HomeMy WebLinkAbout3180 RESOLUTION NO. -3 i *o
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington approving the amended Shoreline Master
Program The resolution will direct the Department of Community
Development to forward the documents comprising the updated
Shoreline Master Program to the Washington State Department of
Ecology for review and approval
WHEREAS, the people of the State of Washington enacted the Shoreline
Management Act (RCW 90358) by a vote of the people in 1971, and
WHEREAS, RCW 90 58 020 directs local governments developing shoreline
master programs to give preference to uses in the shorelines in the following order of preference
which 1) recognize and protect the State -wide interest over local interest, 2) preserve the natural
character of the shoreline, 3) result in long -term over short-term benefit, 4) protect the resources
and ecology of the shorelines, 5) increase public access to publicly -owned areas of the
shorelines, 6) increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline, and 7) provide
for any other element as defined in RCW 90 58 100 deemed appropriate or necessary, and
WHEREAS, in 2003, The Department of Ecology adopted new rules, pursuant to
RCW 90 58 200, which gave procedural and substantive direction to local junsdictions for
updating shoreline uses and regulations, which became effective January 17, 2004, and
WHEREAS, The Growth Management ACT (RCW 36 70A 480) adds the goals
and policies of the Shoreline Management Act as set forth in RCW 900.58 020 as one of the
goals of the Growth Management Act without creating an order of priority; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted a comprehensive inventory of the ecological
functions and conditions within its shoreline jurisdiction in 2009 to provide a scientific
foundation for application of the shoreline environment criteria and assignment of the
appropriate shoreline designations, and
WHEREAS, the results of this comprehensive inventory are contained in the
document entitled, Shoreline Inventory and Characterization, most recently updated in May
2012, and
WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of WAC 173 -26- 186(8)( d), the
City conducted an analysis of potential cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future
development on shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline functions fostered by the
policy goals of the SMA This analysis is contained in the document entitled, "Shoreline
Cumulative Effects Analysis" most recently updated in February 2012, and,
WHEREAS, the City has utilized the scientific information from the Inventory
and the Cumulative Impact Analysis to draft the proposed SMP Update, and
1
SMP Amendments
WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of WAC I 73- 26- 224(4)(c), the City
has conducted a public access analysis entitled, "Shoreline Public Access Inventory", most
recently updated in April, 2012 This plan establishes an integrated shoreline public access
system that identifies public needs and opportunities to provide public access, and
WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of WAC 173- 26- 186(8)(c) and 173-
26-20 1 (2)(f), a document entitled "Restoration Plan" most recently updated in February, 2012
has been formulated so that the City's master program includes goals, policies and actions for
restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions, and
WHEREAS, over the past three years, the City's Planning Commission has
reviewed and revised a number of documents, including the Shoreline Inventory, proposed
revisions to shoreline regulations, the Restoration Plan, the Public Access Plan, the Cumulative
Effects Analysis, and responded to both governmental agency and public comments, and
WHEREAS, the City developed a public participation plan that provided
widespread public notice throughout the SMP Update process The City has made a concerted
effort to generate public involvement, including holding a public open house, having a booth at
the Bremerton Blackberry Festival, sending notice in all residents' utility bills, creating a Citizen
Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee, attending monthly coordination
meetings with the Technical Advisory Committee, creating a comprehensive and regularly -
updated web page devoted to the SMP Update, maintaining a large mailing list in order to keep
interested parties informed, holding over 14 workshops and a Public Hearing at the Planning
Commission and a series of four televised workshops at the City Council, and
WHEREAS, The City issued a complete Planning Commission Draft of the
Shoreline Master Program in May of 2012 and considered and responded to government, agency,
and public comments and prepared and issued revised Draft Shoreline Master Programs or
elements thereof in June 2012, and
WHEREAS, the City's Responsible Official issued a Determination of
Nonsignificance on the proposed Shoreline Master Program on May 14, 2012 with an appeal
deadline of May 29, 2012 No appeals were filed, and
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2012, a draft SMP was circulated to the State Agencies
for the requisite 60 -day review and comment period No comments were received, and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton Planning Commission considered staff's
recommendations, received testimony, and formulated a recommendation to forward the
amendments for City Council at a duly advertised public hearing on May 29, 2012, and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2012 the public was notified by legal
advertisement in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the
public hearing by the City Council; and
2
SMP Amendments
WHEREAS, City Council took public testimony from interested parties and
considered all written and oral arguments at a duly advertised public hearing for the Shoreline
Master Program update on October 3, 2012, and
WHEREAS, once the City approves the Shoreline Master Program, it will be sent
to the Washington State Department of Ecology for review and approval, a process which may
entail further changes and amendments to the documents of the Shoreline Master Program„ and
WHEREAS, upon Department of Ecology approval, the City will adopt the
Shoreline Master Program by ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the City considered and responded to government agency and public
comments, NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS
SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated as if set forth
herein in full
SECTION 2. 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 3. The City Council hereby approves and recommends adoption of
the Shoreline Master Program, attached hereto as Exhibit B and Exhibit C and subject to
Department of Ecology approval
SECTION 4. The City is authorized to make necessary corrections to the Exhibit
B including but not limited to, corrections of scriveners or clerical errors, references, numbering
of sections or subsections and any reference thereto
SECTION S. After the Department of Ecology completes their review of the
Shoreline Master Program the City Council will adopt the program by Ordinance with any
changes that the Department of Ecology may provide, if any Only after said Ordinance is
adopted shall the Shoreline Master Program go into effect
SECTION 6. Severabihty If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentence
of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and
effect, and
SECTION 7. Effective Date This resolution shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law
2��
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this D
day of , 2012
M McDONALD, Council President
3
SMP Amendments
AP AS TO FORM ST
RO ER A LUBOVICH SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk
R \Legal\Legal \Resolutions \Community Development \Shoreline Master Program (2012) doc
4
SW Amendments
Exhibit A
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Summary — After almost three years of Planning Commission Workshops, the Planning
Commission is recommending the approval of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
Update for City Council approval The Planning Commission finds that this update
addresses Bremerton's unique urban environment and meets the State requirements for
the update
The City of Bremerton adopted its first SMP in 1976, with mayor amendments in 1989
and 1992, with amendments for Downtown Development Standards in 2003 This
comprehensive Shoreline Master Program update is an extensive overhaul of the
existing SMP intended to incorporate the most accurate and up to date scientific data
into the shoreline development regulations There has been extensive public input
throughout the drafting of this code amendment process The SMP and accompanying
documents have been reviewed by the Citizen Advisory and Technical Advisory
Committee's Once adopted by the City Council the Shoreline Master Program will be
reviewed for compliance with State guidelines by the Department of Ecology, who have
final adoption authority
I. FINDINGS OF FACT - GENERAL
1. Project Description
This comprehensive update to the Shoreline Master Program is comprised of goals,
policies, and regulations for all uses within 200' of the shoreline Additionally the
update includes a Shoreline Inventory and Characterization, Cumulative Effects
Analysis, Restoration Plan, and Public Access Plan
2. Procedural History
The comprehensive SMP Update was drafted, reviewed and recommended for adoption
after three years of deliberation and meetings as follows
2.1 Citizen Advisory Committee A team of dedicated citizens working to review the
code sections to ensure local knowledge was incorporated, text was reader friendly, and
the code requirements achieved the goals established Meetings were held as follows
1) 8/10/2010 Kickoff meeting
2) 1/31/2011 • Designations
3) 4/19/2011 • Policies and Designations
4) 6/17/2011. Regulations
5) 8/16/2011 Nonconformities
6) 10118/2011 Public Access
2.2 Technical Advisory Committee:
Monthly coordination meetings held the third Thursday of every month
Representatives from all a wide array of jurisdictions attend such as, but not limited to
Kitsap County, Bainbridge Island, Poulsbo, Port Orchard, Suquamish Tribe, Department
of Natural Resources, Department of f=ish and Wildlife, Army Corp of Engineers,
Department of Ecology, Kitsap County Health Department, etc
2.3 Planning Commission:
Public notification of these meetings was provided in the Kitsap Sun, emailed to
interested parties, and posted on the City Website
a) 1119110: Planning Commission Open House Open House covering the general
timelines and requirements of the update
b) 7120/10. Planning Commission Workshop on State Requirements: Ecology gave a
presentation about their expectations and requirements for the SMP update
c) 8117110• Planning Commission Workshop on Nonconformities: Discussion of
existing nonconforming provisions and how they could be used within the SMP
document
d) 10/16/10: Planning Commission Workshop Code Layout and Requirements
Reviewed existing Zoning, Critical Areas Regulations, and existing SMP to discuss
areas of concern and approaches to the SMP Update
e) 111712011: Planning Commission Workshop on the Inventory and
Characterization: Staff provided an over view of the content and findings of the
Inventory and addressed how the document would be used to draft code language
Commission and public provided comments and asked clarifying questions
f) 1/1712011: Planning Commission Workshop on the Department of Ecology's
Expectations: Barbara Nightingale gave a presentation regarding Ecology's role in
reviewing SMP's specifically relating to the information within the document that was
necessary for approval Questions and comments were answered
g) 3/15/2011: Planning Commission Workshop on Mapping & Designations• Reviewed
existing maps, zoning, and inventory to determine best designations for the update
h) 5/1712011 • Planning Commission Workshop on Goals & Policies Draft language
was prepared by the Citizen Advisory Committee and Staff was presented to the
Commission for comment and review
r) 711912011• Planning Commission Workshop on Regulations: Draft language was
prepared by the Citizen Advisory Committee and Staff was presented to the Commission
for comment and review
j) 9/20/2011 Planning Commission Workshop on Nonconformities. Discussion of
draft language to incorporate nonconforming regulations into the SMP
k) 1111512011: Planning Commission Workshop on Public Access: Discussion of the
public access plan and its applicability in the future
1) 112112012: Planning Commission Workshop on the Restoration and Cumulative
Effects Analysis: Discussion of the reports, relationship to the document, and accuracy
of data within Several revisions requested
m) 212112012: Planning Commission Workshop on Revisions to the Document
Discussion of various topics and potential solutions to issues raised at previous
meetings
n) 311512012: Planning Commission Workshop on Nonconformities: Significant
deliberation and public comment received regarding the title of nonconforming and
potential changes based on SSB 5451 Planning Commission directed staff to maintain
use of the term Legal Nonconforming and to continue the 75% rule foi voluntary
redevelopment
o) 512912012. Planning Commission Hearing on the SMP Update- Review of the entire
document Planning Commission deliberated and made a recommendation to City
Council for adoption
3. Public Comment
Public comment was received throughout the duration of the SMP Update Comments
were 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 for all Workshop
Meetings
a) Richard Nerf, Citizen Advisory Committee Member
b) Allison O'Sullivan, Suquamish Tribe Fisheries Department
c) Roger Duryea, Property Owner
d) Theresa Nation, Department of Fish & Wildlife
e) Larry Matel, Bremerton Engineering Department
f) Judy Friedberg -Nerf — Citizen Advisory Committee
g) Koko Fordjour, Washington State Ferries
h) Stephanie Trudel, Suquamish Tribe
i) Alan Beam, Property Owner
j) Dana Hamar, Property Owner
k) Barbara Nightingale, Department of Ecology
1) Kim Ingham, Property Owner
m) Jackie Rossworn, Interested Party
n) Bill Broughton, Property Owner
3 2 Individuals providing written comments including e-mail for the Public Hearing.
a) Alan Beam, Shoreline property owner in UGA
b) Brian Mandak, Shoreline property owner
c) Richard Nerf, Shoreline property owner and Citizen Advisory Committee member
4. SEPA Determination
The SEPA Environmental Review for the proposed Update to the Shoreline Master
Program is complete The City of Bremerton reviewed the SEPA Checklist on the
proposal and issued a Determination of Non Significance (DNS) on May 14, 2012 The
public comment period on the DNS expired on May 29, 2012, no appeals were filed
The basis for the DNS rests on the fact that the SMP enhances protections for the
environment in every category, and is grounded by extensive scientific study through
the Inventory & Characterization, Restoration Plan, and Cumulative Effects Analysis
and has undergone extensive public and agency scrutiny
5. Consistency
5 1 The proposal meets requirement of the Shoreline Master Program process
described in WAC 173 -26 Parts I and II The proposal meets SMP Guidelines
included in WAC 173 -26, and enforcement requirements per WAC 173 -27
5 2 The proposal is a comprehensive SMP Update that is mandated by the State
The revisions intend to update the overall goals and policies of SMP in order to
utilize existing scientific data and comply with the Department of Ecology
guidelines
5 3 The proposed SMP Update is consistent with the Washington State Growth
Management Act goals and policies
5 2 The proposed SMP Update is consistent with the City of Bremerton
Comprehensive Plan and Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) including
the following
2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
• E8 Protect and preserve Bremerton's unique marine and fresh water
resources.
• E12 Ensure consistency between the goals and policies of this
Comprehensive Plan and those found in the Bremerton Shoreline
Master Program
• E11 E Protect public views and vistas of both shoreline environments
and mountains
• EC1I Promote both short and extended recreational activities in
Bremerton, especially along the waterfront
Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies
• C4 The County's Comprehensive Plan policies shall promote
techniques to protect and enhance significant open spaces, natural
resources
• E2 Conserving and enhancing the County's natural resources, critical
areas, water quality /quantity, and environmental amenities while
planning for and accommodating sustainable growth
• E5 The County and the Cities shall preserve, protect, and where
possible, restore the functions of natural habitat to support ESA - listed
species, through the adoption of comprehensive plan policies, critical
area ordinances, shoreline master programs and other development
regulations that seek to protect, maintain or restore aquatic
ecosystems associated habitats and aquifer through the use of
management zones, development regulations, incentives for voluntary
efforts of private land owners and developers, land use classifications
or designations, habitat acquisition programs or habitat restoration
projects
54 The proposal will not adversely affect the public health, safety, general welfare,
of the Citizens The recommended SMP Update includes provisions and
regulations intended to protect the public health, safety, general welfare by
preventing development that will degrade shoreline environments, or preclude
water - dependent economic uses or obstruct public enjoyment of state waters
55 The proposed SMP Update has included continuous and open public
involvement and adequate public notice. The SMP Update has included open
houses, public workshops, and a public hearing at the Planning Commission
level All meetings at the Planning Commission level, were noticed with formal
advertisement in the Kitsap Sun, emailed to interested parties, and dates were
posted on the City of Bremerton website Drafts of the recommended SMP
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 Suite 600
III. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission concludes that the proposed SMP Update is consistent with
the Shoreline Management Act, the Growth Management Act, Kitsap County -Wide
Planning Policies, and the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan The Commission
concludes that the proposed SMP Update is adequate to protect the public health,
safety, general welfare and private property from development along shorelines that
would damage the environment, preclude public enjoyment of waters of the State, or
inhibit water - dependent economic uses.
1
Resp tfully submitted by
r
ndrea L p cer, Executive Secretary '
1
i
i
Z d air t_ �� _ �
i
i I
f
i
I
i
I
Exhibit B
Due to the size of the Shoreline Master Program document a full copy of it is not
included in this packet. A hard copy of the SMP was distributed to each member of the
City Council in June at the start of the "Summer Workshops" for this update process
To review the contents of the document please go to bremertonshorelines com or you can
review a hard copy of the document at the Department of Community Development on
the 6 floor of the Norm Dicks Government Center
Exhibit C
Amendments to the City Council Draft SMP
This chart outlines changes to the Draft SMP document that have been reviewed by City Council and are recommended
to be included into the recommended draft submitted to the Department of Ecology These revisions along with minor
page number alterations will be included into the document prior to submittal to the Department of Ecology The Chart
identifies the code section and page number, reason, and actual text amendment
Location in Proposed Change Proposed Code Language
Code Rationale
P 13 Add a definition of Agriculture Agricultural uses and practices include, but are not
agriculture so that it is limited to Producing, breeding, or increasing agricultural products,
Section clearer what is prohibited rotating and changing agricultural crops, allowing land used for
Definitions in the shoreline area agricultural activities to lie fallow in which it is plowed and tilled but left
This definition is unseeded, allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie dormant,
important to the conducting agricultural operations, and maintaining agricultural lands
Suquamish Tribe to under production or cultivation as defined in WAC 173 -27 -020 This
ensure fish hatcheries excludes activities typically associated with single family residences,
are not prohibited or such as gardening, residential chicken coops, or pet ownership, and
considered "agriculture" does not include fish hatcheries which are listed under a uaculture
P 17 Replace definition of "file' Fill The addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining
to be consistent with the structure, or other material to an area that increases the natural surface
Section updated guidelines per elevation For wetlands, this includes areas waterward of the OHWM,
Definitions WAC 173 -26- 020(16) or on shorelands in a manner that raises the elevation or creates dry
This change has been land
requested by Ecolo
Exhibit C
p 73 Clarify that the SMP Upland areas adjacent to the shoreline perform essential functions
regulations for buffers necessary to sustain habitat and ecological processes It is for this
Section supersede the CAO reason that development must be set back from the water's edge and
20 16 710 regulations This added that natural buffers must be created and or preserved The City
language ensures the currently regulates such areas through the Critical Areas Ordinance
larger buffers in the CAO (Ordinance 4965 codified in BMC 20 14), however in areas regulated
are not applied in the by this document within the shoreline Jurisdiction, the following policies
shoreline Jurisdiction and regulations will supersede those within the Critical Area
Regulations
P 76 Clarify that underwater (text of footnote in table)
(footnote in areas are not used to (4) Determining Lot Depth Areas inundated with water are not
the chart) calculate lot depth when included in the calculation for lot depth, therefore the measurement
determining buffer size may be taken from the OHWM For lots with varying lot depth, the
Section average depth may be used
20 16 710(b)
5
P 76 Although implied, the (i) Buffers and Associated Building Setback Areas The distance of
code does not specifically the buffer shall be measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark
Section say refuse /garbage is (OHWM) Buffers shall remain undisturbed natural beach or vegetation
20 16 710(b) prohibited on the beach areas except where the buffer can be enhanced to improve its
(5)(1) This is an important functional attributes, as approved by the Department Buffers shall be
addition for code maintained along the perimeter of Fish and Wildlife Habitat
enforcement Conservation Areas, as outlined in the table above Refuse and
proceedings garbage shall not be placed or stored in the buffers or on the beach
Exhibit C
P 77 Add language to the list Exemptions from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Buffers
of exemptions from (The whole list is not shown herein order to save space)
Section buffers for properties (i) Those portions of an approved water - oriented
20 16 710(b) separated from the development that require a location waterward of the ordinary high
(10)(11) shoreline by roads or water mark, and /or within their associated buffers and setbacks,
other developed a-- OODevelopment activities on lots that are physically and
properties These functionally separated from shoreline by an improved paved public or
properties are not private road or railroad or similar facility and /or by one or more existing
necessarily "isolated" developed lots under separate ownership such that the ecological
from the shoreline, but functions provided by buffers do not occur This provision shall not
would not provide any apply to such a facility within a development proposal or contiguous
added benefit from ownership that can be feasibly relocated to accommodate buffers
providing a buffer 111 Under round utilities,
P 86 Modify language 20 16 760 (a) Policies
regarding cultural (1) Prevent the destruction or, or damage to, any cultural resources
Section resources to remove the and any site having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational value as
20 16 760 sentence that identified by the appropriate authorities, including the Suquamish
encourages land owners Tribe, and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and
to provide public - access Historic Preservation
onto private property for (2) Land ewFieFs should pFeVide aGGess to qualified PFGfeSSienals and
the purpose of education
Exhibit C
P 91 Add provisions allowing ( 1) Heights in the commercial & industrial districts may be increased to
increased height for the zoning district height limit through a Type III Conditional Use
Section commercial and industrial Permit provided
20 16 790(b) designations that have (a) The increase does not substantially block views from upland
(1) higher height limits in the residential properties,
zoning code (b)The project may be required to include compensating
elements that substantially enhance the visual and physical public
Examples of locations access to the shoreline
include Old Wheaton (c) It is demonstrated that No Net Loss of habitat function will
Way by the Hospital and be achieved
the Shipyard - (2) Single Family Residential heights may be increased to 35' with
the employment of a pitched roof when
(a) The pitch of the roof is not less than 6 12
(b) The pitched roof is oriented perpendicular to the shoreline
Minor gables or other roof features parallel to the shoreline may be
permitted on a case by case basis provided such features do not
extend past the pitched roof where views are intended to be
preserved
c The pitched roof covers the entire structure
P 91 Clarify that the height Table Notes
(footnote in limit only applies to the The height limit is restricted to that portion of the building physically
table) areas within the shoreline located within the shoreline jurisdiction
jurisdiction
Section
20 16 790(b)
chart
Exhibit C
P 121 Add language restricting (6) Non - structural and non - regulatory methods to protect, enhance,
removal of gravel from and restore shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline
Section streams and rivers per resources should be encouraged as an alternative to structural
2016950 the WAC as required by flood control works Non - regulatory and non - structural methods
(b)(6) Ecology may include public facility and resource planning, land or easement
acquisition, education, voluntary protection and enhancement
projects, or incentive programs Removal of gravel or similar
materials from the creek, stream, or river channel for flood
management purposes may be allowed only as part of an adopted
integrated flood control management program that demonstrates
that other flood hazard reduction strategies would not be effective
in the absence of gravel removal
0
Aug. 8, 2012 — Study Session "Shoreline Modifications"
• Buffers & Vegetation Management
• Docks
• Shoreline Stabilization
Aug. 15, 2012 — Televised SMP Presentation (Repeat of
previous Study Session)
Aug. 22, 1012 — Study Session "Nonconformities"
• Nonconformities
• SB 5451
Aug 29, 2012 — 5 th Wednesday, No Meeting
Sept 5, 2012 — Televised SMP Presentation (Repeat of
previous Study Session)
Sept 12, 1012 — Study Session "Recap / Revisions"
• Review of any modifications recommended by City
Council, Ecology, and the public
Sept 19, 1012 — No televised presentation
Sept 26, 1012 — Study Session "Final Review"
• Final review of any modifications recommended by City
Council, Ecology, and the public
Oct 3, 1012 — Televised SMP Public Hearing
• Recap of the process
• Review of project applicability and contents