HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/2010 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA
Regular Meeting - Bremerton Planning Commission
(Subject to PC approval)
October 19, 2010
5:30 P.M.
th
345 – 6Street
Meeting Chambers – First Floor
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL (quorum present)
III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
IVAPPROVAL OF MINUTES:
September 21, 2010 Regular meeting.
o
V. PUBLIC MEETING
A. Call to the Public:
Public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda
B. Public Workshop:
1. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) educational workshop -
“Regulatory Approach Options 2” (Parametrix & N. Floyd).
VI. BUSINESS MEETING
A. Chair Report:
Chairman Hoell
B. Director Report:
JoAnn Vidinhar.
C.Old Business:
D.New Business
VII.ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is
November 16, 2010
Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at
www.ci.bremerton.wa.us
DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 10/19/10
Minutes for
City of Bremerton Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 21, 2010
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hoell at 5:30 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Thosepresent were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Jose, Commissioner
Streissguth, Commissioner Tift, and Chairman Hoell. Commissioners Kosusko and
Mosiman were excused. Quorum certified.
Also present: Dave Sherrard (Parametrix), JoAnn Vidinhar, Nicole Floyd, Lindsey Sehmel,
and Pam Bykonen (DCD staff).
III. Approval of Agenda
Chairman Hoell introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Jose
and seconded by Commissioner Cockburn to approve the agenda as presented. It
was agreed by general consensus to approve the agenda as presented.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on August 17, 2010 were presented for approval
by Chairman Hoell. It was noted that reference to Commissioner Jose’s participation on the
selection committee for the SKIA Sub-area Plan had not been included in the record. A
motion was made by Commissioner Tift and seconded by Commissioner Jose to
approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of August 17, 2010 as amended. Called for a
vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Jose: Yes; Commissioner Streissguth:
Abstain; Commissioner Tift: Yes; Chairman Hoell: Yes. The motion carried.
V. Public Meeting
A.Call To The Public(public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda).
Chairman Hoell asked if there were any comments from citizens.
Jim Manley, Real Estate Agent representing the Souschek Property located at 2110
th
19 Street: “Not being an agenda item, I just wanted to give you a brief overview of
something that we’re working on and I want to start conversations with the City. His
property is presently owned R-10 and we’d like to review that in the Comp[rehensive]
Plan [amendments] coming up. My first two pages of the handout I had explain
some of that but in order to go very quickly I want to explain the pictures very quickly
Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 2010 Page 1 of 5
DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 10/19/10
so you know what they are.” Mr. Manley showed photos of the property and
explained the history of oil-related businesses that have been there along with
surround property uses (apartments and condominiums). Because of the economy
and the soil contaminants on the property, Mr. Souschek would like to work toward a
change in the zoning at the next Comprehensive Plan update in 2011.
Chairman Hoell asked if there were any further comments from citizens. Seeing
none, she closed this portion of the meeting.
B. 1. Public Workshop – Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Overview: Lindsey
Sehmel, City Planner, reviewed the Capital Improvements for the City of Bremerton
from 2011 through 2016. Normally CIPs would be included in the annual
Comprehensive Plan amendments, but due to a reduced budget and lack of
additional amendment items, there will not be a 2010 update to the Comprehensive
Plan.
2. Public Workshop –Shoreline Master Program– “Structure of the Shoreline
Master Program”:David Sherrard, SMP Consultant, Parametrix, began the
educational workshop with an explanation of the Community Involvement stage of
the update process where draft policies and regulations will be developed with input
from the public. Also, the Bremerton shoreline inventory has been completed and
sent to the Department of Ecology for comment.
One of the goals of the SMP update is to ensure that, although the SMP is a “stand
alone” document, it will be included as a section in the Comprehensive Plan as well
as the Bremerton Municipal Code where the development standards are located.
Mr. Sherrard reviewed the statutory use priority of water dependent uses, water
related uses, water enjoyment uses (not industrial), and non-water oriented uses.
He gave examples of each item and discussed what uses could be included in each
priority item. Mr. Sherrard discussed what the current code’s policies are including
priority for water-dependent uses and the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) for many water enjoyment uses.
Karen Danis (Jacobsen Blvd.) asked if there are other areas in the code that need
changes similar to the change of when a CUP is required. Mr. Sherrard said that
there will be changes throughout the process, but staff is more focused on changing
the structure of the code to provide a reach-based direction to determine priority.
Larry Taylor (Snyder Ave.) asked what effort was being made to have the Shoreline
Master Plan conform to other agency’s requirements such as Washington State Fish
& Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers, etc. Mr. Sherrard said the consulting staff
will do everything they can to make sure the other agencies’ concerns will be
addressed up front.
Larry Taylor then asked about the inner harbor line and the outer harbor line,
specifically, if that delineation could be given up. Mr. Sherrard explained that the
inner harbor line marks where the state has sold tidelands and the area between the
inner harbor line and outer harbor line is controlled by the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). The DNR is also part of the SMP Technical Advisory Committee.
Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 2010 Page 2 of 5
DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 10/19/10
Mr. Sherrard continued the workshop with an overview of public access mandates
which allow for public access to public shorelines, protection of private property, and
minimizing impacts to existing views. Commissioner Jose noted there was a
provision for charging fees for public access but it had never been used and asked
Mr. Sherrard to explain. Mr. Sherrard said that for fees to be collected for public
access a public benefit must be provided and the fees must be proportional to both
the impact and the public benefit. The fees must be applied to the public access
which would require a detailed plan of what is to be provided and at what cost and
generally would have to be used within five years.
Mr. Sherrard moved on to Bremerton’s view corridor policy. He questioned the
usefulness of a view corridor policy within a residential zone or high-bank shoreline.
The SMP update will include language that will deal with view corridors on a reach-
by-reach basis.
Karen Danis asked if Bremerton’s view corridor policy is currently in effect. Nicole
Floyd, City Planner, explained that the view corridor policy is in effect but the
rejection in 2006 by the Department of Ecology of a proposed amendment to the
SMP that would have eliminated the view corridor policy could lead to confusion
regarding the current policy. [The amendments to the SMP had been rejected only
because of the timing of the full SMP update.]
Another goal of the SMP update is to determine the most appropriate areas for
public access. Bremerton has an up-to-date inventory of all street ends that abut
shorelines within the city limits. Richard Nerf (Madrona Point) asked about public
access to privately held tidelands. Mr. Sherrard said the City and the SMP are
required to recognize the property rights of Washington tideland owners.
Larry Taylor asked for the date of the shoreline [street-end] inventory. Mr.
Sherrard said it had been completed in 2006 by city staff.
Commissioner Streissguth asked if there were examples of DOE approved
integrated shoreline plans. Mr. Sherrard said that the City of Renton has an
integrated shoreline plan developed by him that is ready for their City Council’s
approval but has not yet been approved by DOE.
Commissioner Jose asked for clarification as to why Mr. Sherrard recommends the
use of an integrated shoreline plan. Mr. Sherrard said his recommendation is based
on the diversity of the shoreline in Bremerton such as topography, ecological
sensitivity, existing land use patterns, etc. and to simplify permitting rules.
LarryTaylor asked if the update would include language to speed up the process a
person would have to go through to make beach improvements such as a dock or
bulkhead. Currently, expensive studies and reports on the shoreline must be
conducted before a permit can be obtained. Mr. Sherrard replied that one of the
tools city staff will have by approaching things on a reach-basis is a means to use
already completed studies to indicate appropriate uses in specific areas which could
save resources.
Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 2010 Page 3 of 5
DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 10/19/10
In closing, Nicole reviewed how the community can become more involved with the
Shoreline Master Program update.
Commission Streissguth expressed concern regarding SMP updates being made
without regulatory oversight during the process to ensure compliance. She asked for
the timeline of the City’s completion of the update and the review [by DOE] and
wondered if the processes ran parallel or if the City completes its portion before
having a regulatory review. Commissioner Streissguth also reminded staff about
including the issue of the science of sea level rise and its best management
practices for development in the SMP update. Mr. Sherrard explained that a
Department of Ecology staff person experienced with master program updates was
assigned to Bremerton who coordinates with technical staff from DOE and reviews
Bremerton’s draft documents. Although DOE’s final approval comes at the end of
the update process, Bremerton has many opportunities to “check in” with DOE, the
local tribes, and other resource agencies before the final approval. Nicole added
that coordination between Washington State Fish & Wildlife, the tribes, the
Department of Natural Resources, Kitsap County jurisdictions, etc. have been
meeting quarterly to discuss issues of concern and to receive input on draft
documents.
Chairman Hoell closed the Public Workshop.
VI. Business Meeting
None.
A.Chairman’s Report:
B.Director’s Report: None.
C.Old Business:Chairman Hoell asked if there were any questions for Lindsey
Sehmel, City Planner, regarding the SKIA Sub-Area Plan that was presented at the
September meeting. There were none. Lindsey asked for a member of Planning
Commission to participate on a committee to work with public outreach.
Commissioner Jose offered to join the committee.
Chairman Hoell asked staff for an update on directional signage for downtown
Bremerton. Nicole said that staff had spoken to Wyn Birkenthal, Parks Department
Director, and Mike Mecham, City Engineer, about additional way-finding signs
directing visitors to Bremerton tourist attractions. Each sign costs approximately
$650 - $700 ($150 - $200 per sign, $500 per pole) and requires two Public Works
employees to install. Currently, the Sign Shop is down to one employee and the City
is still under budget constraints so it is unlikely that the City will be able to create and
install way-finding signs in the near future. Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) does provide generic tourist attraction signs but staff felt
that type of sign would not accomplish Commissioner Jose’s request.
Commissioner Streissguth suggested having Public Works partner with WSDOT.
Commissioner Jose asked Lindsey to add tourist/directional signage to the draft
2011 Capital Improvement Program for presentation to Public Works.
Commissioner Streissguth thought there might be grant funding available where
signage could be included.
Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 2010 Page 4 of 5
DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 10/19/10
Lindsey asked for a member of the Planning Commission to participate on the Gorst
Watershed Technical Advisory Committee for 2011/2012. The committee will meet
on a quarterly basis with a total of four to five meetings. Commissioner Jose
offered to participate on the committee.
Commissioner Jose reported on the CDBG Citizen Advisory
D.New Business:
Committee (CAC) that he took part in. The CAC reviewed Block Grant funding
applications, interviewed the applicants, and made a recommendation for funding
that will be presented to City Council at a future date. Commissioner Jose enjoyed
serving on the committee and thought well of the projects that were recommended
for funding.
VII. Adjournment
Meetingwas adjourned at 6:54 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for October
19, 2010.
Respectfully submitted by:
_______________________________________
Andrea Spencer, Executive Secretary
Approved by:
_______________________________________
Lois Hoell, Chairman
Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 2010 Page 5 of 5
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October 12, 2010
TO:
Bremerton Staff, Planning Commission and Public
FROM:
David Sherrard, Parametrix
SUBJECT:
Bremerton Shoreline Master Program
Regulatory Approach Options 2 – Code Provisions
For October 19, 2010 Workshop Meeting
This Technical Memorandum addresses issues relating to requirements of the Shoreline
Guidelines WAC 173-26 which will need to be addressed in the Shoreline Master Program
(SMP)
Issues addressed in this memorandum include:
1.
Shoreline geographic designations
2.
Critical Areas
3.
Vegetation management
4.
Building height and downtown development
More detailed discussion of each of these issues is provided below in the following format:
Requirements of the Shoreline Guidelines WAC 173-26 –this is a summary, the full text
of the referenced WACs are at the end of the memo.
Existing Bremerton Code
Options
Recommendation
Other Technical Memoranda prepared to address other issues include:
Nonconforming Uses discussed August 17, 2010
Regulatory Options 1 discussed September 21, 2010
Structure of the Shoreline Master Program
o
Provisions for Shorelines of Statewide Significance
o
Water Oriented Uses
o
Public Access
o
Regulatory Options 3 scheduled for November 16, 2010
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 1 of 24 Code October 19, 2010
No-Net Loss
o
Restoration
o
Mitigation of Cumulative Impacts
o
Shoreline Geographic Environment Designations
1.
SMA Guidelines:
WAC 173-26-211(4)(c)(i) provides that “Local governments may establish
a different designation system or may retain their current environment designations, provided it
is consistent with the purposes and policies of this section and WAC 173-26-211(5).
Environment Designations in WAC 173-26-211(5) are envisioned as overlays similar to the
existing system. Those that can apply to the city include:
a)High Intensity
b)Residential
c)Urban Conservancy
d)Natural
The Rural conservancy" environment is not applicable in an urban area such as Bremerton.
Shoreline environments must contain:
a)A statement of purpose that describes the shoreline management objectives of the
designation in a manner that distinguishes it from other designations.
b)Classification criteria that provide the basis for classifying or reclassifying a specific
shoreline area with an environment designation.
c)Management policies that are in sufficient detail to assist in the interpretation of the
environment designation regulations and to evaluate consistency with the local
comprehensive plan.
d)Regulations that address:
i)Types of shoreline uses permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited;
ii)Building or structure height and bulk limits, setbacks, maximum density or
minimum frontage requirements, and site development standards; and
iii)Other topics not covered in general use regulations that are necessary to assure
implementation of the purpose of the environment designation.
Existing Code:
The existing SMP provides five geographic overlays that apply in addition to
zoning requirements.
a)Urban Conservancy
b)Urban Residential
c)Urban Commercial
d)Downtown Waterfront
e)Urban Industrial
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 2 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
These designations generally are consistent with the SMA Guidelines with Urban Commercial,
Downtown Waterfront and Urban Industrial being subsets of High Intensity Environment
concept.
Options:
Five options are proposed for consideration for Bremerton:
a)Retain the existing city overlay system. This approach is generally consistent with the
SMA Guidelines.
b)Use the overlay classifications in the new Shoreline Guidelines. These are less specific
than those currently in use in Bremerton and don’t meet the city’s specific needs as well.
c)Develop new overlay classifications that more closely parallel the city’s zoning.
The advantages of this approach are:
i)consistency between shoreline regulations and zoning regulations
ii)Simplicity in administration
The disadvantages of this approach are that it assumes that development constrains and
approaches are similar in areas with similar zoning, notwithstanding different ecological
conditions.
d)Develop overlay classifications that are based on specific shoreline reaches and recognize
the specific characteristics of each area.
e)Develop classifications that are not overlays and provide a single zoning category for
shoreline properties. Such shoreline districts would parallel the city’s zoning
classifications.
The advantages of this approach are:
i)There would be no shoreline overlay which would avoid inconsistency between
shoreline regulations and zoning regulations
ii)These would be somewhat more simple to administer than the current overlay
The disadvantages of this approach are:
i)Because of the difference between shoreline and upland provisions, an individual
property may be split between two zoning districts
ii)Shoreline regulations are generally more restrictive in the range of use allowed,
especially with the hierarchy of preference for
A water dependent uses
Water-related uses
Water enjoyment uses
Non-water-oriented uses
Recommendation:
Consider using a combination of (c), (d), and (e).
a)Use a system similar to the existing city system in areas where parcels have a substantial
area not subject to the SMP. We may want to make some minor adjustments to reflect
the city’s zoning – for example separate single-family and multi-family overlays. The
shoreline regulations would function as an overlay with supplemental requirements.
b)Consider a single shoreline zoning classification (option (e)) for those properties that are
entirely within shoreline jurisdiction, or where shoreline values predominate over the
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 3 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
Develop reach-based regulations as part of the overlay for specific measures that may
c)
appropriately vary by reach. This is likely to include different setbacks and buffers based
on ecological functions in each reach rather than the existing regulations (including
Critical Area regulations that distinguish only Urban Commercial/Industrial/ Downtown
Waterfront, Urban Residential, and Urban Conservancy.)
d)Consider an “Isolated Shoreline” designation for lands within the 200 foot SMA
jurisdiction that are isolated by roadways or other barriers that make shoreline regulations
generally inapplicable.
2.Critical Areas
SMA Guidelines:
Critical areas are defined as including the same areas and ecosystems as
defined in the Growth Management Act [RCW 36.70A.030(5)]:
The 2003 Shoreline Guidelines in WAC 173-26-221(2) provide similar standards to those that
apply to critical areas in non shoreline areas found in WAC 365-190-080 (as amended by the
legislature in 2010). Specific requirements in shorelines include:
a)Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located
within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions
necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by department of ecology
guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060. (Engrossed House Bill 1653 61st
Legislature 2010 Regular Session)
b)Are consistent with the specific provisions of the SMA Guidelines for flood hazard
reduction;
c)Buffers for critical areas, within the shorelines may be included in the SMP, even if they
extend outside of normal shoreline jurisdiction;
d)Critical area regulations must be developed using scientific and technical information
developed in the Inventory/Characterization as described in WAC 173-26-201 (2)(a).
e)Theplanning objectives of shoreline management provisions for critical areas are the
protection of existing ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes and restoration
of degraded ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. The regulatory
provisions for critical areas shall protect existing ecological functions and ecosystem-
wide processes.
f) Promote human uses and values that are compatible with the other objectives of this
section, such as public access and aesthetic values, provided they do not significantly
adversely impact ecological functions.
Existing Code:
Bremerton’s critical area regulations are in Section 20.14 of the Land Use Code
except for Floodplain Management which is in Section 17.60 in the same section with the
Building Code.
eologically Hazardous Areas
Provisions for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas in 20.14.400 and G
in 20.14.600 don’t raise many shoreline issues.
Provisions most relevant to shorelines are found in 20.14.700 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
CONSERVATION AREAS.
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 4 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
Classification and designation of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas follow a general
statewide template developed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and include the following most relevant provisions.
Section 20.14.720 (a) (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.
The most relevant regulations pertain to buffers contained in the following table:
20.14.730 Table 1: Water Type Buffer Standards
WaterMinimum Building Buffer Width
Attributes
TypesSetbackStandard
SUrban Commercial/Industrial/
SaltwaterDowntown Waterfront 15 feet beyond buffer 25 feet
Urban Residential 15 feet beyond buffer 35 feet
Urban Conservancy 15 feet beyond buffer 175 feet
SFreshwater Shorelines of the
FreshwaterState15 feet beyond buffer 175 feet
Buffers
(1). Where existing buffer area plantings provide minimal vegetative cover and
cannot provide the City's 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 20.14.760, Monitoring and Contingency
Plan. Existing buffer vegetation is considered "inadequate" and will require
enhancement through additional native plantings and removal of nonnative plants
when:
(i) Nonnative 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.
In addition 20.14.730 provides development standards for
(b) Anadromous Fish.
(1) 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:
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 5 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
(i) Activities shall be timed to occur only during the allowable work window as
designated by the Washington Department of Fish 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.
Provisions for Wetlands in 20.14.300 can be expected to undergo Ecology scrutiny. The current
provisions are likely to meet Ecology standards
20.14.330(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 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 Category Standard Buffer
I200ft.
II100ft.
III75ft.
IV50ft.
Options:
Several options may be considered in updating the SMP:
a)Keep the existing regulations based on shoreline jurisdiction
Advantages include:
i)Consistency with other regulatory systems using WDFW/DNR based classifications
ii)Consistency between shoreline and non-shoreline streams
Disadvantages of this approach are:
i)They rely on a classification system that relates regulations to the statutory
classification of the shoreline and the zoning rather than the features that determine
ecological functions.
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 6 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
ii)The classification system does not apply the much more detailed information on
shoreline ecological functions provided in the Shoreline Inventory/Characterization
prepared for this update
iii)The regulations do not incorporate decisions required to be made in the Shoreline
Master Program update that balance the goals of:
Maintaining ecological productivity
Providing a priority for water related uses
Providing public access
iv)The regulations include a “Reasonable Use Exception” in 20.14.155 that can be
applied in SMP jurisdiction only through the variance procedure. If more specific
buffers can be developed in the SMP, this process can be avoided in many cases.
v)Some provisions for adjustment of buffers that are currently administrative may be
required to be made Conditional Use Permit reviews to allow Ecology oversight.
b)Add a reach-based buffer and performance standard
system into the Critical Areas
regulations – but keep them separate to apply to shorelines only.
Move the Critical Area regulations
c) for shorelines to the shoreline section and integrate
critical area regulations for aquatic species in the SMP in conjunction with the
regulatory system outlined in (3) Shoreline Regulatory Options, above. For example,
the setback and vegetation management provisions for specific reaches would provide
the functions of buffers in the current code without an additional overlay. This would
recognize both existing ecological functions, development patterns and city
Comprehensive Plan goals, rather than rely on the current broad classification system.
Recommendation:
a)Adopt by reference Critical Area regulations in the Land Use Code for Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas, Geologic Hazards and Wetlands.
b)Add additional “reach based” provisions for buffers and setbacks based on the
Inventory/Characterization
c)Include some additional provisions to recognize hardship caused by existing
development where existing lot dimensions would not allow standard buffers to be
practically implemented. This might take the form of a “sliding scale” based on lot
depth.
d)Whether they should be kept in the critical areas section of moved to the shoreline
section is not a critical issue. We will rely on staff direction as to which is most
convenient to administer.
3.Shoreline Vegetation Management
SMP Guidelines:
Many pages are devoted to discussion of the importance of shoreline
vegetation to ecological functions and include reference to vegetation in many criteria and
standards. This discussion only references key provisions.
a)Vegetation conservation is a separate section in WAC 173-26-221 (5).
i)Master programs shall include: Planning provisions that address vegetation
conservation and restoration, and regulatory provisions that address conservation of
vegetation; as necessary to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 7 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
ii)Local governments should address ecological functions and ecosystem-wide
processes provided by vegetation as described in WAC 173-26-201 (3)(d)(i).
iii)Local governments may implement these objectives through a variety of measures,
where consistent with Shoreline Management Act policy, including clearing and
grading regulations, setback and buffer standards, critical area regulations,
conditional use requirements for specific uses or areas, mitigation requirements,
incentives and nonregulatory programs.
iv)In establishing vegetation conservation regulations, local governments must use
available scientific and technical information, as described in WAC 173-26-201
(2)(a).
b)Vegetation is one of the elements that would be involved in “ecological restoration” that
must be considered as potential mitigation of impacts to shoreline resources and values
for all water-related or water-dependent commercial development unless such
improvements are demonstrated to be infeasible. [WAC 173-26-411(3)(d)]
c)Vegetation is likely to be the major element involved in allowing nonwater-oriented
commercial uses within the shoreline, which requires that the development provide “a
significant public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives
such as providing public access and ecological restoration.” [WAC 173-26-411(3)(d)].
Existing Code:Most provisions regarding preservation of natural vegetation for ecological
benefits are in the Critical Areas Code in Section 20.14 discussed above. The existing SMP
provides relatively few provisions that address vegetation conservation.
Chapter 5 SHORELINE USE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
Residential development:
Policy 7.
Residential developments should preserve shoreline vegetation for control of
erosion and for aesthetic considerations.
Regulation 5. Soil Stabilization:
Where development will result in disruption of
vegetation with a potential for increased erosion and run-off, development plans shall
include provisions for temporary soil stabilization during construction, and permanent
stabilization upon completion of development.
Commercial development:
Regulation 5.
Commercial development shall provide landscaping which is appropriate
for the scale of structure and accessory use, such as parking area. Such landscaping
shall consider the visual impact on adjacent properties.
Industrial development:
Regulation 4.
Areas between industrial development and adjacent land uses and public
access areas shall be located and landscaped so as to provide a transitional area.
Chapter 6 SHORE MODIFICATION ACTIVITY POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
5. Construction and Maintenance:
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 8 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
Ensure that construction and maintenance of shore modification activities
a..
does not reduce the quality of the existing environment.
b. Upon completion, require restoration of shore areas to as near pre-project
configuration as possible, reestablishing vegetation with native species.
c. Require mitigation if loss of riparian vegetation and habitat occurs.
Options: The city has three basic options when it comes to meeting this standard:
a)Rely primarily on the Critical Area code to address vegetation. See discussion above of
options for Critical Areas.
b)
Develop specific regulations either included in or separate from the Critical Areas code
wo factors
based on t
i)The
Shoreline Geographic Environment Designations – this would result in
different policies for downtown, commercial, industrial and residential use
ii)
With reach-based provisions based on the Inventory
Advantages are:
It would provide predictability for administration an property owners
It would reduce variation in application
It would use the information developed in the Inventory/Characterization
Specific standards for each reach would integrate city policies and regulations for
upland use;
The specific mix of ecological restoration and/or public access required for non-
water-oriented development would be specified in advance.
It may be possible to provide guidance on the mitigation to be provided and reduce
the need for case-by-case analysis and mitigation.
Disadvantages are:
It would involve a more complex system (but similar to zoning)
Recommendation:
Option (b)
In the reach-based overlay system provide any needed variation in standards
based on the ecological character of the reach, as well as balancing other goals, such as
water-oriented uses or public access.
4.Building height
SMA Guidelines:Height is addressed height directly in two provisions and indirectly in relation
to policies for aesthetics and consistency with adjacent development.
a)The statute in RCW 90.58.320 contains the following specific provisions regarding
height.
No permit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter for any new or expanded building or
structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state
that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 9 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when
overriding considerations of the public interest will be served.
b)The statute in RCW 90.58.100(2)(f) requires “A conservation element for the
preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to scenic vistas, aesthetics,
and vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wildlife protection [emphasis added].
c)The statute in RCW 90.58.040 contains a mandate to review regulations, plans, and
ordinances relative to lands un adjacent to the shorelines of the state so as the [to]
achieve a use policy on said land consistent with the policy of this chapter, the
guidelines, and the master programs for the shorelines of the state.
d)The new shoreline guidelines require the SMP in each shoreline environment to include
regulations for building or structure height and bulk limits, setbacks, maximum density
or minimum frontage requirements, and site development standards (WAC 173-26-
211(4)(a)(iv)(A).
Existing Code:Table 3-2 Site Development Standards generally provides for a residential height
of 25 feet and a 35 foot height for other uses, with the provision in footnote 3 that
Height/View Corridor -- Structure height may be increased to designated zoning district
height limit if the increase does not impair views of the water from residential properties
upland of the nearest public street landward of the site; and
a)Either: The increased height is offset by an increase in the minimum View Corridor
width as follows:
Building Height View Corridor Width
Under 20 feet:25%
20-35 feet:35%
Over 35 feet: 40%
(See also: Figure 3-5 View Corridor Requirements; and Figure 3-6 View
Corridor/Height Requirements.)
b)Or: The increase is offset by maintaining comparable portions of the structure lower
than the designated height limit.
Option:In determining building height standards the city will need to consider view obstruction
and whether there is an overwhelming consideration of the public interest to be served.
a)The city can continue the provisions for allowing increased height by the current view
corridor provision.
b)The city can limit height within the shoreline jurisdiction to 35 feet and allow a jump to
the underlying zoning height at the shoreline jurisdiction line. This is not very practical
in high intensity areas such as the downtown
c)The city could incorporate reach-based regulations to indicate areas where view
obstruction should include provisions related to the specific physical features, zoning
and development patterns.
All of these options involve multiple tradeoffs between aesthetic and urban development goals of
the city.
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 10 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
Recommendation: No specific recommendation at this time. It is likely that the appropriate
regulations will depend on the context of a specific reach and may differ between shorelines of
statewide significance and other shorelines.
DETAILED PROVISIONS OF THE SHORELINE GUIDELINES – WAC 173-26
1.Shoreline Geographic Environment Designations
RCW 90.58.100 Programs as constituting use regulations — Duties when
preparing programs and amendments thereto — Program contents.
(1) The master programs provided for in this chapter, when adopted or approved by the department shall
constitute use regulations for the various shorelines of the state. In preparing the master programs, and any
amendments thereto, the department and local governments shall to the extent feasible:
subsections not reproduced
(2) The master programs shall include, when appropriate, the following:
(e) A use element which considers the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of
the use on shorelines and adjacent land areas for housing, business, industry, transportation, agriculture,
natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and
private uses of the land;
173-26-211 Environment designation system.
Applicability.
(1) This section applies to the establishment of environment designation boundaries and provisions as described in
WAC173-26-191 (1)(d).
Basic requirements for environment designation classification and provisions.
(2)
(a) Master programs shall contain a system to classify shoreline areas into specific environment designations. This classification
system shall be based on the existing use pattern, the biological and physical character of the shoreline, and the goals and
aspirations of the community as expressed through comprehensive plans as well as the criteria in this section. Each master
(4) and (5) unless the alternative
program's classification system shall be consistent with that described in WAC 173-26-211
proposed provides equal or better implementation of the act.
(b) An up-to-date and accurate map of the shoreline area delineating the environment designations and their boundaries shall be
prepared and maintained in the local government office that administers shoreline permits. If it is not feasible to accurately
designate individual parcels on a map, the master program text shall include a clear basis for identifying the boundaries, physical
features, explicit criteria, or "common" boundary descriptions to accurately define and distinguish the environments on the ground.
The master program should also make it clear that in the event of a mapping error, the jurisdiction will rely upon common boundary
descriptions and the criteria contained in RCW 90.58.030(2) and chapter 173-22 WAC pertaining to determinations of shorelands,
as amended, rather than the incorrect or outdated map.
(c) To facilitate consistency with land use planning, local governments planning under chapter 36.70A RCW are encouraged to
illustrate shoreline designations on the comprehensive plan future land use map as described in WAC 365-195-300 (2)(d).
(d) Pursuant to RCW 90.58.040, the map should clearly illustrate what environment designations apply to all shorelines of the
state as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(c) within the local government's jurisdiction in a manner consistent with WAC 173-26-211 (4)
and (5).
(e) The map and the master program should note that all areas within shoreline jurisdiction that are not mapped and/or
designated are automatically assigned a "rural conservancy" designation, or "urban conservancy" designation if within a municipality
or urban growth area, or the comparable environment designation of the applicable master program until the shoreline can be
redesignated through a master program amendment.
(f) The following diagram summarizes the components of the environment designation provisions.
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 11 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
Diagram summarizing the components of the environment designation provisions.
(This is for illustration purposes only and does not supplement or add to the language in the chapter text.)
Consistency between shoreline environment designations and the local comprehensive plan.
(3)
As noted in WAC 173-26-191 (1)(e), RCW 90.58.340 requires that policies for lands adjacent to the
shorelines be consistent with the Shoreline Management Act, implementing rules, and the applicable master
program. Conversely, local comprehensive plans constitute the underlying framework within which master
program provisions should fit. The Growth Management Act, where applicable, designates shoreline master
program policies as an element of the comprehensive plan and requires that all elements be internally
consistent. Chapter 36.70A RCW also requires development regulations to be consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
The following criteria are intended to assist local governments in evaluating the consistency between
master program environment designation provisions and the corresponding comprehensive plan elements
and development regulations. In order for shoreline designation provisions, local comprehensive plan land
use designations, and development regulations to be internally consistent, all three of the conditions below
should be met:
Provisions not precluding one another.
(a) The comprehensive plan provisions and shoreline
environment designation provisions should not preclude one another. To meet this criteria, the provisions of
both the comprehensive plan and the master program must be able to be met. Further, when considered
together and applied to any one piece of property, the master program use policies and regulations and the
local zoning or other use regulations should not conflict in a manner that all viable uses of the property are
precluded.
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 12 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
Use compatibility.
(b) Land use policies and regulations should protect preferred shoreline uses from
being impacted by incompatible uses. The intent is to prevent water-oriented uses, especially water-
dependent uses, from being restricted on shoreline areas because of impacts to nearby nonwater-oriented
uses. To be consistent, master programs, comprehensive plans, and development regulations should
prevent new uses that are not compatible with preferred uses from locating where they may restrict
preferred uses or development.
Sufficient infrastructure.
(c) Infrastructure and services provided in the comprehensive plan should be
sufficient to support allowed shoreline uses. Shoreline uses should not be allowed where the comprehensive
plan does not provide sufficient roads, utilities, and other services to support them. Infrastructure plans must
also be mutually consistent with shoreline designations. Where they do exist, utility services routed through
shoreline areas shall not be a sole justification for more intense development.
General environment designation provisions.
(4)
Requirements.
(a) For each environment designation, the shoreline master program shall describe:
Purpose statement.
(i) The statement of purpose shall describe the shoreline management objectives of
the designation in a manner that distinguishes it from other designations.
Classification criteria.
(ii) Clearly stated criteria shall provide the basis for classifying or reclassifying a
specific shoreline area with an environment designation.
Management policies.
(iii) These policies shall be in sufficient detail to assist in the interpretation of the
environment designation regulations and, for jurisdictions planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, to evaluate
consistency with the local comprehensive plan.
Regulations.
(iv) Environment-specific regulations shall address the following where necessary to
account for different shoreline conditions:
(A) Types of shoreline uses permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited;
(B) Building or structure height and bulk limits, setbacks, maximum density or minimum frontage
requirements, and site development standards; and
(C) Other topics not covered in general use regulations that are necessary to assure implementation of
the purpose of the environment designation.
The recommended classification system.
(b) The recommended classification system consists of six
basic environments: "High-intensity," "shoreline residential," "urban conservancy," "rural conservancy,"
(5). Local governments should
"natural," and "aquatic" as described in this section and WAC 173-26-211
assign all shoreline areas an environment designation consistent with the corresponding designation criteria
provided for each environment. In delineating environment designations, local government should assure
that existing shoreline ecological functions are protected with the proposed pattern and intensity of
development. Such designations should also be consistent with policies for restoration of degraded
shorelines.
Alternative systems.
(c)
(i) Local governments may establish a different designation system or may retain their current
environment designations, provided it is consistent with the purposes and policies of this section and WAC
173-26-211(5).
(ii) Local governments may use "parallel environments" where appropriate. Parallel environments divide
shorelands into different sections generally running parallel to the shoreline or along a physical feature such
as a bluff or railroad right of way. Such environments may be useful, for example, to accommodate resource
protection near the shoreline and existing development further from the shoreline. Where parallel
environments are used, developments and uses allowed in one environment should not be inconsistent with
the achieving the purposes of the other.
The designations.
(5)
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 13 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
"Natural" environment.
(a)
Purpose.
(i) The purpose of the "natural" environment is to protect those shoreline areas that are
relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions intolerant
of human use. These systems require that only very low intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the
ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. Consistent with the policies of the designation, local
government should include planning for restoration of degraded shorelines within this environment.
Management policies.
(ii)
(A) Any use that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline
area should not be allowed.
(B) The following new uses should not be allowed in the "natural" environment:
• Commercial uses.
• Industrial uses.
• Nonwater-oriented recreation.
• Roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside of "natural" designated
shorelines.
(C) Single-family residential development may be allowed as a conditional use within the "natural"
environment if the density and intensity of such use is limited as necessary to protect ecological functions
and be consistent with the purpose of the environment.
(D) Commercial forestry may be allowed as a conditional use in the "natural" environment provided it
meets the conditions of the State Forest Practices Act and its implementing rules and is conducted in a
manner consistent with the purpose of this environment designation.
(E) Agricultural uses of a very low intensity nature may be consistent with the natural environment when
such use is subject to appropriate limitations or conditions to assure that the use does not expand or alter
practices in a manner inconsistent with the purpose of the designation.
(F) Scientific, historical, cultural, educational research uses, and low-intensity water-oriented recreational
access uses may be allowed provided that no significant ecological impact on the area will result.
(G) New development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the capability of vegetation to
perform normal ecological functions should not be allowed. Do not allow the subdivision of property in a
configuration that, to achieve its intended purpose, will require significant vegetation removal or shoreline
modification that adversely impacts ecological functions. That is, each new parcel must be able to support its
intended development without significant ecological impacts to the shoreline ecological functions.
Designation criteria.
(iii) A "natural" environment designation should be assigned to shoreline areas if
any of the following characteristics apply:
(A) The shoreline is ecologically intact and therefore currently performing an important, irreplaceable
function or ecosystem-wide process that would be damaged by human activity;
(B) The shoreline is considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of particular
scientific and educational interest; or
(C) The shoreline is unable to support new development or uses without significant adverse impacts to
ecological functions or risk to human safety.
Such shoreline areas include largely undisturbed portions of shoreline areas such as wetlands, estuaries,
unstable bluffs, coastal dunes, spits, and ecologically intact shoreline habitats. Shorelines inside or outside
urban growth areas may be designated as "natural."
Ecologically intact shorelines, as used here, means those shoreline areas that retain the majority of their
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 14 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
natural shoreline functions, as evidenced by the shoreline configuration and the presence of native
vegetation. Generally, but not necessarily, ecologically intact shorelines are free of structural shoreline
modifications, structures, and intensive human uses. In forested areas, they generally include native
vegetation with diverse plant communities, multiple canopy layers, and the presence of large woody debris
available for recruitment to adjacent water bodies. Recognizing that there is a continuum of ecological
conditions ranging from near natural conditions to totally degraded and contaminated sites, this term is
intended to delineate those shoreline areas that provide valuable functions for the larger aquatic and
terrestrial environments which could be lost or significantly reduced by human development. Whether or not
a shoreline is ecologically intact is determined on a case-by-case basis.
The term "ecologically intact shorelines" applies to all shoreline areas meeting the above criteria ranging
from larger reaches that may include multiple properties to small areas located within a single property.
Areas with significant existing agriculture lands should not be included in the "natural" designation,
except where the existing agricultural operations involve very low intensity uses where there is no significant
impact on natural ecological functions, and where the intensity or impacts associated with such agriculture
activities is unlikely to expand in a manner inconsistent with the "natural" designation.
"Rural conservancy" environment.
(b)
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS NOT REPRODUCED
"Aquatic" environment.
(c)
Purpose.
(i) The purpose of the "aquatic" environment is to protect, restore, and manage the unique
characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high-water mark.
Management policies.
(ii)
(A) Allow new over-water structures only for water-dependent uses, public access, or ecological
restoration.
(B) The size of new over-water structures should be limited to the minimum necessary to support the
structure's intended use.
(C) In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of water
resources, multiple use of over-water facilities should be encouraged.
(D) All developments and uses on navigable waters or their beds should be located and designed to
minimize interference with surface navigation, to consider impacts to public views, and to allow for the safe,
unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration.
(E) Uses that adversely impact the ecological functions of critical saltwater and freshwater habitats
should not be allowed except where necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, and then only
when their impacts are mitigated according to the sequence described in WAC 173-26-201 (2)(e) as
necessary to assure no net loss of ecological functions.
(F) Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent degradation of water
quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions.
Designation criteria.
(iii) Assign an "aquatic" environment designation to lands waterward of the
ordinary high-water mark.
Local governments may designate submerged and intertidal lands with shoreland designations (e.g.,
"high-intensity" or "rural conservancy") if the management policies and objectives for aquatic areas are met.
In this case, the designation system used must provide regulations for managing submerged and intertidal
lands that are clear and consistent with the "aquatic" environment management policies in this chapter.
Additionally, local governments may assign an "aquatic" environment designation to wetlands.
"High-intensity" environment.
(d)
Purpose.
(i) The purpose of the "high-intensity" environment is to provide for high-intensity water-
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 15 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions and
restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded.
Management policies.
(ii)
(A) In regulating uses in the "high-intensity" environment, first priority should be given to water-dependent
uses. Second priority should be given to water-related and water-enjoyment uses. Nonwater-oriented uses
should not be allowed except as part of mixed use developments. Nonwater-oriented uses may also be
allowed in limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water-oriented uses or
on sites where there is no direct access to the shoreline. Such specific situations should be identified in
shoreline use analysis or special area planning, as described in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(d).
If an analysis of water-dependent use needs as described in WAC 173-26-201 (3)(d)(ii) demonstrates the
needs of existing and envisioned water-dependent uses for the planning period are met, then provisions
allowing for a mix of water-dependent and nonwater-dependent uses may be established. If those shoreline
areas also provide ecological functions, apply standards to assure no net loss of those functions.
(B) Full utilization of existing urban areas should be achieved before further expansion of intensive
development is allowed. Reasonable long-range projections of regional economic need should guide the
amount of shoreline designated "high-intensity." However, consideration should be given to the potential for
displacement of nonwater-oriented uses with water-oriented uses when analyzing full utilization of urban
waterfronts and before considering expansion of such areas.
(C) Policies and regulations shall assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions as a result of new
development. Where applicable, new development shall include environmental cleanup and restoration of
the shoreline to comply in accordance with any relevant state and federal law.
(D) Where feasible, visual and physical public access should be required as provided for in WAC 173-26-
221 (4)(d).
(E) Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such as sign control regulations, appropriate
development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers.
Designation criteria.
(iii) Assign a "high-intensity" environment designation to shoreline areas within
incorporated municipalities, urban growth areas, and industrial or commercial "rural areas of more intense
development," as described by RCW 36.70A.070, if they currently support high-intensity uses related to
commerce, transportation or navigation; or are suitable and planned for high-intensity water-oriented uses.
"Urban conservancy" environment.
(e)
Purpose.
(i) The purpose of the "urban conservancy" environment is to protect and restore ecological
functions of open space, flood plain and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed
settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses.
Management policies.
(ii)
(A) Uses that preserve the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space, flood
plain or sensitive lands either directly or over the long term should be the primary allowed uses. Uses that
result in restoration of ecological functions should be allowed if the use is otherwise compatible with the
purpose of the environment and the setting.
(B) Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation, water
quality, and shoreline modifications within the "urban conservancy" designation. These standards shall
ensure that new development does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or further
degrade other shoreline values.
(C) Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and
significant ecological impacts can be mitigated.
(D) Water-oriented uses should be given priority over nonwater-oriented uses. For shoreline areas
adjacent to commercially navigable waters, water-dependent uses should be given highest priority.
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 16 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
(E) Mining is a unique use as a result of its inherent linkage to geology. Therefore, mining and related
activities may be an appropriate use within the urban conservancy environment when conducted in a
manner consistent with the environment policies and the provisions of WAC 173-26-240 (3)(h) and when
located consistent with mineral resource lands designation criteria pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 and WAC
365-190-070.
Designation criteria.
(iii) Assign an "urban conservancy" environment designation to shoreline areas
appropriate and planned for development that is compatible with maintaining or restoring of the ecological
functions of the area, that are not generally suitable for water-dependent uses and that lie in incorporated
municipalities, urban growth areas, or commercial or industrial "rural areas of more intense development" if
any of the following characteristics apply:
(A) They are suitable for water-related or water-enjoyment uses;
(B) They are open space, flood plain or other sensitive areas that should not be more intensively
developed;
(C) They have potential for ecological restoration;
(D) They retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed; or
(E) They have the potential for development that is compatible with ecological restoration.
Lands that may otherwise qualify for designation as urban conservancy and which are designated as
"mineral resource lands" pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 and WAC 365-190-070 may be assigned a
designation within the "urban conservancy" environment that allows mining and associated uses in addition
to other uses consistent with the urban conservancy environment.
"Shoreline residential" environment.
(f)
Purpose.
(i) The purpose of the "shoreline residential" environment is to accommodate residential
development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this chapter. An additional purpose is to
provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.
Management policies.
(ii)
(A) Standards for density or minimum frontage width, setbacks, lot coverage limitations, buffers, shoreline
stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality shall be set to assure no net
loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the
shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and services available, and other comprehensive planning
considerations.
Local governments may establish two or more different "shoreline residential" environments to
accommodate different shoreline densities or conditions, provided both environments adhere to the
provisions in this chapter.
(B) Multifamily and multilot residential and recreational developments should provide public access and
joint use for community recreational facilities.
(C) Access, utilities, and public services should be available and adequate to serve existing needs and/or
planned future development.
(D) Commercial development should be limited to water-oriented uses.
Designation criteria.
(iii) Assign a "shoreline residential" environment designation to shoreline areas
inside urban growth areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.110, incorporated municipalities, "rural areas of more
intense development," or "master planned resorts," as described in RCW 36.70A.360, if they are
predominantly single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for residential
development.
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 17 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
Critical Areas
173-26-221 General master program provisions.
(2) Critical areas.
Applicability.
(a) Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 90.58.090(4) as amended by chapter 321,
Laws of 2003 (ESHB 1933), shoreline master programs must provide for management of critical
areas designated as such pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 (1)(d) and required to be protected pursuant
to RCW 36.70A.060(2) that are located within the shorelines of the state with policies and regulations
that:
(i) Are consistent with the specific provisions of this subsection (2) critical areas and subsection (3)
of this section flood hazard reduction, and these guidelines; and
(ii) Provide a level of protection to critical areas within the shoreline area that is at least equal to
that provided by the local government's critical area regulations adopted pursuant to the Growth
Management Act for comparable areas other than shorelines.
When approved by ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.090(4), a local government's SMP becomes
regulations for protection of critical areas in the shorelines of the state in the jurisdiction of the
adopting local government except as noted in RCW 36.70A.480 (3)(b) and (6).
The provisions of this section and subsection (3) of this section, flood hazard reduction, shall be
applied to critical areas within the shorelines of the state. RCW 36.70A.030 defines critical areas as:
""Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems:
(a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable waters; (c) fish
and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous
areas."
The provisions ofWAC 365-190-080, to the extent standards for certain types of critical areas are
not provided by this section and subsection (3) of this section flood hazard reduction, and to the
extent consistent with these guidelines are also applicable to and provide further definition of critical
area categories and management policies.
As provided in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(f)(ii) and 36.70A.480, as amended by chapter 321, Laws of
2003 (ESHB 1933), any city or county may also include in its master program land necessary for
buffers for critical areas, as defined in chapter 36.70A RCW, that occur within shorelines of the state,
provided that forest practices regulated under chapter 76.09 RCW, except conversions to nonforest
land use, on lands subject to the provision of (f)(ii) of this subsection are not subject to additional
regulations. If a local government does not include land necessary for buffers for critical areas that
occur within shorelines of the state, as authorized above, then the local jurisdiction shall continue to
regulate those critical areas and required buffers pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060(2).
Principles.
(b) Local master programs, when addressing critical areas, shall implement the
following principles:
(i) Shoreline master programs shall adhere to the standards established in the following sections,
unless it is demonstrated through scientific and technical information as provided in RCW
(2)(a) that an alternative approach provides better
90.58.100(1) and as described in WAC 173-26-201
resource protection.
(ii) In addressing issues related to critical areas, use scientific and technical information, as
described in WAC 173-26-201 (2)(a). The role of ecology in reviewing master program provisions for
critical areas in shorelines of the state will be based on the Shoreline Management Act and these
guidelines and a comparison with requirements in currently adopted critical area ordinances for
comparable areas to ensure that the provisions are at least equal to the level of protection provided
by the currently adopted critical area ordinance.
(iii) In protecting and restoring critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction, integrate the full spectrum
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 18 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
of planning and regulatory measures, including the comprehensive plan, interlocal watershed plans,
local development regulations, and state, tribal, and federal programs.
(iv) The planning objectives of shoreline management provisions for critical areas shall be the
protection of existing ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes and restoration of degraded
ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. The regulatory provisions for critical areas shall
protect existing ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes.
(v) Promote human uses and values that are compatible with the other objectives of this section,
such as public access and aesthetic values, provided they do not significantly adversely impact
ecological functions.
Standards.
(c) When preparing master program provisions for critical areas, local governments
should implement the following standards and the provisions of WAC 365-190-080 and use scientific
(2)(a).
and technical information, as provided for in WAC 173-26-201
In reviewing the critical areas segment of a master program, the department of ecology shall first
assure consistency with the standards of this section Critical areas (WAC 173-26-221(2)), and with
the Flood hazard reduction section (WAC 173-26-221(3)), and shall then assure that the master
program also provides protection of comparable critical areas that is at least equal to the protection
provided by the local governments adopted and valid critical area regulations in effect at the time of
submittal of the SMP.
In conducting the review for equivalency with local regulations, the department shall not further
evaluate the adequacy of the local critical area regulations. Incorporation of the adopted and valid
critical area regulations in effect at the time of submittal by reference as provided in WAC 173-26-191
(2)(b) shall be deemed to meet the requirement for equivalency. However, a finding of equivalency
does not constitute a finding of compliance with the requirements of this section and subsection (3) of
this section flood hazard reduction, nor with the guidelines overall.
Note that provisions for frequently flooded areas are included in WAC 173-26-221(3).
Wetlands.
(i)
Wetland use regulations.
(A) Local governments should consult the department's technical
guidance documents on wetlands.
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS NOT REPRODUCED
Geologically hazardous areas.
(ii) Development in designated geologically hazardous areas
shall be regulated in accordance with the following:
(A) Consult minimum guidelines for geologically hazardous areas, WAC 365-190-080(4).
(B) Do not allow new development or the creation of new lots that would cause foreseeable risk
from geological conditions to people or improvements during the life of the development.
(C) Do not allow new development that would require structural shoreline stabilization over the life
of the development. Exceptions may be made for the limited instances where stabilization is
necessary to protect allowed uses where no alternative locations are available and no net loss of
ecological functions will result. The stabilization measures shall conform to WAC 173-26-231.
(D) Where no alternatives, including relocation or reconstruction of existing structures, are found to
be feasible, and less expensive than the proposed stabilization measure, stabilization structures or
measures to protect existing primary residential structures may be allowed in strict conformance with
WAC173-26-231 requirements and then only if no net loss of ecological functions will result.
Critical saltwater habitats.
(iii)
Applicability.
(A) Critical saltwater habitats include all kelp beds, eelgrass beds, spawning and
holding areas for forage fish, such as herring, smelt and sandlance; subsistence, commercial and
recreational shellfish beds; mudflats, intertidal habitats with vascular plants, and areas with which
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 19 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
priority species have a primary association. Critical saltwater habitats require a higher level of
protection due to the important ecological functions they provide. Ecological functions of marine
shorelands can affect the viability of critical saltwater habitats. Therefore, effective protection and
restoration of critical saltwater habitats should integrate management of shorelands as well as
submerged areas.
Principles.
(B) Master programs shall include policies and regulations to protect critical saltwater
habitats and should implement planning policies and programs to restore such habitats. Planning for
critical saltwater habitats shall incorporate the participation of state resource agencies to assure
consistency with other legislatively created programs in addition to local and regional government
entities with an interest such as port districts. Affected Indian tribes shall also be consulted. Local
governments should review relevant comprehensive management plan policies and development
regulations for shorelands and adjacent lands to achieve consistency as directed in RCW 90.58.340.
Local governments should base management planning on information provided by state resource
agencies and affected Indian tribes unless they demonstrate that they possess more accurate and
reliable information.
The management planning should include an evaluation of current data and trends regarding the
following:
• Available inventory and collection of necessary data regarding physical characteristics of the
habitat, including upland conditions, and any information on species population trends;
• Terrestrial and aquatic vegetation;
• The level of human activity in such areas, including the presence of roads and level of
recreational types (passive or active recreation may be appropriate for certain areas and habitats);
• Restoration potential;
• Tributaries and small streams flowing into marine waters;
• Dock and bulkhead construction, including an inventory of bulkheads serving no protective
purpose;
• Conditions and ecological functions in the near-shore area;
• Uses surrounding the critical saltwater habitat areas that may negatively impact those areas,
including permanent or occasional upland, beach, or over-water uses; and
• An analysis of what data gaps exist and a strategy for gaining this information.
The management planning should address the following, where applicable:
• Protecting a system of fish and wildlife habitats with connections between larger habitat blocks
and open spaces and restoring such habitats and connections where they are degraded;
• Protecting existing and restoring degraded riparian and estuarine ecosystems, especially salt
marsh habitats;
• Establishing adequate buffer zones around these areas to separate incompatible uses from the
habitat areas;
• Protecting existing and restoring degraded near-shore habitat;
• Protecting existing and restoring degraded or lost salmonid habitat;
• Protecting existing and restoring degraded upland ecological functions important to critical
saltwater habitats, including riparian vegetation;
• Improving water quality;
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 20 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
• Protecting existing and restoring degraded sediment inflow and transport regimens; and
• Correcting activities that cause excessive sediment input where human activity has led to mass
wasting.
Local governments, in conjunction with state resource agencies and affected Indian tribes, should
classify critical saltwater habitats and protect and restore seasonal ranges and habitat elements with
which federal-listed and state-listed endangered, threatened, and priority species have a primary
association and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that a species will maintain its population
and reproduce over the long term.
Local governments, in conjunction with state resource agencies and affected Indian tribes, should
determine which habitats and species are of local importance.
All public and private tidelands or bedlands suitable for shellfish harvest shall be classified as
critical areas. Local governments should consider both commercial and recreational shellfish areas.
Local governments should review the Washington department of health classification of commercial
and recreational shellfish growing areas to determine the existing condition of these areas. Further
consideration should be given to the vulnerability of these areas to contamination or potential for
recovery. Shellfish protection districts established pursuant to chapter 90.72 RCW shall be included in
the classification of critical shellfish areas. Local governments shall classify kelp and eelgrass beds
identified by the department of natural resources' aquatic resources division, the department, and
affected Indian tribes as critical saltwater habitats.
Comprehensive saltwater habitat management planning should identify methods for monitoring
conditions and adapting management practices to new information.
Vegetation management
173-26-221 General master program provisions.
(5) Shoreline vegetation conservation.
Applicability.
(a) Vegetation conservation includes activities to protect and restore vegetation
along or near marine and freshwater shorelines that contribute to the ecological functions of shoreline
areas. Vegetation conservation provisions include the prevention or restriction of plant clearing and
earth grading, vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds and nonnative species.
Unless otherwise stated, vegetation conservation does not include those activities covered under
the Washington State Forest Practices Act, except for conversion to other uses and those other forest
practice activities over which local governments have authority. As with all master program
provisions, vegetation conservation provisions apply even to those shoreline uses and developments
that are exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit. Like other master program provisions,
vegetation conservation standards do not apply retroactively to existing uses and structures, such as
existing agricultural practices.
Principles.
(b) The intent of vegetation conservation is to protect and restore the ecological
functions and ecosystem-wide processes performed by vegetation along shorelines. Vegetation
conservation should also be undertaken to protect human safety and property, to increase the
stability of river banks and coastal bluffs, to reduce the need for structural shoreline stabilization
measures, to improve the visual and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline, to protect plant and animal
species and their habitats, and to enhance shoreline uses.
Master programs shall include: Planning provisions that address vegetation conservation and
restoration, and regulatory provisions that address conservation of vegetation; as necessary to
assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes, to avoid adverse
impacts to soil hydrology, and to reduce the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion.
Local governments should address ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes provided
by vegetation as described in WAC 173-26-201 (3)(d)(i).
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 21 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
Local governments may implement these objectives through a variety of measures, where
consistent with Shoreline Management Act policy, including clearing and grading regulations, setback
and buffer standards, critical area regulations, conditional use requirements for specific uses or
areas, mitigation requirements, incentives and nonregulatory programs.
In establishing vegetation conservation regulations, local governments must use available
(2)(a). At a minimum, local
scientific and technical information, as described in WAC 173-26-201
governments should consult shoreline management assistance materials provided by the department
andManagement Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats, prepared by the Washington
state department of fish and wildlife where applicable.
Current scientific evidence indicates that the length, width, and species composition of a shoreline
vegetation community contribute substantively to the aquatic ecological functions. Likewise, the biota
within the aquatic environment is essential to ecological functions of the adjacent upland vegetation.
The ability of vegetated areas to provide critical ecological functions diminishes as the length and
width of the vegetated area along shorelines is reduced. When shoreline vegetation is removed, the
narrower the area of remaining vegetation, the greater the risk that the functions will not be
performed.
In the Pacific Northwest, aquatic environments, as well as their associated upland vegetation and
wetlands, provide significant habitat for a myriad of fish and wildlife species. Healthy environments for
aquatic species are inseparably linked with the ecological integrity of the surrounding terrestrial
ecosystem. For example, a nearly continuous corridor of mature forest characterizes the natural
riparian conditions of the Pacific Northwest. Riparian corridors along marine shorelines provide many
of the same functions as their freshwater counterparts. The most commonly recognized functions of
the shoreline vegetation include, but are not limited to:
• Providing shade necessary to maintain the cool temperatures required by salmonids, spawning
forage fish, and other aquatic biota.
• Providing organic inputs critical for aquatic life.
• Providing food in the form of various insects and other benthic macroinvertebrates.
• Stabilizing banks, minimizing erosion, and reducing the occurrence of landslides. The roots of
trees and other riparian vegetation provide the bulk of this function.
• Reducing fine sediment input into the aquatic environment through storm water retention and
vegetative filtering.
• Filtering and vegetative uptake of nutrients and pollutants from ground water and surface runoff.
• Providing a source of large woody debris into the aquatic system. Large woody debris is the
primary structural element that functions as a hydraulic roughness element to moderate flows. Large
woody debris also serves a pool-forming function, providing critical salmonid rearing and refuge
habitat. Abundant large woody debris increases aquatic diversity and stabilization.
• Regulation of microclimate in the stream-riparian and intertidal corridors.
• Providing critical wildlife habitat, including migration corridors and feeding, watering, rearing, and
refugia areas.
Sustaining different individual functions requires different widths, compositions and densities of
vegetation. The importance of the different functions, in turn, varies with the type of shoreline setting.
For example, in forested shoreline settings, periodic recruitment of fallen trees, especially conifers,
into the stream channel is an important attribute, critical to natural stream channel maintenance.
Therefore, vegetated areas along streams which once supported or could in the future support
mature trees should be wide enough to accomplish this periodic recruitment process.
Woody vegetation normally classed as trees may not be a natural component of plant
communities in some environments, such as in arid climates and on coastal dunes. In these
instances, the width of a vegetated area necessary to achieve the full suite of vegetation-related
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 22 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
shoreline functions may not be related to vegetation height.
Local governments should identify which ecological processes and functions are important to the
local aquatic and terrestrial ecology and conserve sufficient vegetation to maintain them. Such
vegetation conservation areas are not necessarily intended to be closed to use and development but
should provide for management of vegetation in a manner adequate to assure no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions.
Standards.
(c) Master programs shall implement the following requirements in shoreline
jurisdiction.
Establish vegetation conservation standards that implement the principles in WAC 173-26-221
(5)(b). Methods to do this may include setback or buffer requirements, clearing and grading
standards, regulatory incentives, environment designation standards, or other master program
provisions. Selective pruning of trees for safety and view protection may be allowed and the removal
of noxious weeds should be authorized.
Additional vegetation conservation standards for specific uses are included in WAC 173-26-
241(3).
Building height
Height is addressed directly in two provisions and indirectly in relation to policies for aesthetics
and consistency with adjacent development.
The statute in RCW 90.58.320 contains the following specific provisions regarding height.
No permit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter for any new or expanded building or structure of
more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the
view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a
master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the
public interest will be served.
The statute in RCW 90.58.100(2)(f) requires
“A conservation element for the preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to
scenic vistas, aesthetics, and vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wildlife protection [emphasis
added].
The statute in RCW 90.58.040 contains a mandate to review regulations, plans, and ordinances
relative to lands adjacent to the shorelines of the state so as the [to] achieve a use policy on said land
consistent with the policy of this chapter, the guidelines, and the master programs for the shorelines of
the state.
WAC 173-26-211(4)(a)(iv)(A) requires the SMP in each shoreline environment to include regulations
for building or structure height and bulk limits, setbacks, maximum density or minimum frontage
requirements, and site development standards
WAC 173-26-186(5)(d)(ii)(E) directs: that objectives should be implemented by means such as sign
control regulations, appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and
maintenance of natural vegetative buffers.
WAC 173-26-211(2)(b)(v) directs promotion of human uses and values that are compatible with the
other objectives of this section, such as public access and aesthetic values, provided they do not
significantly adversely impact ecological functions.
WAC 173-26-211(4)(b)(iii) provides for protecting the public's opportunity to enjoy the
physical and aesthetic qualities of shorelines of the state, including views of the water, to the
greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people.
WAC 173-26-211 (4)(d) (iv) directs adoption of provisions, such as maximum height limits,
setbacks, and view corridors, to minimize the impacts to existing views from public property
or substantial numbers of residences. Where there is an irreconcilable conflict between
water-dependent shoreline uses or physical public access and maintenance of views from
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 23 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010
adjacent properties, the water-dependent uses and physical public access shall have priority,
unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary.
WAC 173-26-211(6)(b)(i) Prevent impacts to water quality and storm water quantity that
would result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, or a significant impact to
aesthetic qualities, or recreational opportunities.
Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 24 of 24 Code Overview October 19, 2010