj9atQr..jpia(;(,;().r9?n.ge.~itMlie",s~fti.'.~ppli(;~ti()rl
pta8h8~.~."Qhi!h~JaBeTi
(j) LAND DIVISIONS AND LAND USE PE~l\1I!S
;1.11..~r~??se?...~i~i~i~1~.~. ..~f..I~~d~!1.~..: !a~~11~~s.(~fl~~~1~i9........ "hQ~f~.~~~i~~~i~~$i
~~.~i~~Rtj~~fg;ly~ter~e:~eloprri~Q!$kqQn9itl9:hak.p~~;R~6w..s;'tgi!e.;'.12f~.:gevi~~s~
a,n~~jl1Qing;~It.x~I~tisj which include Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas shall comply with the following procedures and development standards:
(I) The open water area of lakes, streams, and tidal lands shall not be
permitted for use in calculating minimum lot area.
(2) Land division approvals shall be conditioned so that all required
buffers are dedicated as open space tracts or an easement or covenant
encumbering the buffer. Such dedication, easement or covenant shall
be recorded together with the land division and represented on the final
plat, short plat or binding site plan.
(3) In order to avoid the creation of non-conforming lots, each new lot
shall contain at least one building site that meets the requirements of
this Ordinance, including buffer requirements for habitat conservation
areas. This site must also have access and a sewage disposal system
I CAO 2nd Staff Draft Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Page II of2\i~il}{) February 7. 2006
Second Staff Draft based on Technical Review, Planning Commission, and Citizen Comh,_.Lt.
resources, public health, safety or welfare, or the only feasible access to property,
and, in the case of streams, when such stabilization results in maintenance ofFish
and Wildlife Habitat, flood control and improved water quality. Where bank
stabilization is determined to be necessary, bioengineering or other non-structural
methods should be the first option for protection. Bulkheads and retaining walls
may only be utilized as an engineering solution where it canbe~~m?~strated that
an existing residential structure cannot be safely maintainedor~e,tl?<l()l<without
such measures, and that the resulting retaining wall is the minimum length
necessary to provide a stable building area for the structure. A variance pursuant
to BMC section 20.58.030 must be obtained in all other cases. The Department
Ir1ayre,g~~re that bank stabilization be designed by a professional engineer 'arrd
g~plpgistJicensed in the State of Washington with demonstrated expertise in
hydraulic actions of shorelines. Bank stabilization projects may also require a City
of Bremerton clearing or grading permit and Hydraulic Project Approval from the
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. Nonstructural stream bank
protective techniques are preferred to bulkheads or other types of stream bank
armoring. Nonstructural techniques include but are not limited to vegetation
plantings and bioengineering.
(0) FENCING AND SIGNS
Prior to approval or issuance of permits for land divisions and new development,
the Department may require the common boundary between a required buffer and
the adjacent lands be identified using fencing or permanent signs. In lieu of
fencing or signs, alternative methods of buffer identification may be approved
when such methods are determined by the Department to provide adequate
protection to the buffer.
(0) ROAD/STREET REPAIR & CONSTRUCTION
Any private or public road or street expansion or construction which is allowed in
a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area or its buffer shall comply with the
following minimum development standards:
(1) No other reasonable or feasible alternative exists and the road or
street crossing serves multiple properties whenever possible;
(2) Expansion or construction of any private or public road shall only be
allowed when adverse impacts cannot be avoided;
(3) Public and private roads should provide for other purposes, such as
utility crossings, pedestrian or bicycle easements, viewing points, etc.;
(4) The road or street construction is the minimum necessary, as
required by the Department of Public Works, and shall comply with the
Department of Public Works' guidelines to provide public safety and
mitigated stormwater impacts; and
(5) Construction time limits shall be determined in consultation with the
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife in order to ensure habitat
protection.
(p) Other Allowed uses in Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas
Other activities may be allowed using the standard for a category II wetland
buffer.
20.14.740 Special Reports
I CAO 2nd Staff Draft Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Page 140[202(120 February 7, 2006
BARCLAYS
, NORTHii';
February 10, 2006
~n! -,
L./ '
,..,\
i ! ! I
W w FCl3l "l/Pl'h
L!.. "'. _UdL
r--.....\
Ii II \
, I '
Li /
::,;>:_-;"...."'J".;>p
r~REi\J1EFrr(:)r,J,--D~;~y.j '_it
CDMf',liUNiT'(
Ms. Nicole Ward
City Planner
City of Bremerton
345 6th Street
Suite 600
Bremerton, WA 98337
RE: Proposed Critical Areas Ordinance
Dear Ms. Ward,
On behalf of Barclays North, Inc. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
comment on the City's proposed critical areas ordinance. We have the following
comments we'd like the Planning Commission to consider.
1. On page 5 of the draft regarding wetlands we request that the Planning
Commission add in a provision allowing for a buffer reduction in accordance with
buffer enhancement or wetland enhancement. Such a provision would be similar
to the buffer reduction provision allowed in subsection 4, on page 5, of the Fish
and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas section.
2. We request an amendment to BMC section 20.14.620 subsections (a)1 and (a)2
that would strike the vertical relief of ten feet and replace it with a vertical relief of
twenty feet. This change is requested as occasionally the situation may occur
where a long slope may have a very steep portion in one section that would
qualify it as an area of high geological hazard, when in fact it may qualify as have
less of a geological hazard. Thus, utilizing a vertical relief of twenty feet will cover
broader situations and still ensure adequate protections.
3. We request amendments to page 3 of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
areas section dealing with the nomination of habitats and species of local
significance. Generally, we are concerned that these types of local nomination
processes may create future conflicts if they can be used preemptively against
potential future development projects. Thus, we request the Planning
Commission consider a change to subsection 8 and/or 9 that strengthen the
BARCLAYS
NORTH
evidentiary requirements for a nomination to be considered. For example,
subsection 9 could be amended to read: The nomination shall may include
management strategies for the species or habitats.
4. Lastly, we request that the Planning Commission consider adding provisions to
the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas section, regarding steams and
buffers, that would allow buffers to count as passive space and allow include
storm water facilities in the outer 25%. These two amendments would treat
stream buffers similarly to wetland buffers and help to mitigate impacts to
buildable lands.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns and proposed
amendments. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me
at any time.
Sin..c. e.re...IY... .~-..' '~'-.'-.-'
,.~.--.,
.,.#,"~~"" \
.,;V'~ , ~
~.~ ,( . 7~/
{~~'~:bavid K. Toyer I
Vice President for Government Affairs
DKT:ab
O:\GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS\LETTERSlnicole ward.bremerton 2-10-06.doc
r~ i~
"f :
..!<~
. ~~
.~~
Minutes for
City of Bremerton Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
~>,
~ '\)~ \t"
;~
February 7, 2006
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Cockburn at 5:35 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf, Commissioner
Hoell, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Kosusko, and Commissioner Streissguth.
Quorum certified.
Also present: Andrea Spencer, Nicole Ward, Geoff Wentlandt ,and Pam Ransier (DCD staff).
III. Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Cockburn introduced the agenda. It was agreed by general consensus to
approve the agenda as presented.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on January 17, 2006 were presented for approval by
Commissioner Cockburn. A motion was made by Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf and
seconded by Commissioner Hoell to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of January 17,
2006, as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Friedberg-
Nerf: Yes; Commissioner Hoell: Yes; Commissioner Kennedy: Yes; Commissioner Kosusko:
Yes; Commissioner Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried.
V. Public Meeting
A. Call To The Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda).
Commissioner Cockburn asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing
none, he closed this portion of the meeting.
B. Public Hearin2:
1. Discussion of the Critical Areas Ordinance Update: Andrea Spencer, Planning
Manager, began the staff p!esentation on the Critical Areas Ordinance Update. S4e
briefly reviewed changes made to the draft Critical Areas Ordinance based on
Commission input from the previous meeting. She noted that all changes made to the
draft were highlighted in yellow. _.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 2005
Page 1 of6
Geoff Wentlandt, City Planner, started with the General Provisions and Definition
sections of the Critical Areas Ordinance. He gave an overview of the changes made from
the first draft of the CAO and explained in more detail the definitions added due to input
from the Technical Advisory Committee.
Andrea continued with Wetlands; she explained that the previous draft contained
information that was out of date and had updated the section with new methodology and
classifications. She let the Commissioners know that staff was still researching pathways
within wetland buffer areas. Also, the technical reviewers asked for proof of need when
averaging a wetland buffer.
Changes made to the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) were presented by Nicole
Ward, City Planner. Changes made to this section dealt with performance based and
developmental standards. Other additions to the section were allowed uses, prohibited
uses, and activities or chemicals that could be harmful to the groundwater. She used dry
cleaning as an example of how a use could be categorized. Nicole also explained the
implantation of Hydrogeologic Assessment in category I and category II Aquifer
Recharge Areas.
No changes were made to Frequently Flooded Areas.
The next item discussed was Geologically Hazardous Areas. Geoff reviewed the changes
made to the draft document for clarity in the classification systems and seismic areas.
~20.14.620( c )(ii) was added to give staff more discretion when requesting a geologic
report. More detail. was added to the section pertaining to tree pruning and vegetation
thinning. Commissioner Streissguth asked what sources had been used for the
additional information. Geoff replied that staff had used the ISA, the Department of
Forestry, and information from a professor at the University of Florida Other sections
changed were Storm water Runoff, seismic information, and toe armoring at the base of
banks.
Nicole continued the overview with Fish & \Vildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. She
noted that definitions for water types were added to the section, as well as
~20.14.720(f)(13) & (14) establishing rules and development standards for habitats and
species of local importance. A section pertaining to Anadromous Fish was added based
on input from the Technical Review Committee. Buffering for saltwater shorelines was
also added; the Shoreline Master Program had been used previously, but changes were
made to this section because it did not contain current Best Available Science.
This concluded staff s overview of the changes made to the draft Critical Areas
Ordinance.
Commissioner Cockburn opened public comment on this item.
Richard Nerf, 1600 Madrona Point Drive, Bremerton: "This is a minor detail, but
under Tree Raising [~20.14.630(f)(l)], it says, 'After raising, the height of the pruned
portion shall not exceed one-third of the total tree height.' I can imagine trees that have
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 2005
Page 2 of6
most of their canopy at the top third or so, you could take off all of the limbs at the top
according to that definition. So I think that needs some clarification as to what is really
the intent there." Mr. Nerf suggested pruning a fraction of the leaf-bearing limbs instead
of a percentage of the overall tree height. Geoff explained that the guidelines for tree
pruning were from the USDA. Commissioner Streissguth suggested comparing the
standards against the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) standards.
Art Castle, Home Builders Association: [audio was not clear] Mr. Castle would like to
see the definition of Low Impact Development included in the CAO update. Through
HBA, there is a process going on to develop Low Impact Development Standards for
cities in KitsapCounty, the County, tribes, etc. He wanted to know when it would be an
appropriate time to have LID/Stormwater features in the buffer of wetlands and streams.
Commissioner Kosusko asked for clarification of where the Low Impact Development
would be and if the Low Impact Development would replace the natural filtration
process. Mr. Castle explained it would be in the buffer, not in the wetland or stream,
and would not be replacing the natural setting.
Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf thought that LID had been discussed in the Technical
Advisory Committee. She remembered there had been some concern regarding negative
impact through soil disturbances when LID is implemented in buffer areas.
Jeff Davis, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife: "Ijust sent this letter today so
I don't expect that any of you have read it. One of the things I know that I didn't cover in
this most recent comment letter was the Aquifer Recharge. And this ordinance here is
not much different than ordinances that I review throughout our region. And it's very
driven more by public health than anything else so I guess my short comment is that we
would like to see tacked on to the LID some acknowledgement of the impacts of
imperviousness to Aquifer Recharge wannabes. We always see in these ordinances
references to water quality, but the bottom line is it doesn't matter if you have good
quality if you don't have any water. And so in areas - we would encourage areas of
redevelopment, for instance, that you would address low impact development techniques
to try to get at more of your water quantity, ground water quantity issues. And then the
other important thing that I don't think I adequately covered in my letter is the fact that
the City - a very large portion of the City's obviously developed and you're really talking
. about redevelopment and town centers. The Comp Plan is great - it's one of the best I've
seen. That being said, I would caution you that there is an undeveloped portion of the
City and I guess I'd recommend to look beyond tomorrow and understand that the
watershed is the watershed and you guys will probably protect that as long as you can as
a drinking water source for the City. But also there's the golf course area that's in
between the Old Belfair Highway and Highway 3. That area is certainly managed by the
City to allow future development so when you go through this ordinance it can lead you
astray to think that the City's already fully developed, whereas those areas that I jusS
referred to, they still have real important, critical habitat for fish and wildlife resources sO
I just want to throw that out there." Jeff promised to stay the remainder of the meeting to
answer any questions.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 2005
Page 3 of6
Returning to the CAO update, Commissioner Streissguth suggested removmg the
definition for avalanche hazards.
In Wetlands, ~20.14.330(t)(4)(v), Commissioner Streissguth asked about the most
appropriate standard to use for buffer width averaging; she thought Kitsap County was
using a different percentage than Bremerton. Andrea reviewed the calculation for buffer
averagmg.
Commissioner Streissguth asked about using a standard width for passive
recreation/trails instead of having a percentage. Staff is working on that item, looking to
other jurisdictions for examples. There is a concern for trails within areas of wildlife
habitats. Commissioner Kennedy questioned how reasonable it is for this concern in an
urban environment. Jeff Davis, Fish & Wildlife, explained that, even in an urban area,
there are many wetland areas that are used by wildlife and need protection. He suggested
having a trail system with seasonal restrictions. Commissioner Streissguth reminded
the Commissioners that, although this ordinance would include newly annexed areas, the
additional amount of time needed to determine critical areas in the annexations would
cause the Commission to miss the deadline, but to still keep in mind that there is more
and will be more to the City than just the urban, developed areas.
Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf asked about the feasibility of incorporating language
outlining the intent of future mapping of critical areas to set the framework for creating
studies and bringing more definition to the existing ordinance. Andrea reminded the
Commissioners that amendments can be made to the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate
any changes the Commissioners feel are necessary.
In ~20.14.340(g)(2), Wetland Enhancement as Mitigation, Commissioner Streissguth
asked about the science behind the double acreage requirement of an enhancement
project. She wanted to know if it would be acceptable to add language that referred the
standard back to the increased function. There was discussion of mitigation versus
enhancement. It was suggested to use the no net-loss standard instead of the 2: 1
standard.
There was some discussion between the Commissioners and Jeff Davis of the appropriate
place in the Critical Areas Ordinance to have a reference to the LID and surface
imperviousness that may affect the water quantity, preferably in the chapter Aquifer
Recharge Areas. Commissioner Streissguth suggested adding LID to ~20.14.430(a).
Jeff Davis spoke on the cumulative effects of LID; he expressed concern for the use of
the words "significantly reduce" in ~20.14.430(b)(6)&(7).
In Frequently Flooded Areas, Commissioner Streissguth noted that, on the advice of the
Technical Advisory Committee, LID were not recommended in Frequently Flooded
Areas and should be included in the building code in a Subdivision ordinance.
In Geologically Hazardous Areas, 920.14.620, there was discussion of what the definition
of mapable emergent water was and if that term would be appropriate in subsection
(a)(2)(ii). Staff will check on this item. Commissioner Streissguth thought that a
reference to low geologically hazardous areas had been in a previous draft of the CAO
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 2005
Page 4 of6
but there was no reference to it in the current draft. Geoff explained that the moderate
classification included standards into the low range.
Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf asked if there had been any new information on tsunami
wave action. Geoff replied that he had conducted some research on tsunamis and had
concluded that a tsunami that originated in the Pacific Ocean would not affect Bremerton.
Commissioner Streissguth added that the University of Washington was working on a
model of wave action and how it would impact Kitsap County. Richard Nerf explained
that an earthquake in the Puget Sound could create a "seiche" (sloppy basin sloshing).
Commissioner Streissguth asked about considering the angle of repose in Geologically
Hazardous Areas. Geoff explained that staff chose to use simpler buffer criteria because
the angle of repose is more difficult to enforce and calculate on a case by case basis.
Commissioner Kosusko asked about performance based alternatives. Andrea explained
that those measures were already in place.
Jeff Davis, Fish & Wildlife, asked why there was no reference to a third party review of
geotechnical reports. Geoff noted that in the updated draft, a third party review
requirement was listed in S20.14.660(h)(1). There was some discussion how this
requirement could be considered a questioning of professionalism or the completeness of
an analysis. Staff explained that requiring a third party review is a standard practice.
Roger Lubovich, City Attorney, reminded the Commissioners of the Hold Harmless
clause.
Commissioner Streissguth noted that the language in S20.14.720(b) regarding Saltwater
Shorelines seemed incomplete. Staff agreed that section needed some work.
There was discussion on the thirty-five foot buffer along a saltwater shoreline with the
conclusion that this does not meet Best Available Science. Statf explained that the
change came about because of current court cases in surrounding areas, but agreed to
check other jurisdictions such as Port Townsend for examples based on Jeff Davis's
suggestion to do so. Jeff also cautioned the Commission to have these protective
measures in place now to avoid costly shoreline restorations in the future.
Commissioner Streissguth noted that there was no reference to existing roads in
S20.14.730(l), Utilities. Nicole explained that that section had been taken directly from
CTED. Commissioner Streissguth suggested changing the language to allow utilities in
existing road corridors.
In S20.14.730(n), Fencing and Signs, Commissioner Streissguth asked if the sign
ordinance should be referenced. It was determined that the CAO supersedes the sign
ordinance and therefore does not need to be referenced. Andrea added that informational
signs are exempt from the sign ordinance.
Commissioner Streissguth thanked sta~f for their hard work on this draft of the Critical
Areas Ordinance.
Commissioner Cockburn closed the Public Meeting.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 2005
Page 5 of 6
VI. Business Meeting
A. Chairman's Report: Discussed Puget Sound Energy's lengthy response time for power
outages over the previous weekend and how as an urban environment, a more urban
response time is needed.
B. Director's Report: None
C. Old Business: None.
D. New Business: None.
VII. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. The next Special Meeting is scheduled for February 14,
2006.
Respectfully submitted by:
Chris Hugo, Executive Secretary
Approved by:
John Cockburn, Chairman
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 2005
Page 6 of6
)f.*\
~~~
Minutes for
City of Bremerton Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
February 14,2006
r:.':;...~~:\
<<..-.'.,~..~." \'t~
~V'~ ~~
~~
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Cockburn at 6:33 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf, Commissioner
Hoell, Commissioner Kosusko, and Commissioner Streissguth. Quorum certified.
Also present: Andrea Spencer, Nicole Ward, GeoffWentlandt and Pam Ransier (OCD staff);
Roger Lubovich and Ken Bagwell, City legal staff
III. Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Cockburn introduced the agenda. It was agreed by general consensus to
approve the agenda as presented.
IV. Public Meeting
A. Public Hearin2;:
1. Critical Areas Ordinance Update: Andrea Spencer, Planning Manager, began the
staff presentation on the Critical Areas Ordinance Update. She briefly reviewed changes
made to the draft Critical Areas Ordinance based on input from the Commission and the
Technical Advisory Committee. She noted that all changes made to the draft were
entered into a matrix for the Commissioners to review more easily. She advised the
Commissioners to review changes, hear public testimony, then direct staff to include the
changes from the matrix and any additional changes from this night's meeting into the
. fina.l recommendation to City Council. Andrea added that there had been some written
public comments and advised the Commissioners that some of those letters or e-mails
contained comments about previous drafts that had been changed before the letters or e-
mails arrived at the OCO office.
Commissioner Cockburn asked if there were any comments from citizens.
Art Castle, Kitsap Home Builders Association: "1 would like to congratulate staff for:",
their work on this. One suggestion that I would like to add is in the Fish & Wildlife~;
section, if you would take similar language in the Wetland section, which, under,
obviously, under Criteria, the possible use of Low Impact Development techniques and
Planning Commission Meeting
February 14,2005
Page 1 of 4
buffers for streams in addition to Wetlands, which is already in the document. Thank
you."
Richard Nerf, Bremerton: "I just want to say that I believe this has been a very
successful attempt to create a very good Critical Area Ordinance. I want to congratulate
all the people who have been working so hard on it. 'When I saw it from the beginning, I
never quite imagined how much it could improve. I thank everyone involved."
A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner
Kosusko to continue the Public Hearing, including public comment, until February
28, 2006 at 5:50 PM in the Meeting Chambers of the Norm Dicks Government
Center. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Friedberg-
Nerf: Yes; Commissioner Hoell: Yes; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner
Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried.
Geoff Wentlandt, City Planner, continued the staff presentation and discussion.
Referring to the matrix, he began by reviewing the changes made to General Provisions,
giving explanations when needed for clarification of why the change was made. There
were no comments or questions from the Commissioners on this section.
Moving on to Definitions, Geoff again gave an overview of the changes made.
Commissioner Streissguth asked if the addition of language for "Channel Migration
Zone" was in response to a letter from Washington State Fish & Wildlife. Geoff said it
was.
Nicole Ward, City Planner, continued with Aquifer Recharge Areas. In response to
comments from the Planning Commission and the Technical Advisory Committee,
changes were made to 920.14.440, Allowed Uses with Performance Standards, for
clarification and additional information. Low Impact Development was added to the
requirements of a level one hydrogeological assessment in 920.14.450(a).
Commissioner Streissguth asked if staff had considered the monitoring agency to be
used to enforce S20.14.450(b)(3). Andrea replied that the City's Water Resource
Manager would have text to staff by the end of the week.
Changes for Wetlands include criteria for Walkways and Trails and adding language to
920.14.340( e), Mitigation Timing. In 920.14.340, Mitigation Requirements,
. Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf asked how the mitigation plans would be modeled and
what the language would be. Andrea explained that it \vas usually included in the
monitoring, but staff would look through the code for more details. Commissioner
Streissguth wanted to know where the time period of ten (10) years in the proposed
language for Afitigation Timing originated. Andrea thought this was in response to a
verbal suggestion from Jeff Davis, Washington Fish & Wildlife as a requirement for
forested wetlands; Commissioner Friedberg-Ned remembered Jeff making that
statement as well, noting that there was reference to a canopy (of trees and/or vegetationJ,
closing and the time needed to accomplish that. Staff will ensure that different types of
wetlands will have appropriate mitigation monitoring periods.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 14,2005
Page 2 of4
Commissioner Streissguth asked if staff had received any response from the
Department of Ecology regarding standards for no net loss of wetlands. Staff has not.
Geoff reviewed the changes and additions made to Geologically Hazardous Areas. In
reference to 920.14.6400), On Site Sewage Disposal, Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf
asked if the City of Bremerton was continuing to permit for septic systems. Geoff
explained that there probably were new septic systems being permitted where there is no
sewer hookup available, but did not know the number per year.
The changes for Fish & Wildlife were summarized by Nicole. To help illustrate the sub-
categories and buffer distances within Saltwater Shorelines, staff provided a map of the
City with color coded designations. A table with updated buffer width standards was also
provided. Commissioner Streissguth asked what the changes in buffer width were
based on. Nicole explained that staff had used the existing Shoreline Master Program
and areas of conservancy. Commissioner Streissguth expressed concern that the areas
shown as fully developed (commercial, residential, etc.) truly were fully developed.
Geoff explained that the map was an integration of the Shoreline Master Program and the
Critical Areas Ordinance. The background research for this change is outlined in the
Findings of Facts.
Commissioner Kosusko expressed concern regarding the effects of the 200-foot buffer
plus IS-foot setback affects property beyond the 200-foot reach of a buffer; he suggested
a smaller buffer or setback. Both Commissioner Streissguth and Commissioner Hoell
. requested staff to provide the science that would support a change in buffer or setback
width before implementing any changes on this item. Geoff referred the Commissioners
to page 10 of the Finding of Facts. He noted that, while there is ample information on
freshwater shoreline buffers, there is not much data regarding saltwater shoreline buffers.
Taking into consideration the requirements for freshwater shoreline, the need for
preserving shoreline vegetation, and protection of the shoreline from bulkheads, etc., staff
felt having a twenty-five to thirty-five foot buffer is defensible. Similar conclusions were
found in Kitsap County's Best Available Science Report.
There was some discussion on S20.14.750, Mitigation Standards and Criteria, to include
language to encourage rehabilitation of shorelines with some kind of incentive. Nicole
explained that this issue would be addressed in a Habitat Management Plan.
Nicole continued with the matrix and explained the changes made to the Fish and
Wildlife Habitat section of the draft CAO.
Andrea noted that an additional item, Low Impact Development standards, should have
been included on the matrix.
Commissioner Streissguth asked for an update on 920.14.500, Frequently Flooded
Areas. Nicole explained that there were no changes made to this section since the end of
December with the exception of a reference to the International Building Code that had
been added for clarification. Section 17.60 of the Brernerton Municipal Code will be
updated with the adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 14,2005
Page 3 of 4
Commissioner Cockburn asked when the updated documents would be ready for the
Commissioners. Staff anticipated having the documents ready by February 23, 2006.
Commissioner Streissguth and Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf will not be attending
the meeting on February 28, 2006.
Commissioner Kosusko asked if staff had addressed the issues raised in a letter from
Barclay North. Staff has responded to the best oftl1eir ability with the science available.
Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf asked if the City website contained the most current
information. Nicole replied that the website had been updated two days prior with links
from the homepage to Critical Areas information.
V. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. The next Special Meeting is scheduled for February 28,
2006.
Respectfully submitted by:
Chris Hugo, Executive Secretary
Approved by:
John Cockburn, Chairman
Planning Commission Meeting
February 14,2005
Page 4 of 4
~.t'
~~
Minutes for
City of Bremerton Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
February 28, 2006
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Cockburn at 5 :30 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Hoell, Commissioner Kennedy,
and Commissioner Kosusko. Quorum certified.
Also present: Andrea Spencer, Nicole Ward, GeoffWentlandt and Pam Ransier (OCD staff);
Roger Lubovich and Ken Bagwell, City legal staff, Kathleen Cahall and Luke Korpi, City Public
Works employees.
III. Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Cockburn introduced the agenda. It was agreed by general consensus to
approve the agenda as presented.
IV. Public Meeting
A. Public Hearin2::
1. Continued Critical Areas Ordinance Update: Andrea Spencer, Planning Manager,
explained the handouts that had been distributed to the Commissioners before the start of
the meeting. Comments from Commissioner Streissguth and Commissioner Friedberg-
Nerf were included in the handouts as well as changes to the Aquifer Recharge chapter of
the Critical Areas Ordinance. Kathleen Cahall from Public Works was present to explain
the changes made to that chapter. She gave an overview of the water source for the City
ofBremerton and the methods used to preserve its water quality. She then reviewed the
changes made to the chapter, referring to a matrix of changes that staff had distributed to
the Commissioners.
Commissioner Cockburn asked if there were any comments from citizens.
Art Castle, Kitsap Home Builders Association: "1' d like to thank the staff and the
Planning Commission for including in this draft the use of Low Impact Development
storm water techniques in the buffers of wetlands and streams. Thank you."
Dick Bruskrud, 1102 Shore Drive: "First, I'd just like to just mention that the
ordinance appears to me to be in line with what the other jurisdictions have been doing.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 28, 2005
Page lof4
However, I do have some concern over the increased buffers and setbacks and the impact
it'll have on Gro\,\<1h Management and increased densities in the urban core. It appears
that there is a substantial avenue for pursuing alternative setbacks through management
plans and scientific reports, but I'm not certain that it goes, actually, far enough. My
concern over what constitutes approval: Throughout the different sections it talks about
scientific reports that are approved yet but we do not know what approval would consist
of. There also seems to be some areas of mapping of Critical Areas that seem to be in
error. As you know, I'm highly involved with the East Park project and McDougal Creek
appears to be in error from the surveys that we have currently. I also actually live in an
area that is now considered a critical area. When I bought the house, I had a geotechnical
engineer look at the site and assured me at the time that this was not a critical area.
Although it is a very steep slope, it is a stable slope. I would like to see that the critigars
[?] be based on some sound scientific analysis versus, I'm not sure what they were
actually based on. The other thing is that there are a few little technical errors: There's a
reference to areas in Eastern Washington in the ordinance; I'm concerned about what
concerns approval; there is a reference in one area about Eastern Washington that doesn't
seem to pertain to Bremerton; and then there was one that it demonstrates that no feasible
site design exists without buffer averaging in the wetland. There is always another
feasible site design it's just a matter of what you're trying to do. That's it, thank you very
much. And, really, staff, you've done a wonderful job; This is, like I said, quite similar
to what other jurisdictions have imposed upon us."
Jeff Hecker, Hecker Architects, llremerton: "Thank you very much for holding this
hearing. I've got a couple comments on the shoreline buffers within the City. It looks
like our current setback from the ordinary high water mark would be a twenty-five foot
setback with no current buffers, is that correct? But the proposed ordinance would have
the same setback but then you'd have an additional fifteen feet as a buffer. The question
I have is what's the purpose of the buffer and how does that relate to the more urbanized
areas of the City of Bremerton? A similar question that Dick had, what constitutes
approval? I guess, in this document it defines what a management plan would be for
habitat? I'm an architect in the City of Bremerton and I've done a lot of shoreline related
projects and hopefully this is a flexible ordinance where a project can be planned and not
adversely affect the built environment by having this requirement on to the project.
Thank you."
Commissioner Cockburn asked for additional comments from the public on this item.
. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Kosusko asked if there was an approval process outlined in the
document. Staff suggested amending the motion to include additional language to clarify
the approval process.
Commissioner Kosusko asked about the mapping errors mentioned by Dick Bruskrud.
and wanted to know where the maps came from. Andrea explained that the maps were'\
advisory only and local site/survey information would take precedence. Map sources
were listed in the General Provisions section of the CAO.
Planning Commission Meeting
. February 28, 2005
Page 2 of 4
In reviewing the draft ordinance, Commissioner Kosusko expressed concern regarding
the use of both "average" and "median" on page 10, 920.14.165, Bonds. After some
discussion, it was decided to strike the words "or median" from that section.
Commissioner Kosusko asked if there were stricter definitions of Best Management
Practices (BMP) than what was listed on page 13 of the draft ordinance. Andrea replied
that the list of definitions came from the model ordinance. Luke Korpi, Engineer for
the City of Bremerton, further explained that it was a generic term and its use depends
on the specific scientific discipline it is being applied to.
Commissioner Kosusko moved on to S20.14.200, Definitions. On page 24 under
Qualified Professional, he was concerned about the use of the word "engineer" without
specifying the type of engineer required. It was decided to include additional language to
clarify what type of engineer.
On page 48, S20.14.630(m) and page 57, S20.14.730(d)(2), Commissioner Kosusko
noted that there were references to specific sections of the International Building Code.
It was decided to strike the references to the IBC and replace it with "State Building
Code" without specific sections listed.
Commissioner Kennedy asked for additional infonriation as to why the distance of
buffers for saltwater areas were chosen if it had been stated that there was little science
available. Geoff acknowledged that most of the science was based on freshwater
shorelines, but explained that staff had concluded through their research of shoreline
court cases with jurisdictions forced to rely on outdated Master Shoreline Programs that
the buffers included in the draft Critical Areas Ordinance were necessary.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner
Kennedy to recommend to the City Council the adoption of the revised Critical
Area Ordinance as drafted in Attachment B of the staff report with the following
amendments: replace the Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas subsections 20.14.410
through 20.14.550 with the revised text presented during the meeting; amend the
draft Planning Commission Findings and Determination as identified in
Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf's 2/27/06 e-mail; amend the draft ordinance
subsection 20.14.145 to add item "(1) Activities within the improved right-of-way.
Construction of new utility facilities, improvements or upgrades to existing utility
facilities that take place within existing improved right-of-way or existing
impervious surfaces that do not increase the amount of impervious surface."; direct
staff to explore all sections of the CAO to ensure there is a decision making process
for approval; direct staff to add qualifications to the definition of "Qualified
Professional" to add additional information regarding the engineering license;
direct staff to amend ~20.14.165 to strike the words "or median" from the section;
revise ~20.14.630(m), to amend the references to the International Building Code
with references to the State Building Code"; and replace references to the IBC and',
its specific sections with the State Building Code in ~20.14.730(d)(2). . Called for a .
vote: Commissioner Hoell: Yes; Commissioner Kennedy: Yes; Commissioner Kosusko:
Yes; Commissioner Cockburn: Yes. The motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 28, 2005
Page 3 of 4
v. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 6:26 p.m. The next Special Meeting is scheduled for March 21, 2006.
Respectfully submitted by:
Chris Hugo, Executive Secretary
Approved by:
John Cockburn, Chairman
Planning Commission Meeting
February 28,2005
Page 4 of 4
DATE SUBMITTED: February 24,2006
BILL # DlP - 0 5 ;)...
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
7A
........................................................................................
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 4'1 (p .3
amending BMC Section 2.16.020 relating to
the Fire Marshall
Committee Meeting Date: March 8, 2006
COUNCIL MEETING Date: March 15,2006
Department: City Attorney's Office
Presenter: Kenneth W. Bagwell
Phone: 473-2345
SUMMARY: The current provisions of BMC Section 2.16.020 provide that the Fire Chief shall
serve as the Fire Marshall pursuant to the terms of the City Charter. The City Charter was amended to
remove the provisions relating to the Fire Marshall referenced in BMC Section 2.16.020. The
proposed ordinance updates the provisions ofBMC Section 2.16.020 to remove the reference to the
City Charter.
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
APPROV ALS:
DEP ARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
~
FISCAL/BUDGET:
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
CONSENT AGENDA 0
t'. c"
Move to pass Ordinance No. .i~q ~ 3 amending BMC Section 2.16.020.
COUNCIL ACTION: D Approve D Deny D Table
D Continue D No Action
ORDINANCE NO. 1q ~~
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending Section 2.16.020 of the
Bremerton Municipal Code relating to the Fire Marshall.
WHEREAS, the current provisions of Section 2.16.020 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code entitled "Fire Chief - Position Created and Appointment" provides that the Fire
Chief shall serve as the Fire Marshall pursuant to the terms of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the City Charter has been amended to remove the provisions
referenced in Section 2.16.020 BMC relating to the Fire Marshall; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update Section 2.16.020 BMC in order to
provide for the City's Fire Marshall; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.16.020 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Fire
Chief - Position Created and Appointment" is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.16.020 FIRE CHIEF - POSITION CREATED AND APPOINTMENT.
There is hereby created the position known as Fire Chief. The Fire Chief or his/her
designee who, pursuant to the City Charter shall serve as Fire Marshall for the City. Pursuant to
the City Charter, the position of Fire Chief shall be subject to the City's civil service system.
The Fire Chief shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the City Council, on
the basis of professional experience, education and demonstrated knowledge of accepted
practices relating to the duties of the department. All appointees to the position of Fire Chief
shall be subject to the City's civil service rules and regulations relating to demotion and
termination.
SECTION 2. Severabilitv. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council the
day of
,2006
. CECIL McCONNELL, Council President
1
Fire Marshall
Approved this
day of
,2006
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the
EFFECTIVE the
ORDINANCE NO.
day of
day of
, 2006
,2006
R: \Legal\Legal\Ordinances\F ire\F ire Marshall.doc
2
Fire Marshall
DATE SUBMITTED: February 21, 2006
BILL # DID- o~3
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
18
........................................................................................
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. ~ repealing
and replacing Ch. 1.06 BMC relating to
disclosure of public records and amending
Rate Table A ofCh. 3.01 BMC relating to
rates and fees
Committee Meeting Date: March 8, 2006
COUNCIL MEETING Date: March 15,2006
Department: City Attorney's Office
Presenter: Roger A. Lubovich
Phone: 473-2345
SUMMARY: The current provisions of BMC Chapter 1.06 do not contain procedures for responding
to requests for public records. The proposed ordinance establishes procedures for responding to
requests for public records and updates the rates and fees charged for public records.
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed ordinance
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
APPROV ALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
r
CITY ATTORNEY: "-
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
FISCAL/BUDGET:
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
--""
1
Move to pass Ordinance No. 1qM repealing and replacing BMC Chapter 1.06 relating to public'
records and amending BMC Chapter 3.01 Rate Table A relating to rates and fees for Financial
Services.
COUNCIL ACTION: D Approve D Deny D Table
D Continue D No Action
ORDINANCE NO. 4qhf
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, repealing and replacing Chapter 1.06 of
the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to disclosure of public
records and amending Section 3.01 Rate Table A of the Bremerton
Municipal Code relating to Rates and Fees for Financial Services.
WHEREAS, the current provisions of Chapter 1.06 entitled "Public Records
Indexes and Records Requests under the Public Disclosure Act" of the Bremerton Municipal
Code do not contain procedures for responding to requests for public records; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the provisions of Chapter 1.06 to
establish procedures for public records; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 1.06 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Public
Records Indexes and Records Requests Under the Public Disclosure Act'; is hereby repealed in
its entirety and a new Chapter 1.06 is hereby created to read as follows:
Chapter 1.06
PUBLIC RECORDS
1.06.010 PURPOSE.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish policies and procedures relating to the
indexing, retention and the production of public records from the City of Bremerton as required
by Chapter 42.56 RCW.
1.06.020 PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICER.
The City Clerk, or his or her designee, shall be the public records officer for the City and
is authorized to establish and implement policies and procedures for responding to requests for
public records.
1.06.030 PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC RECORDS - GENERALLY.
(a) Unless exempt from disclosure pursuant to Chapter 42.56 RCW or other
applicable federal or state law, public records shall be available for inspection and copying. The
City shall, upon request make public records available on a partial or installment basis as records
that are part of a larger set of requested records are assembled or made ready for inspection or
disclosure. Failure of the City to fully comply with any provision of this chapter shall not result
in any liability imposed upon the City other than that outlined in Chapter 42.56 RCW.
(b) The City need only disclose records to the extent required by state or federal law
and nothing in this policy shall be interpreted as requiring the disclosure of any record that is not
subject to disclosure by state or federal law. Generally, any record, or portion thereof, which is
Public Disclosure
exempt from disclosure, will not be disclosed, and information contained in the records may be
removed to the extent necessary or permissible by law. The City is not required to create records
or documents in response to a request for public records that do not exist at the time the request
is made.
1.06.040 REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC RECORDS.
(a) Any person wishing to inspect or copy public records may make the request on
the city's request form, or by letter, fax, or electronic mail.
(b) The public records request may be submitted on the public records request form
provided by the City or in another written format that contains the following information:
(1) The date and time of the request;
(2) The name of the requestor;
(3) The full address, telephone number and/or email address of the requestor;
(4) Adequate identification of the public records;
(i) The title and date of the requested record, if known.
(ii) The location of the requested record, ifknown.
(5) Whether the requestor intends to inspect the records or to obtain a copy of
the records, at the cost set forth in BMC 1.06.090.
(c) Requests for public records shall be submitted to the City Clerk, City of
Bremerton, 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, Washington 98337 or to a designated city
Public Records Coordinator pursuant to subsection (d) below. All requests shall comply with
subsections (a) and (b) ofthis section.
(d) The following departments shall have designated Public Records Coordinators
who may receive and/or respond to public record requests directly for the specific records as
identified.
(1)
incident report.
(2)
The police department for requests to inspect and/or copy a police or
The fire department for requests to inspect and/or copy a fire report or an
aid report.
(3) The department of community development for requests to inspect and/or
copy a planning file.
(4) The department of public works and utilities for requests to inspect and/or
copy a public works file.
(e) The City Clerk may designate other employees as Public Records Coordinators
for purposes of this chapter.
(f) If the record requested is not identified in subsections (d)(l) through (4) of this
section, or the requestor is unsure of where to file the request, the request shall be filed with the
City Clerk.
1.06.050 INITIAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST.
(a) The City shall make an initial response to the request for public records within
five (5) business days of receipt of the request. In the event a request for public records is
received after 5:00 p.m., the request shall be deemed to have been received on the next business
day. Depending upon the nature of request, the City may respond initially by:
(1) Producing the record after the payment of applicable fees, if any;
2
Public Disclosure
(2) Acknowledging in writing the City's receipt of the request accompanied
by an estimate of the time necessary for further response;
(3) Denying the request in writing accompanied by an explanation of the basis
for the denial;
(4) Acknowledging in writing that the records responsive to the request are
available for inspection; or copying, and that pursuant to BMC 1.06.090 a deposit is required for
copIes; or
(5) Requesting in writing a clarification of the request.
(b) In the event that the requestor completes the City's standard public records
request form the City may return a copy of the request to the requestor with an estimation of time
necessary to provide a final response to the request. This indication on the form of the
estimation of time constitutes and satisfies the City's initial response required within five (5)
days of receipt of the public disclosure request. Records provided in response to a public records
request shall be those documents of record available for disclosure as of the date of the request.
1.06.060 FINAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST.
(a) A public disclosure request is not continuing in nature. In the event additional
records are created after the date of the requestor's original public records request, the requestor
will need to submit a new request. If, after the City has informed the requestor that it has
provided all available records, and shortly thereafter becomes aware of additional responsive
documents existing at the time of the request, it shall promptly make the additional documents
available to the requestor for copying and inspection. .
(b) Any records or portions of records disclosed by the City will be provided to the
requestor in the same format as they are retained; provided that any disclosable records contained
on a computer or other electronic or mechanical device shall, at the discretion ofthe City, be
provided in printed form, on disk, or in another format.
(c) If the requestor specifies a format in which the records should be disclosed, the
City will disclose the records in the requested format if: (1) it is determined that disclosable
records exist, (2) the City is capable of providing the records in the format requested, (3) the
format requested is reasonable and does not require additional staff time or equipment, and (4)
the requestor pays all fees required by this Chapter.
(d) Before releasing a record the City may provide notice to a person named in a
public record or to whom the record specifically pertains or who otherwise might have an
interest in the record to provide said person an opportunity to seek legal action to prevent the
release of the record.
(e) The City's response to the request shall be deemed complete and final upon: (1)
requestor's inspection ofthe records or (2) in the ~vent photocopies were requested, upon
notification to the requestor that the photocopies requested are available for payment and pick-
up.
1.06.070 INSPECTION OF RECORDS.
In the event a requestor chooses to inspect records, the City shall notify the requestor
once the records which respond to the request are available for inspection. The records will be
available for inspection during customary office hours. Records that have been pulled for
inspection shall be made available to the requestor for a period of no more than thirty (30)
calendar days. In the event a requestor fails to contact the City Clerk or applicable Public
3
Public Disclosure
Records Coordinator, within thirty (30) calendar days of being notified that the records are
available for inspection: (1) the records shall be returned to the originating department; and (2)
the requester will need to submit a new request for the records and the process will begin anew.
If an installment response to a records request is not viewed within thirty (30) calendar days, the
City is not obligated to fulfill the balance of the request.
1.06.080 OVER THE COUNTER RECORDS
Each City department may designate within its own department certain "over the
counter" records available to the public for immediate inspection and/or distribution without the
requirement of a formal public records request as set forth in this section. In the event a copy of
such "over the counter" records is requested, and if the requested record is an eight and one-half
(8-1/2) by fourteen (14) inch page or smaller, the department shall provide the first fifty (50)
pages free of charge. However, if the documents responsive to a request exceed fifty (50) pages,
a public disclosure request will then need to be completed and the applicable duplication cost
paid for those copies over fifty pages.
1.06. 090 FEES FOR PRODUCTION OF RECORDS.
(a) Fees for Records. The fees for the costs of dupFcation and production of copies,
whether photocopying or other form of duplication, including, but not limited to, electronic
copies of records, shall be as established in Chapter 3.01 BMC Rate Table A. If the requested
record is an eight and one-half (8-1/2) by fourteen (14) inch page or smaller, the first fifty (50)
pages responsive to a request are free of charge. In addition to these fees, each department may:
(1) Establish fees for records that do not fall into one of the categories set
forth in Chapter 3.01 BMC Rate Table A. The department's fee schedule shall be available for
inspection upon request.
(2) If the request requires customized access to electronic records, the City
may charge actual costs of such access, including staff time and other direct costs.
(3) Send the project to a commercial copying center and bill the requestor for
the amount charged by the vendor. The City may arrange with the requestor for him or her to pay
the vendor directly.
(4) Charge actual costs of mailing or other means of delivery. The City may
not charge sales tax on the costs of copies made by the City.
(b) Deposit and Installments. Payment of the fees for the costs of duplication of
records shall be made prior to the delivery of public records to the requestor. In the event that it
is estimated that the copying fees applicable to a particular records request exceeds $25.00, the
City, at its discretion, may require the requestor to deposit a sum equal to ten (10) percent of the
estimated cost prior to copying of the records. The City may also require the payment of the
remainder of the copying fees before providing all the records, or the payment of the fees of an
installment before providing an installment. If an installment response to a records request is not
claimed or reviewed within thirty (30) calendar days, the City is not obligated to fulfill the
balance of the request.
( c) Payment. All payments shall be made by cash, money order, or check payable to
the City of Bremerton. Payment shall be made in person to the city clerk or applicable
department Public Records Coordinator or at the customer service desk located at City Clerk's
office. Payments may also be made by mail to the City Clerk, City of Bremerton, 345 6th Street,
Suite 600, Bremerton, Washington 98337.
4
Public Disclosure
(d) Costs Waived. The City Clerk, or Public Records Coordinator, has the discretion
to waive copying charges for administrative convenience.
1.06.100 RETENTION OF PUBLIC RECORDS.
(a) The City hereby adopts, as the City's record schedule, the "General Records
Retention Schedule for all Local Government Agencies" adopted by the Washington State Local
Records Committee dated January 2005 as currently enacted and as hereinafter amended.
(b) Retention of electronic records shall be pursuant to City Policy No. 2-20-06
entitled "Electronic Records Retention" as currently enacted and as hereinafter amended.
1.06.110 INDEX OF PUBLIC RECORDS.
(a) Findings.
(1) RCW 42.56.070 requires all cities and public agencies to maintain and
make available a current index of all public records.
(2) RCW 42.56.070(4)(a) provides that if maintaining such an index would be
unduly burdensome, or would interfere with agency operation, a city need not maintain such an
index but it must issue and publish a formal order specifying the reasons why and the extent to
which compliance would be unduly burdensome.
(3) The City of Bremerton is comprised of departments, their divisions and
subdivisions, which maintain separate databases and/or recordkeeping systems for the indexing
of records and information.
(4) Because the City has records which are diverse, complex and stored in
multiple locations and in multiple computer systems and databases, it is unduly burdensome, if
not physically impossible, to maintain a central index of records.
(5) The City of Bremerton will make available for inspection and/or copying
all non-exempt public records, including any indexes that are maintained by the City pursuant to
the Public Disclosure Act, Ch. 42.56 RCW.
(b) Order regarding Public Records. Based upon the findings set forth in subsection
(a) above, and pursuant to RCW 42.56.070(4)(a), the City Council orders the following:
(1) The City of Bremerton is not required to maintain a current index of
public records due to findings of the City Council that the requirement is unduly burdensome and
such a list is nearly impossible to create and/or maintain; and
(2) Pursuant to Chapter 42.56 RCW, the City of Bremerton shall make
available for public inspection and/or copying all public records and any indexes of public
records maintained by the City to the extent not exempt from inspection and/or copying pursuant
to Chapter 42.56 RCW or other applicable law.
SECTION 2. Rate Table A of Section 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 3. Reference to Chavter 42.56 RCW In the event the effective date
of this Ordinance is before July 1, 2006 (the effective date of Chapter 42.56 RCW), all
references in this Ordinance to RCW 42.56 shall be a reference toRCW 42.17 and all references
to RCW 42.56.070(4)(a) shall be a reference to RCW 42. 1 7.260(4)(a) until the effective date of
Chapter 42.56 RCW.
5
Public Disclosure
SECTION 4. Severability. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council the
day of
,2006
CECIL McCONNELL, Council President
Approved this
day of
~, 2006
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the
EFFECTIVE the
ORDINANCE NO.
day of
day of
,2006
,2006
R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Administration\Public Disclosure Ch. I.06-v.2.doc
6
Public Disclosure
ADMINISTRATIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES - RATE TABLE A
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
A. ADMINISTRATIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES
1.
REGULATORY LICENSE FEES
RATE
BMC 18.06 Ambulance Services
Ambulance Inspections
$60/veh
BMC 5.17 Charitable Solicitation
Non-Profit
Professional Fundraiser
$25/60 days
$675/60 days
$265/yr or $70130 days
$700/yr
$100/yr
BMC 5.22 Dance/Public
BMC 5.96 Erotic Dance Studios
Dancers
BMC 9.48 Fireworks Stands
$100/stand/yr
$600+$65/mile to .10
of a mile
BMC 10.24 Housemoving/Oversize Loads
BMC 5.04
Pets hops
Grooming Parlors
Animal Welfare Facilities
$150/veh/yr
$75/yr or $25/30days
$150/yr
$50/yr
$50/yr
BMC 5.16 Mobile Food Vendor
BMC 5.16 Peddlers
BMC 5.36 Special Events:
Profit
Non-Profit
$675/event
$70/event
BMC 5.20 Street/Sidewalk Vendors
$250/yr
$400/30 days
BMC 5.16 Temporary Merchant
2.
BUSINESS LICENSE FEE
RATE
$65/yr
BMC 5.02
3. PARKING
On-Street Locations
Not to Exceed $20/3
hrs
$30/10 hrs
Off-Street Location
Not to Exceed $20/3
hrs
$30/10 hrs
Table A - A1
ADMINISTRJ\TIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES - RATE TABLE A
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
Parking Garage
RATE
Not to Exceed $140/mo
4. UTILITY/LIEN SEARCH FEES
Per Parcel
$30/search per parcel
5. DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION FEES
Per Page - 8/i x 11. 8/i x 14 and 11 x 17 paper size (No fee for
first 50 paqes)
$.15/pg
Audio or Video Tapes
Computer Disks
Cost of T3pe
+$8.50$10.00
$&W$10.00
$3.50
Certification
Blue Prints Oversized Plans, Aerial Photos, Drawings, and Maps
(Black and White)
$8/pg
Color GIS Plotted Maps
$5/sq. ft.
Other Documents:
Medical Records
Fire Reports
Budget
Annual Report
$-+9-461 5 p3ges
$.83/Pgs 631
$.63/Pgs 31 +Fees
shall be pursuant to
RCW 70.02.010(12)
$.15/pg
$25
$25
In addition to the above fees, each department may establish fees for records that do not fall
into one of the above cateqories. Each department and the City Clerk shall have the
department's fee schedule available for inspection upon request.
6.
CHECK HANDLING FEE
$40
Table A - A2