Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/21/2021 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
______________________________________________________________ CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337 - Phone (360) 473-5280 * * * A M E N D E D * * * WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2021 CITY COUNCIL Virtual/Live Stream MEETING AGENDA To help reduce the spread of COVID-19, the City Council is conducting a virtual meeting. The Chambers will be closed, and all Council Members and staff will be participating in the meeting remotely. The public is invited to view and/or participate in the Council Meeting through one of the following options: To stream online only (via BKAT Feed, with no interaction possible: https://bremerton.vod.castus.tv/vod/?live=ch1&nav=live To Join the Zoom Meeting, members of the public are invited to click the link below: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82969542963?pwd=eHQ5TEdPUENFMElBVG5XQVJWWXNWUT09 Or iPhone one-tap: US: +12532158782,,82969542963#,,,,*408318# or +16699006833,,82969542963#,,,,*408318# Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 253 215 8782 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 301 715 8592 Webinar ID: 829 6954 2963 Passcode: 408318 Public questions or comments may be submitted ahead of time to City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us 1. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. 2. MAYOR'S REPORT 3. PUBLIC RECOGNITION 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. Claims and Check Register B. Minutes of Meeting – April 7, 2021 C. Minutes of Study Session – April 14, 2021 D. Confirm Appointment of Mike Barnet to the Bremerton-Kitsap Access Television (BKAT) Citizens Advisory Committee E. Resolution No. 3338 to authorize Changes in Approved Signers in Local Government Investment Pool 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing and Ordinance No. 5417 to update the Shoreline Master Program B. Public Hearing and Ordinance No. 5418 to amend Chapter 20.14 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Critical Areas” to be consistent with the Shoreline Master Program Update Continued on next page… 6. GENERAL BUSINESS A. Renewal of Affiliation Agreement with Tacoma Community College B. Interlocal Agreement to establish Kitsap County Fire Training Consortium C. Ordinance No. 5419 amending Section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to simplify Street Fund Budgeting & related Budget Reallocation D. Master Services and Purchasing Agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for Body Cameras and In-Car Recording Equipment for the Police Department E. Ordinance No. 5420 to repeal and replace Chapter 6.32 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Noise Levels” This item has been pulled… It will be presented at the Council Meeting on May 5, 2021 to receive public comment only; followed by proposed Council action at the Council Meeting on May 19, 2021... 7. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 8. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING MAYOR’S REPORT April 21, 2021 Photo courtesy of Port of Bremerton Sinclair Inlet Cleanup Coordinators: •Chance Berthiaume, City of Bremerton Stormwater Permit Coordinator, manages the Bremerton side of the cleanup •John Denis of Port Orchard, who manages the City of Port Orchard side Chance Berthiaume and John Denis work together to gather and coordinate 60+ volunteers who are dedicated to preserving and protecting the Sinclair Inlet. Congratulations to Chance, John and all the volunteers for their commitment and dedication to keeping our community clean and beautiful! Congratulations to the Sinclair Inlet Cleanup project for being selected for the 2021 Kitsap County Earth Day awards! (Photo taken in Sept.2019) COVID-19 –We’re Almost to the Home Stretch! Support our community’s health, economic recovery, and local businesses by: •Getting vaccinated •Wearing a mask •Avoiding large gatherings indoors or in close proximity •Staying home if you are sick and get tested if feeling ill Protecting yourself and others can make a difference and improves efforts to get back to business! A Few Words About City Attorney Roger Lubovich… Retiring on June 30, 2021 Exceptional public service to the City of Bremerton – nearly 20 years as City Attorney! AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: N/A Claims & Check Register COUNCIL MEETING Date: April 21, 2021 Department: Legal Services Presenter: Angela Hoover Phone: (360) 473-5323 SUMMARY: Approval of the following checks and electronic fund transfers: 1. Check Numbers 393332-393473 and Electronic Fund Transfers V32619-V32982 in the grand total amount of $1,935,648.52 2. Regular Payroll pay outs for pay period ending March 31, 2021 in the amount of $10,228.09 3. Regular Payroll for pay period ending April 15, 2021 in the amount of $911,742.71 ATTACHMENTS: FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the consent agenda as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 4A AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting – April 7, 2021 Study Session Date: N/A COUNCIL MEETING Date: April 21, 2021 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: The Minutes of Meeting held on April 7, 2021 are attached. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ N/A STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the April 7, 2021 Meeting Minutes as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 11/3/17 4B 2 CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, April 7, 2021 A virtual meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order Wednesday, April 7, 2021, at 5:31 PM with Council President Kevin Gorman presiding. Council Members present were Eric Younger, Mike Simpson, Michael Goodnow, Lori Wheat, Leslie Daugs, and Pat Sullivan. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich; City Clerk Angela Hoover; Legislative Office Manager Lori Smith; and IT Manager Dave Sorensen. President Gorman read a statement that to help reduce the spread of COVID-19, the City Council is conducting a virtual meeting, which is allowed per a waiver of the Open Public Meetings Act approved by Governor Inslee, and that will remain in effect until the end of the pandemic; It was also announced that Item 5C under General Business titled “Master Services and Purchasing Agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for Body Cameras and In-Car Recording Equipment for the Police Department” will be rescheduled for further discussion at the next Study Session on April 14… MAYOR’S REPORT An update on 1st Quarter Permit Activity was provided, also noting the total revenue is projected to be more than $10 million over last year’s numbers; Interested citizens are encouraged to apply for serving on the newly established Complete Streets Advisory Committee by visiting the City’s website at www.bremertonwa.gov; and After attending a recent Kitsap Public Health Board meeting, he learned the new variant of the Covid-19 virus is now in Kitsap County. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Dr. Karen Bolton requested an investigation into a recent incident as a potential hate crime. Anna Mockler was pleased to see Public Recognition moved back to the beginning of the Agenda; and agreed with Dr. Bolton’s comments. Kiaha Long hoped to see more diversity reflected in future Police Department hires; and that the liability issue relating to the company that provides the body cameras needs to be addressed before moving forward. Erik Gonzalez, Executive Director of Urbanists Collective, discussed a proposal for a community Mural & Arts Festival. Mayor Wheeler offered to be in touch, and said that he would first like to see a presentation made to the Arts Commission. CONSENT AGENDA 4A – Claims & Check Register: Check Numbers 393107 through 393331, and EFT-V32518 through EFT-V32618 in the total amount of $2,876,270.53; Regular Payroll and Pay Outs for pay period ending March 15, 2021 in the amount of $906,581.19; Regular Payroll for pay period ending March 31, 2021 in the amount of $923,311.18; and Retiree Payroll for pay period ending March 31, 2021 in the amount of $53,136.23 4B – Minutes of Meeting – March 17, 2021 4C – Minutes of Study Session – March 24, 2021 4D – Accept Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Transportation Grant; and Approve Local Agency Agreement for the 6th Street Preservation Phase III Project 4E – Sole Source Public Works Agreement with Seton Construction, Inc. for the 2nd Street Stormwater Treatment Project City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, April 7, 2021 Page 2 of 4 4F – Sole Source Professional Services Agreement with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. for the McDougal Creek/Wheaton Way Culvert Repair Permit Support 4G – Confirm Appointment of Ashley Walchok from the Fairfield Inn & Suites to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee 4H – Confirm Appointment of Ash Printy from the Hampton Inn & Suites to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee 4I – Confirm Appointment of Mike Huey from the Washington State Science & Engineering Fair (WSSEF) to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee 4J – Confirm Appointment of Virgil Valdez from the Filipino-American Association of Kitsap County to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee There were no questions or comments from the public… 5:57 M/S/C/U (Daugs/Goodnow) Move to approve the CONSENT AGENDA as presented. GENERAL BUSINESS 5A – BREMERTON KITSAP ACCESS TELEVISION SERVICE CONTRACT WITH THE KITSAP PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT: Public Access Manager Jon Rauch summarized that the intent of this contract is for BKAT to provide services to the Kitsap Public Health District in the form of recording and airing their board meetings and programming. There were no questions or comments from the public… 5:59 Motion was made by Daugs; and seconded by Simpson… Comments were provided by Daugs, Simpson, and Wheat… 6:02 M/S/C/U (Daugs/Simpson) Move to approve the Bremerton Kitsap Access Television Service Agreement with the Kitsap Public Health District; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. 5B – LOCAL AGENCY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PARTICIPATING AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR WARREN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT: City Engineer Ned Lever explained that on September 18, 2020, the City accepted State grant funding in the amount of $1,500,000 for the design of the SR 303 Warren Avenue Bridge Pedestrian Improvements Project. Staff have coordinated with WSDOT to complete the structural design of the bridge which will be incorporated into the full design package which is being completed under a separate consultant civil design contract. The WSDOT design work includes preliminary engineering and permitting for pedestrian and bike improvements on the bridge and multimodal improvements to the north and south of the bridge. The contract is with WSDOT HQ Bridge Design Office and is for the structural design of the bridge modifications. The City entered into direct negotiations with WSDOT for this work because they have a working knowledge of the bridge and are the best qualified to perform the work. There are also efficiencies and cost savings if the State to performs the work. The estimated design fee is $252,000. The contract allows for a 25% increase for extra work, increasing the contract amount by $63,000 for a total amount of $315,000. Questions from the public were received from Ms. Mockler; with a response provided by Mr. Lever… 6:08 Motion was made by Daugs; and seconded by Wheat… Questions and comments were provided by Daugs, Wheat, Simpson, and Gorman; with responses provided by Mr. Lever… 6:14 M/S/C/U (Daugs/Wheat) Move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with WSDOT City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, April 7, 2021 Page 3 of 4 for design of the Warren Avenue Bridge Pedestrian Improvements Project; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. 5C – MASTER SERVICES AND PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH AXON ENTERPRISE, INC. FOR BODY CAMERAS AND IN-CAR RECORDING EQUIPMENT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT Item was pulled… 5D – AUTHORIZE THREE ADDITIONAL POSITIONS (3 FTES) IN THE 2021 CITY BUDGET TO SUPPORT BREMERTON’S PERMITTING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND INSPECTION SERVICES: Public Works & Utilities Director Tom Knuckey; and Community Development Director Andrea Spencer emphasized that construction in Bremerton has been on a significant increase since 2016, and the existing staffing levels in DCD’s Community Development Building group and PW&U’s Development Engineering Section are not adequate to deal with the increased demand for review and inspection that this increase in development activity is creating. The City’s administration has evaluated options to ensure that the City can maintain a permitting level of service and has concluded that three additional staff members (3 FTE’s) need to be added to the organization as follows: 1) Building Inspector / Plans Examiner II (DCD) 2) Development Engineer, CEII (PW&U Engineering) 3) Development Inspector, Tech IV (PW&U Engineering) Revenue from permitting is greatly outpacing budget projections and will offset the cost to add these FTEs. Comments from the public were received from Russ Shiplet; and Ms. Mockler… 6:26 Motion was made by Wheat; and seconded by Daugs… Questions and comments were provided by Wheat, Daugs, Simpson, Sullivan, Goodnow, Younger, and Gorman; with responses provided by Ms. Spencer, Mr. Knuckey, and Finance Director Mike Riley… 6:55 M/S/C/U (Wheat/Daugs) Move to authorize the 2021 mid-year hire of one additional Building Inspector/Plans Examiner II, one additional Development Engineer (CEII), and one additional Development Inspector (Engineering Technician IV), and approve an increase of $82,000 to the labor budget for the Department of Community Development, and an increase of $162,000 to the labor budget for the Engineering General Fund, with revenue to the Engineering General Fund of $40,500 from Water, $40,500 from Wastewater, $40,500 from Stormwater. Voted in favor of Motion: Goodnow, Wheat, Daugs, Sullivan, Younger, Gorman Voted opposed to Motion: Simpson Motion carried: 6-Yes; 1-No COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Pat Sullivan reminded the public that the Bremerton Central Lions are hosting a shredding event from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM this Saturday, April 10 in the Elks Club parking lot. Leslie Daugs mentioned this COVID-19 vaccinations will be available at the Marvin Williams Center on Saturday, April 10 from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM by appointment and encouraged those who are eligible to consider getting the vaccine, especially if it means you can hug a loved one; congratulated the newly appointed LTAC members; and provided a reminder about the monthly REAC meeting that will be held virtually tomorrow on Thursday, April 8 beginning at 6:00 PM. Lori Wheat thanked members of the public for submitting their comments tonight; provided a briefing on the District 4 Virtual Community Meeting held at the end of March, and thanked Mayor City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, April 7, 2021 Page 4 of 4 Wheeler, Vice President Daugs, and any others who reminded everyone to remain diligent in wearing masks and other precautions to avoid COVID-19. Michael Goodnow was pleased to receive his first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, encouraged everyone to get the vaccine when they are eligible, looked forward to the day the pandemic is over, and also looked forward to hugging his mom. Mike Simpson hoped everyone had a Happy Easter; looked forward to restoring the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance back to the opening of Council Meetings; would like to see the City split the budget into two separate presentations with requests for action at different times by the Council; and spoke briefly on the City’s utility tax. Eric Younger was not happy with the process used to hire the 3 additional FTEs; and suggested the trend of FTEs be presented to the Council at a future Study Session. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 7:12 PM, President Gorman announced that a 15-Minute Executive Session would be held to discuss “Pending Litigation” as allowed under RCW 42.30.110 (1) (i), and that action was anticipated… After two 5-Minute extensions, President Gorman called the meeting back to order at 7:38 PM… 7:38 PM Motion was read into the record by City Attorney Roger Lubovich; which was so moved by Simpson; and seconded by Sullivan… There were no questions or comments from the public… 7:39 M/S/C/U (Simpson/Sullivan) Move to approve the settlement of the lawsuit filed by Frank Shaw for $100,000. In addition, the City shall pay claimant's share of the cost of mediation in the amount of approximately $3,400. The Mayor is authorized to finalize and execute the Settlement Agreement pursuant to these terms as approved by the City Attorney. President Gorman reminded the public that all meetings will be held by Zoom until further notice, including the Study Session next Wednesday on April 14, 2021 beginning at 5:00 PM. With no further business, President Gorman adjourned the Council Meeting at 7:40 PM. Prepared and Submitted by: ______________________________ LORI SMITH Legislative Office Manager APPROVED by the City Council on the 21st day of April, 2021. ________________________________________ KEVIN GORMAN, City Council President Attest: ________________________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk KG:AH:ls:cg AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Study Session – April 14, 2021 Study Session Date: N/A COUNCIL MEETING Date: April 21, 2021 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: The Minutes of Study Session held on April 14, 2021 are attached. ATTACHMENTS: Study Session Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ N/A STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the April 14, 2021 Study Session Minutes as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 11/3/17 4C 22C CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES Wednesday, April 14, 2021 A virtual Study Session of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order on Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 5:00 PM, with Council President Kevin Gorman presiding. Council Members present were Eric Younger, Mike Simpson, Michael Goodnow, Lori Wheat, Leslie Daugs, and Pat Sullivan. Lori Smith, Legislative Office Manager, and IT Manager Dave Sorensen were present to provide staff support. President Gorman established that to help reduce the spread of COVID-19, the City Council is conducting the Study Session via a Zoom webinar with Council Members and staff participating remotely. He further established that the Study Session was open for the public to listen in, but there would be no opportunities for input; no action is anticipated; and the content of these items is subject to change. If approved by the Council, items will be placed on the April 21, 2021 City Council Meeting Agenda… A. BRIEFINGS ON AGENDA BILL ITEMS 1. 2021 1st Quarter Federal and State Lobbying Update – Jake Johnston and Bryan McConaughy Information Only 2. Confirm Appointment of Mike Barnet to the BKAT Citizens Advisory Committee Consent Agenda 3. Renewal of Affiliation Agreement with Tacoma Community College General Business 4. Interlocal Agreement to establish Kitsap County Fire Training Consortium Item was first Postponed; but later allowed to move forward to General Business 5. Resolution to authorize Changes in Approved Signers in Local Government Investment Pool Consent Agenda 6. Ordinance amending Section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to simplify Street Fund Budgeting & related Budget Reallocation General Business President Gorman called a break from 6:55 to 7:03 PM… 7. Proposed Public Hearing on Ordinance to update the Shoreline Master Program Public Hearing 8. Proposed Public Hearing on Ordinance to amend Chapter 20.14 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Critical Areas” to be consistent with the Shoreline Master Program Update Public Hearing 9. Master Services and Purchasing Agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for Body Cameras and In-Car Recording Equipment for the Police Department General Business 10. Ordinance to repeal and replace Chapter 6.32 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Noise Levels” General Business B. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS o Audit Committee Monthly Briefing and Overview – Chair Leslie Daugs o Race Equity Advisory Committee Monthly Briefing – Chair Leslie Daugs o Other General Council Business was discussed. City Council Study Session Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 Page 2 of 2 President Gorman reminded the public that all meetings will be held remotely until further notice, including the next regular Council Meeting on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 5:30 PM. With no further business, the Study Session was adjourned at 9:19 PM. Prepared and Submitted by: ______________________________ LORI SMITH Legislative Office Manager APPROVED by the City Council on the 21st day of April, 2021. ______________________________ KEVIN GORMAN, Council President ATTEST: ______________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk KG:AH:ls:cg AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: April 14, 2021 Confirm Appointment of Mike Barnet to the Bremerton-Kitsap Access Television (BKAT) Citizens Advisory Committee COUNCIL MEETING Date: April 21, 2021 Department: Executive Presenter: Greg Wheeler Phone: (360) 473- 5266 SUMMARY: The Mayor is seeking confirmation for the appointment of Mike Barnet (Bremerton Community Member) to the Bremerton-Kitsap Access Television Advisory Committee. It is a one-year position. The term expires May 1, 2022. ATTACHMENTS: Application to the committee is available in the Mayor’s Office. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to confirm the appointment of Mike Barnet to the BKAT Citizens Advisory Committee for the term expiring May 1, 2022. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 4D AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL Study Session Date: April 14, 2021 SUBJECT: Resolution No. 3338 to authorize Changes in Approved Signers in Local Government Investment Pool COUNCIL MEETING Date: April 21, 2021 Department: Financial Services Presenter: Michael Riley Phone: (360) 473-5303 SUMMARY: The Local Government Investment Pool requires a resolution to change named users of the Local Government Investment Pool. The attached resolution removes names previously identified in the banking resolution and replaces them with positions, Director of Financial Services and Assistant Director of Financial Services. ATTACHMENTS: Local Government Investment Pool for Banking Resolution No. 3338 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒Limited Presentation ☐Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐General Business ☐Public Hearing approving the change in the Local Government RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 3338 Investment Pool authorized signers. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 4E x Updated 2018 RESOLUTION NO. 3338 AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF CITY OF BREMERTON MONIES IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOL WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 294, Laws of 1986, the Legislature created a trust fund to be known as the public funds investment account (commonly referred to as the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP)) for the contribution and withdrawal of money by an authorized governmental entity for purposes of investment by the Office of the State Treasurer; and WHEREAS, from time to time it may be advantageous to the authorized governmental entity, City of Bremerton, the “governmental entity”, to contribute funds available for investment in the LGIP; and WHEREAS, the investment strategy for the LGIP is set forth in its policies and procedures; and WHEREAS, any contributions or withdrawals to or from the LGIP made on behalf of the governmental entity shall be first duly authorized by the City of Bremerton Council, the “governing body” or any designee of the governing body pursuant to this resolution, or a subsequent resolution; and WHEREAS the governmental entity will cause to be filed a certified copy of said resolution with the Office of the State Treasurer; and WHEREAS the governing body and any designee appointed by the governing body with authority to contribute or withdraw funds of the governmental entity has received and read a copy of the prospectus and understands the risks and limitations of investing in the LGIP; and WHEREAS, the governing body attests by the signature of its members that it is duly authorized and empowered to enter into this agreement, to direct the contribution or withdrawal of governmental entity monies, and to delegate certain authority to make adjustments to the incorporated transactional forms, to the individuals designated herein. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the governing body does hereby authorize the contribution and withdrawal of governmental entity monies in the LGIP in the manner prescribed by law, rule, and prospectus. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the governing body has approved the Local Government Investment Pool Transaction Authorization Form (Form) as completed by Michael Riley, Director of Financial Services and incorporates said form into this resolution by reference and does hereby attest to its accuracy. Updated 2018 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the governmental entity designates the Director of Financial Services and the Assistant Director of Financial Services (title), the “authorized individual” to authorize all amendments, changes, or alterations to the Form or any other documentation including the designation of other individuals to make contributions and withdrawals on behalf of the governmental entity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this delegation ends upon the written notice, by any method set forth in the prospectus, of the governing body that the authorized individual has been terminated or that his or her delegation has been revoked. The Office of the State Treasurer will rely solely on the governing body to provide notice of such revocation and is entitled to rely on the authorized individual’s instructions until such time as said notice has been provided. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Form as incorporated into this resolution or hereafter amended by delegated authority, or any other documentation signed or otherwise approved by the authorized individual shall remain in effect after revocation of the authorized individual’s delegated authority, except to the extent that the authorized individual whose delegation has been terminated shall not be permitted to make further withdrawals or contributions to the LGIP on behalf of the governmental entity. No amendments, changes, or alterations shall be made to the Form or any other documentation until the entity passes a new resolution naming a new authorized individual; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the governing body acknowledges that it has received, read, and understood the prospectus as provided by the Office of the State Treasurer. In addition, the governing body agrees that a copy of the prospectus will be provided to any person delegated or otherwise authorized to make contributions or withdrawals into or out of the LGIP and that said individuals will be required to read the prospectus prior to making any withdrawals or contributions or any further withdrawals or contributions if authorizations are already in place. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the ____________________ of the ___________________ State of Washington on this _______ day of _____________ 20____. _____________________ __________________________ SIGNATURE TITLE _____________________ __________________________ SIGNATURE TITLE AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: April 14, 2021 Public Hearing and Ordinance No. 5417 to update the Shoreline Master Program COUNCIL MEETING Date: April 21, 2021 Department: DCD Presenter: Garrett Jackson Phone: (360) 473-5289 SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance is the amendments to the major periodic update of the City’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The City participated in the optional joint review process for amending the SMP per WAC 173-26-104. The joint review process consolidates the local and Department of Ecology’s public comment periods, speeding up the approval process. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the draft amendments in November 2020. Following the hearing, response to public comment and SEPA Determination, the SMP amendments were submitted to the Department of Ecology for their Initial Determination. Ecology has recommended approval with specific required and recommended changes as seen in Attachments A and B. The attached Ordinance embraces all recommended and required changes and have incorporated these changes into Planning Commission’s recommendation. Please note that if this Ordinance passes, another public hearing will immediately follow for amendments to update the Critical Area Ordinance for consistency with the SMP updates. If this Ordinance is denied or continued, this would impact the next public hearing. To ease in the review, a Memorandum to City Council is added to this record which discusses changes to both the SMP and the Critical Area Ordinance for this periodic update. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 5417 adopting the amendments to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), which included Exhibit A – SMP with amendments shown in legislative Markup Exhibit B – Appendices to the SMP: Public Access Plan (Appendix I) and Restoration Plan Addendum (Appendix II) A. Memorandum to City Council including: A-1: Planning Commission’s Finding and Conclusions A-2: Planning Commission’s Minutes for Workshops on September 21 and October 19, 2020 and Public Hearing on November 16, 2020 A-3: Gap Analysis needed for SMP and CAO Update A-4: Comment Matrix B. Department of Ecology’s Approval Letter C. Department of Ecology’s Required and Recommended Changes D. Power Point Presentation FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ Limited Presentation ☒ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☒ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. 5417 to amend the Shoreline Master Program due to the 2021 Periodic Update. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 5A 1 SMP Amendments ORDINANCE NO. 5417 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington amending the Shoreline Master Program through the required periodic update. WHEREAS, the people of the State of Washington enacted the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) by a vote of the people in 1971; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act of 1990 (“GMA”) (RCW 36.70A.480) adds the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020 as one of the goals of the GMA without creating an order of priority; and WHEREAS, in 2003, the Department of Ecology adopted rules, pursuant to RCW 90.58.200, which gave procedural and substantive direction to local jurisdictions for updating shoreline uses and regulations, which became effective January 17, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 5229 on December 4, 2013, adopting the Shoreline Master Program (“SMP”) after approval of Department of Ecology, to be compliant with RCW 90.58.020 and WAC 173-26-186; and WHERAS, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 5327 on July 5, 2017 making minor limited amendments to the SMP after approval of Department of Ecology, to be compliant with updated regulations; 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 90.58.020 as one of the goals of the Growth Management Act without creating an order of priority; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 43.21C RCW and WAC 197-11, a Determination of Non-Significance (“DNS”) with a comment period which expired on December 29, 2020, and an appeal period which expired on January 19, 2021. No appeals were filed; and WHEREAS, the SMP’s Appendix III: Designation Boundary & Resource Table is not required and will be removed, as the City GIS Shoreline Environment Designation Maps are accurate to the parcel level. WHEREAS, on November 9, 2020, amendments to the SMP were circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite 60-day review and comment period; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission held a Joint Public Hearing on November 16, 2020 to considered staff’s recommendations, received testimony, and formulated a recommendation for SMP update to the City Council for consideration at a duly advertised public hearing. The joint review process, per WAC 173-26-104, consolidates the local and State of Washington Department of Ecology’s SMP public comment periods, speeding up the approval 2 SMP Amendments process; and WHEREAS, Department of Ecology reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendation and provided required and recommended changes to the SMP for City Council’s consideration; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2021 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 WHEREAS, City Council took public testimony from interested parties and considered all written and oral arguments, include Department of Ecology’s required and recommended changes at a duly advertised public hearing for the Shoreline Master Program update on April 21, 2021; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated as if set forth herein in full. SECTION 2. The City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program with appendices, as set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted. SECTION 3. Corrections. The City Clerk and codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including but not limited to, the correction of scrivener, clerical, typographical, and spelling errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. SECTION 4. Severability. 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 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of ____________________, 2021 _________________________________ KEVIN GORMAN, Council President 3 SMP Amendments Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2021 _________________________________ GREG WHEELER, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ ________________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the________ day of ______________________, 2021 EFFECTIVE the_________day of ______________________, 2021 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ 1 BREMERTON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Approved Dec. 4, 2013 {insert date} by Ordinance Number {insert Ordinance Number}5229 and limited amendments on Sept. 7, 2017 by Ordinance Number 5327 Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 2 Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 3 Contents Chapter 1 - Introduction, Authority and Purpose ........................................................................................ 5 Chapter 2 – Goals and Policies ....................................................................................................................... 7 2.010 Intent: ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.020 Master Goal: ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.030 General Goals: .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.040 General Policies: ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 2.045 Aquaculture Policies: .................................................................................................................................................................................. 12 2.050 Commercial Development Policies: ............................................................................................................................................................ 13 2.055 Forest Practices Policies: ............................................................................................................................................................................ 13 2.060 Industrial Development Policies: ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 2.065 Marinas and Boating Facilities Policies: ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.070 Recreational Development Policies: ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.075 Residential Development Policies: ............................................................................................................................................................. 15 2.080 Roads, Railways, and Utilities Policies:...................................................................................................................................................... 15 2.085 Clearing and Grading Policies: ................................................................................................................................................................... 16 2.090 Docks, Piers, and Other In-Water Structures Policies: ................................................................................................................................ 16 2.095 Dredging Policies: ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 2.100 Flood Hazard Reduction Policies: ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 2.105 Landfill Policies: ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 2.110 Restoration and Conservation Policies:....................................................................................................................................................... 18 2.115 Shore Stabilization Policies: ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18 2.120 Stormwater Management Facilities Policies: .............................................................................................................................................. 19 Chapter 3 - Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 20 Chapter 4 – Shoreline Maps and Designations ........................................................................................... 32 4.010 Intent: ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 4.020 Maps: .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 4.030 Designations: .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 37 4.040 Shorelines of Statewide Significance: ......................................................................................................................................................... 42 Chapter 5 - Permit Administration .............................................................................................................. 44 5.010 Applicability: .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 44 5.020 Permit Application Types: .......................................................................................................................................................................... 53 5.030 Noticing Requirements: .............................................................................................................................................................................. 54 5.040 Criteria of Approval:................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 5.050 Appeals: ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 5.060 Time Periods:.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 57 5.070 Violations and Penalties: ............................................................................................................................................................................ 59 5.080 Shoreline Moratorium: ................................................................................................................................................................................ 59 5.090 Restoration Project Relocation of Ordinary High Water Mark: .................................................................................................................. 59 5.100 Special Procedures for WSDOT projects .................................................................................................................................................... 60 Chapter 6 - Nonconforming Provisions ....................................................................................................... 62 6.010 Intent: ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 62 6.020 Establishment of a Legal Nonconformity and Applicability: ...................................................................................................................... 62 6.030 Annexation: ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 62 6.040 Substantial Destruction: .............................................................................................................................................................................. 62 6.050 Nonconforming Lots: .................................................................................................................................................................................. 63 6.060 Nonconforming Uses: ................................................................................................................................................................................. 64 6.070 Nonconforming Structures: ......................................................................................................................................................................... 65 6.080 Unlawful Uses and Structures: .................................................................................................................................................................... 68 Chapter 7 – General Standards and Regulations ....................................................................................... 69 7.010 Buffers and Setbacks: ................................................................................................................................................................................. 69 7.020 Vegetation Conservation: ........................................................................................................................................................................... 73 7.030 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Functions: .............................................................................................................. 76 7.040 Public Access: ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 77 7.050 Water Quality, Stormwater, and Non-Point Pollution: ................................................................................................................................ 80 7.060 Archaeologically Sensitive Areas: .............................................................................................................................................................. 81 7.070 Lighting Requirements: .............................................................................................................................................................................. 81 7.080 Parking Requirements: ................................................................................................................................................................................ 82 Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 4 7.090 Use and Modifications Matrix and Height Table: ....................................................................................................................................... 83 Chapter 8 – Shoreline Use Regulations ....................................................................................................... 88 8.010 Intent: ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 88 8.020 Aquaculture: ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 88 8.030 Commercial Development: ......................................................................................................................................................................... 90 8.040 Forest Practices: .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 92 8.050 Industrial Development: ............................................................................................................................................................................. 92 8.060 Marinas and Boating Facilities: .................................................................................................................................................................. 94 8.070 Recreational Development: ......................................................................................................................................................................... 97 8.080 Residential Development: ........................................................................................................................................................................... 99 8.090 Roads, Railways, and Utilities: ................................................................................................................................................................. 101 Chapter 9 – Shoreline Modifications ......................................................................................................... 106 9.010 Intent: ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 106 9.020 Clearing and Grading: ............................................................................................................................................................................... 106 9.030 Docks, Piers, and Other In-Water Structures: ........................................................................................................................................... 107 9.040 Dredging: .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 110 9.050 Flood Hazard Reduction: .......................................................................................................................................................................... 112 9.060 Landfills: .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 113 9.070 Restoration and Conservation: .................................................................................................................................................................. 114 9.080 Shore Stabilization: ................................................................................................................................................................................... 116 9.090 Stormwater Management Facilities: ......................................................................................................................................................... 122 Appendices: Appendix I: Public Access Plan Appendix II: Restoration Plan Appendix III: Designation Boundary & Resource Table Accompanying Documents I: Shoreline Inventory & Analysis II: Cumulative Effects Analysis III: Critical Area Ordinance Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 5 Chapter 1 - Introduction, Authority and Purpose The City of Bremerton recognizes the intent of the legislature of the State of Washington in adopting the "Shoreline Management Act (SMA) of 1971" and adopts by reference the findings therein including, but not limited to, the intent to protect shorelines of statewide significance, their associated natural resources, and providing opportunities for the general public to have access to generally enjoy shorelines. The Shoreline Management Act is incorporated into the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program and, thereby, those direct federal agency activities affecting the use or resources subject to the Act must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable provisions of the Act, regulations adopted pursuant to the Act and this local Master Program. The State legislature has established that shorelines of the State are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources (such as Puget Sound) and there is great concern throughout the State relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation. In addition, ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the State. The legislature has determined that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are not necessarily being utilized in a way that is in the best interest of the public. This conclusion was drawn by evaluating the public and private development which has taken place on or adjacent to shorelines of Statewide Significance. Due to this, the legislature has determined that coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefore, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal state and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in uncoordinated and piecemeal development along such shorelines. In drafting this latest version of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program the City has followed the State mandates and guidelines established in the WAC and RCW. These requirements have had a significant impact on the goals, policies, and regulations within this document. In order to better understand the programs objectives the portions of RCW 90.58.020 are provided as follows: It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 6 the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. The legislature declares that interest of all people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of statewide significance. The department (of Ecology) in adopting guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, and local government in developing master programs for shorelines of statewide significance shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which: 1. Recognize and protect the statewide 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 shoreline; 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; 7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. The Shoreline Management Act's paramount objectives are to protect and restore the valuable natural resources that shorelines represent and to plan for and foster all "reasonable and appropriate uses" that are dependent upon a waterfront location or which will offer the opportunities for the public to enjoy the State's shorelines. With this clear mandate, the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act established a planning and regulatory permit program, which is initiated at the City and county level under State guidance through the local Shoreline Master Program. This cooperative effort balances local and State wide interests in the management and development of shoreline areas. Local governments are required to plan for shoreline development by developing local shoreline master programs (SMPs). They are also required to regulate such development through a shoreline permit system for Substantial Development projects. Local government actions are monitored by the State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), which approves new or amended SMPs, reviews Substantial Development permits, and approves conditional use permits and variances. The local Shoreline Master Program is essentially a shoreline Comprehensive Plan with a distinct environmental orientation applicable to shoreline areas customized to local circumstances. Collectively, all the local master programs comprise the State Shoreline Master Program. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 7 Chapter 2 -– Goals and Policies 2.010 Intent: The goals of the Shoreline Master Program are intended to be comprehensive goal statements. The goals state the broadest principals that establish the intent behind Master Program requirements. These goal statements are intended to ensure consistency as Master Program policies and regulations are applied to various shoreline uses. The following wheel depicts how all the goals are interconnected. Each primary goal group is integrally tied to a master goal. While each goal group is a separate concept, many of the principles within each group are interrelated. It is the intent of the goal wheel to depict this relationship. 2.020 Master Goal: The overall focus of this plan is to protect and restore shoreline resources and ecological functions, increase public access to the shoreline, promote economic development, and accommodate water dependent uses and address climate change adaptation/resiliency. In order to achieve rational, balanced, and responsible use of our irreplaceable shorelines: uses need to be coordinated to ensure that long term over short term benefits result. 2.030 General Goals: Each primary goal is listed in alphabetical order followed by the supporting goals for each group. (a) Circulation Goal: Enhance the overall mobility of Bremerton residents and visitors to and around shorelines without detracting from habitat function or public access. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 8 (1) Generally avoid locating new roads, railroads, and bridges within shoreline jurisdiction. When such features must be in shoreline jurisdiction locate them where routes will have the least adverse effect on shoreline function. Great effort should be taken to ensure such facilities do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned water dependent uses. (2) Where permitted, roads, railroads, and bridges should cross the shoreline area by the shortest most direct route, unless such a route would cause a net loss in shoreline ecological functions. (3) Improve facilities such as trails and bicycle lanes for safe pedestrian and non- motorized travel along public roadways in scenic areas. (4) Make use of rights of way for public access by encouraging rest areas, view turnout points, and picnic areas. Encourage the improvement of appropriate street ends abutting water bodies for public access. (5) Maximize opportunities to jointly use rights of way for roads, utilities, and non- motorized access to ensure the most beneficial use of public spaces. (b) Conservation and Restoration Goal: Emphasize activities that restore and enhance ecological functions and environmental qualities in order to achieve no net loss of ecological function on both a reach and watershed scale. (1) Conserve existing natural resources through regulatory and non-regulatory means such as development standards, ensuring ecologically sound designs, creating restoration programs, and encouraging education programs. (2) Critical areas within the shoreline should be managed to achieve protection or restoration of existing and degraded ecological functions and ecosystem wide processes. In protecting and restoring critical areas within the shoreline, the City can integrate the full spectrum of planning and regulatory measures. (3) Ensure that uses and activities retain native vegetation, or replace existing non- native vegetation with native species in order to achieve no net loss of ecological functions and ecosystem wide processes performed by native vegetation. (4) Encourage developments to integrate shoreline ecological restoration into projects through non-regulatory means. (5) Prevent and minimize pollution, sedimentation, and soil erosion through regulatory and non-regulatory means such as surface water management. (6) Conservation efforts should focus on protecting and sustaining existing ecological functions for long term success; such protection may be ensured through the use of conservation easements. (7) Recognize and monitor the potential effects of sea level riseclimate change as additional scientific information becomes available and encourage shoreline development and redevelopment which will deal will sea level rise in the following order: avoid, retreat protect and accommodate.. At the next major update of the Shoreline Master Program consider additional specific policies and regulations based on additional scientific projections. (i) Comprise/Gather information and establish a climate change strategic plan on the impacts of sea level rise on the shoreline and other affected Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 9 property; the City should develop plans to address the impacts of sea level rise and climate change in collaboration with impacted property owners, the community, and the Department of Ecology. (ii) Consider changes to the character (type of sediment, erosion etc.) of public and private shorelines during future Master Program updates. (iii) The City should consider sea level rise impacts as it plans for new development as well as other public and private shoreline projects, consistent with the best available science and the life cycle of the improvements. (i) . (c) Economic Development Goal: Encourage development, redevelopment, and infill that will improve ecological functions, restore riparian buffers, and benefit the community. Priority should be given to single family residences, however commercial uses should be developed in the following order of preference: water dependent, water related, water enjoyment, and shoreline mixed uses. (1) Plan for reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses, while ensuring that new, redeveloping, and existing use of facilities do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (2) Classify areas based on use and ecological function. Focus attention on community benefit, ecosystem processes and functions to determine conservation strategies and restoration priorities. (3) Reserve areas for future water dependent and water related uses that are compatible with ecological protection and restoration objectives. (4) Non-water oriented activities should be located upland, away from the shoreline except where access to the water is not provided or where the non-water oriented use provides for ecological restoration and public access. Locations where there is a bluff or a topographic break the non-water oriented use should be landward of the top of the bluff. (5) Elements of a development that do not require location water access such as parking, circulation, or similar elements should be located inland and away from the immediate water's edge and/or from recreational beaches so as not to interfere with access to the shoreline. (6) Over-water and in-water uses should be prioritized to provide for public access, multiple use, and expansion of existing facilities rather than the addition of new facilities. Preference should be given to the expansion of existing marinas, shared docks, etc. in order to minimize the consumption of limited shoreline resources. (7) All shoreline policies, regulations and development standards should recognize and protect private rights and, to the extent possible, should be designed to protect the rights of adjacent property owners. (d) Historical, Cultural, & Educational Goal: To protect the public’s interest in the conservation, preservation, and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having historical, cultural, scientific, or educational value. (1) Protect and restore shoreline areas having historical and/or cultural significance especially those shorelines that are historically supported byof cultural Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 10 significance to the Suquamish Tribe. (2) Encourage cooperation among public and private groups in the research and study of historical or cultural sites within the City. (3) Acknowledge the value to be gained from research of shorelines having historical and/or cultural significance. Support the continuation and expansion of such uses to improve the overall educational value of our shorelines. (4) Coordinate with existing organizations and local shoreline programs to ensure availability of ongoing educational programs for residents, landowners, and recreational users. (e) Public Access Goal: Improve public access to the shorelines wherever feasible, provided it will not adversely impact ecological functions. (1) Ensure shoreline access and recreational areas are designed to provide safe and abundant access to marine environments for all citizens and meet current ADA requirements. (2) Encourage water oriented shoreline uses and activities that provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the public to enjoy City shorelines. (3) Incorporate public access into developments (including land division) where possible. Design public access to be as close as possible to the water's edge without impacting safety or habitat function. (4) Control development, uses and activities on or near the shoreline so as not to impair or detract from the public's access to the water. (5) Preserve and enhance public views from the shoreline. Enhancement of views will not be construed to mean removal of vegetation. (6) Ensure publicly owned shorelines include water dependent uses, public recreational uses, or protected open space. (7) Maintain, enhance, and preserve physical and visual public access afforded by shoreline street ends, public utilities, and rights-of-way. (8) Link public access points with pathway systems for pedestrians and bicyclists. Provide linkages between pathway systems, public transit routes, and activity centers. (9) Encourage landowners to maintain existing public access as is protected by RCW 4.24.210-220 which limits liability. (f) Recreation Goal: Protect and improve recreational opportunities consistent with community needs through the development of publicly owned shorelines. (1) Encourage developments to provide recreational uses and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines. Locate and design recreational developments to preserve, enhance or create scenic views and vistas. (2) Identify shoreline areas with a potential for recreation or public access. Consider acquiring these areas by lease or purchase for incorporation into the Public Park and open space system. (3) Ensure recreational development is designed to be consistent with the desired character reflected in the purpose of the designation in which they are located in. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 11 Assure maximum recreational opportunities while achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and maintaining ecosystem wide processes. (4) Encourage linkage of shoreline parks, recreation areas and public access points with linear systems such as hiking paths, bicycle paths, easements and/or scenic drives. (5) Encourage public access to boat launches and other facilities that can improve access to the marine environment. 2.040 General Policies: (a) Buffer and Setback Policies: (1) The critical areas that are within the shoreline jurisdiction are to be protected and managed in such a manner that the result of any use, activity, or development is no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (2) The City should protect critical areas and their existing shoreline ecological functions so they continue to contribute to existing ecosystem wide processes. (3) The City should promote uses and values that are compatible with other objectives of this section, such as public access and native vegetation management, provided there is no significant adverse impact to shoreline ecological functions. (b) Vegetation Conservation Policies: (1) The City should protect, conserve and establish native vegetation near shorelines in order to protect and restore the ecological functions and ecosystem wide processes performed within riparian and near shore areas which include but are not limited to: • Protecting plant and animal species and their habitats; • Providing food sources for aquatic and terrestrial species in the form of various insects and benthic macro invertebrates; • Providing shade necessary to maintain water temperatures for salmonids, forage fish, and other aquatic biota; • Protecting and increasing stability of banks and bluffs; • Reducing the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion; • Reducing the need for structural shoreline stabilization measures; • Improving the visual and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline; • Protecting and improving water quality through filtration and vegetative uptake of nutrients and pollutants; • Providing habitat corridors parallel and perpendicular to the water body. (2) The City should implement the Environmental Standards within the Gorst Creek Subarea Plan, including the Gorst Creek Overlay, upon future annexation. (c) Mitigation Sequencing Policy: (1) For all developments, applicants must demonstrate that all alternatives have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to shoreline ecological functions. (d) Public Access Policies: (1) Public access, in its variety of forms, should be promoted whenever feasible provided the result is no net loss of the shoreline’s ecological function. (2) Public access should be provided to the shoreline as a primary use or as development occurs, while protecting private property rights and public safety. (3) Public access should not compromise the rights of navigation and space necessary for water-dependent and water-related uses. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 12 (4) To the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally, the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of shorelines of the state should be protected. (5) Property owners should implement a variety of techniques including acquisition, leases, easements, and design and development innovations to achieve public access goals and to provide diverse public access opportunities. (e) Water Quality Policies: (1) Prevent impacts to water quality and stormwater quantity that would result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, or a significant impact to aesthetic qualities, or recreational opportunities. (2) Ensure mutual consistency between shoreline management provisions and other regulations that address water quality and stormwater quantity, including public health, stormwater, and water discharge standards. (3) Protect aquatic resources from non-point pollution, such as water runoff from contaminated surfaces, contaminated groundwater, chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and petrochemicals, including, but not limited to discharge from failing onsite septic systems. (f) Archaeologically Sensitive Areas Policies: (1) Prevent the destruction of or damage to any cultural resources and any site having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational value as identified by the appropriate authorities, including The Suquamish Tribe, and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. (2) Landowners should provide access to qualified professionals and the general public if appropriate for the purpose of public education related to a cultural resource identified on a property. (g) Lighting Policies: (1) Lighting within shorelines and lands adjacent to shorelines if not properly managed can have an adverse impact on the ecological function, most notably the migration patterns of salmonids and terrestrial species. (2) Lighting should be minimized within shorelines, especially within close proximity to the water. (3) Development should implement site lighting techniques that minimize the amount of spill- over into riparian and aquatic environments. These techniques should include but are not limited to reduction of pole heights, pole locations, and fixture designs including shading / shielding devices, bulb types and reduced wattages. (h) Parking Policies: (1) Parking includes private on-site, public lots/structures and loading areas. Parking within shorelines is a low priority. Converting land within shorelines for the sole use of vehicles is not an efficient land use. (2) Parking as a primary use (stand-alone use) within the shoreline jurisdiction should be prohibited. (3) Parking should not be allowed between development and the adjacent water body. (4) Where surface parking is developed within the shoreline jurisdiction, Low Impact Development techniques should be implemented. (5) Lighting for parking areas should be minimized. 2.045 Aquaculture Policies: Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 13 Aquaculture is the culture, or farming of fish, shellfish or other aquatic plants and animals. Activities include, but are not limited to the hatching, cultivating, planting, feeding, raising, harvesting, and processing of aquatic plants and animals and the maintenance and construction of necessary equipment, buildings, and growing areas. Cultivation methods include, but are not limited to fish pens, fish hatcheries, shellfish rafts, racks and long lines, seaweed floats, and nets and the culture of clams and oysters on tidelands and sub-tidal areas. Aquaculture does not include the harvest of wild geoduck associated with a state managed wild stock geoduck fishery. Aquaculture is a preferred water-dependent use. It should be encouraged to locate where it will not significantly conflict with navigation and other water dependent uses, and/or result in a net loss of ecological functions, and/or adversely impact eelgrass and microalgae. Harvest of wild stock free swimming fish, and/or harvest of wild stock geoducks on state owned aquatic lands do not require a shoreline Substantial Development permit. (a) Aquaculture should not be located in areas where it would result in a net loss of ecological functions. (b) Aquaculture should not be permitted in areas where it would significantly conflict with navigation and other water-dependent uses. 2.050 Commercial Development Policies: Commercial development on the shorelines should be designed to bring large numbers of citizens to the shoreline. (a) Commercial development should be designed and constructed in such a manner as to result in no net loss of ecological functions. including implementation of Low Impact Development techniques, to the maximum extent feasible. (b) Public access should be provided in all locations, except where it is demonstrated to conflict with the intended use for reasons of safety, or security; or if it adversely impact the ecological function of the shoreline. (c) Non-water-oriented commercial uses within the shoreline jurisdiction should be allowed to locate and operate within existing structures. 2.055 Forest Practices Policies: Forest practices within the City along shorelines would occur as a conversion of forested areas to a certain level of urban development (Class IV – General per the Forest Practices Act, RCW 76.09) or as timber harvest within the City Watershed and City Utility Lands. (a) Forested areas within shorelines should be preserved and protected where feasible. 2.060 Industrial Development Policies: Water-dependent industrial uses are preferred and encouraged within shoreline areas. (a) Where necessary depth for industrial uses is adjacent, water-dependent industrial development should be given priority over water-related industrial uses provided, however, that in both instances, they do not conflict with planned or existing public access and habitat restoration. (b) Redevelopment of water-dependent industrial facilities and areas should be encouraged, provided it will not create a net loss of shoreline ecological function and processes. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 14 (c) New water-dependent industrial development should incorporate physical and/or visual public access to the water except when such access causes significant interference with operations or hazards to life or property. (d) On upland industrial sites, environmental cleanup and/or remediation should be implemented to serve a variety of future land uses. (e) Water-dependent and water-related industrial redevelopment is encouraged. (f) Priorities of uses are to be in the following order: Water-dependent uses, water- related uses, and water-enjoyment uses. 2.065 Marinas and Boating Facilities Policies: Marinas and boating facilities are water-dependent uses and are a preferred use on shorelines. Bremerton has a variety of such facilities that are both privately owned commercial and industrial facilities and those that are available to the general public. Boating facilities can include uses such as marinas, shipping and ferry terminals, transient mooring facilities, boat-ramps, upland dry-stack storage, boat construction, and boat maintenance facilities. (a) New or expanded boating facilities should include restoration of ecological functions within the riparian and near-shore environment, especially for migrating salmonids and other aquatic species. (b) New or expanded boating facilities should be designed, constructed and managed such that there is no net loss of shoreline ecological function. (c) New or expanded boating facilities should provide the maximum amount of public access in a variety of forms. (Trail, view overlooks, transient and hand- carry craft moorage.) (d) New boating facilities should be located in areas where other water-oriented uses presently exist or could be established within close proximity. (e) New or expanded boating facilities should minimize the amount of associated parking and impervious surface within the shoreline jurisdiction. (f) New boating facilities should not include covered moorage and boathouses. (g) New boating facilities that require dredging for proper depth and/or removal of contaminated sediments should be consistent with all federal and state requirements for management of contaminated sediments and (h) Existing boating facilities, when retrofitted or as upgrades are necessary, should improve the existing ecological function by minimizing impacts to water quality, restoring hydrologic function and maintaining the viability of aquatic organisms. 2.070 Recreational Development Policies: Water-oriented recreational development can include but is not limited to parks, trails, open spaces, beaches, boat or other watercraft rentals, fishing piers, aquariums, view platforms and over-water boardwalks. (a) Water-oriented recreational development is encouraged on shorelines provided it results in no net loss of ecological function and is a preferred use along shorelines of statewide significance. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 15 (b) Water-oriented recreational development on the shorelines should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the City of Bremerton Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan in terms of satisfying future demand and design. (c) Water-oriented recreational development should take precedence over non- water- oriented recreational uses. (d) Wherever possible, shoreline recreational facilities should be linked to other adjacent recreational attractions by pedestrian and/or bicycle trails. (e) Recreational development, where applicable, should include interpretive displays describing cultural, historical and scientific information. (f) Non-water-oriented recreational development uses should not be located on shorelines. 2.075 Residential Development Policies: Residential development includes subdivisions of large parcels, multi-family housing, condominiums, and single-family residences. Under the Shoreline Management Act, owner occupied single-family residences are a preferred use on the shorelines. Residential uses, however, can cause significant damage to the shoreline area through cumulative impacts resulting from vegetation loss, shoreline armoring, increased amount of impervious surfaces and resulting stormwater runoff, septic system failure, and additional vehicular trips. (a) Development of residential units should result in no net loss of ecological function. (b) Any residential development along the shoreline should be set back from steep slopes and eroding shoreline areas so that the shoreline is not further eroded nor structural improvements required to protect property. (c) In cases where either large tracts are subdivided into single-family residential parcels or where contiguous individual building sites are developed for single family residences, common public access areas and one joint-use dock, rather than single family docks, should be developed for the use of residents of the subject subdivision. (d) Design of residential development should include preservation of existing native vegetation to the greatest extent possible. (e) Residential development should be designed to minimize the amount of impervious area and should utilize Low Impact Development techniques to the greatest extent practicable (e.g., permeable pavers, stormwater infiltration and filtration). (f) New multi-unit residential development and the subdivision of land into more than five four parcels should incorporate into the overall design planned public access amenities whenever feasible. 2.080 Roads, Railways, and Utilities Policies: Roads, railways and utilities are necessary to provide efficient public circulation and the shipment of goods and services. These transportation circuits can include but are not limited to roads, highways and interstates, rail lines and spurs, public service water and sewer mains, power generation, transmission and distribution facilities, and wireless communication facilities. (a) All new roadways, arterials, utilities and railways, including expansions of these Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 16 systems, should be located and designed to avoid shorelands, unless no feasible alternative is feasible, and should minimize impacts to shoreline ecological functions. (b) Location and design of new roadways including arterials should not compromise existing and planned shoreline public access or existing and planned habitat restoration and enhancement. (c) New roadways, when necessary within shorelines, should be located and designed in such a manner that the minimum width and length of travel-way for vehicles is provided and appropriate provision made for pedestrian and multi-modal forms of transportation. (d) New roadways should be designed and constructed to implement a range of available Low Impact Development techniques. (e) New utilities for the delivery of services and products such as, but not limited to public sewer, water and storm mains and services, pipelines, power and transmission facilities should be located outside of shorelines, critical areas and their associated buffers unless intended specifically for a permitted use. (f) Whenever feasible, utilities should be co-located within existing right-of-way corridors. (g) Installation of utilities, including maintenance and expansion of existing utilities, should improve the project area from its original condition by native vegetation installation and management. (h) Utilities should provide public access to the shoreline when practical. 2.085 Clearing and Grading Policies: Clearing and grading are permitted as an element of development or re-development for an authorized activity or as otherwise allowed in this Title. (a) Disturbance to and removal of native soils should be minimized within shorelines. (b) Uses and site design should incorporate protection or reestablishment of the maximum amount of native vegetation on a particular site. (c) Vegetation that is removed as part of a permitted use should be reestablished within a required buffer. 2.090 Docks, Piers, and Other In-Water Structures Policies: In-water (marine and freshwater) structures include but are not limited to jetties, pilings, fish ladders, mooring buoys, docks, piers, breakwaters, groins, marine railways, weirs, baffles, and similar structures. (a) In-water structures should be designed to minimize impacts to ecological functions of the water body including, but not limited to water quality, anadromous and forage fish habitat, spawning and rearing areas, migration, and passage. (b) In-water structures should not adversely affect hydrologic function including light penetration within the photic zone, sediment transport, and current and water circulation patterns. (c) The location and planning of in-water structures should give due consideration to the Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 17 full range of public interests and environmental concerns. (d) Analysis of cumulative impacts of in-water structures should be conducted such that the connectivity between habitats for migrating salmonids is maintained and restored where feasible. 2.095 Dredging Policies: Dredging is the removal of material from a water body. The purposes for dredging might include navigation, remediation of contaminated materials, or material mining. Materials generated from navigational and remedial dredging may be suitable for beneficial reuse (e.g., construction of habitat features or construction of uplands) or may require disposal at appropriate disposal facilities. (a) Dredging should be allowed only to accommodate existing navigational uses, remediation of contaminated materials, or approved water-dependent uses and then only when ecological impacts are minimized and mitigation is provided. (b) Deposition of dredge spoils waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark should be allowed only when necessary to support allowed water dependent use, public access, beach restoration or Model Toxics Control act or the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act and other water dependent uses that are consistent with this master program or consistent with locations approved by the State Departments of Natural Resources, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife where the alternatives of depositing materials on land is more detrimental to shoreline resources than depositing it in water areas. (c) Dredging within aquatic areas for the primary purpose of acquisition of fill material should not be allowed. (d) Where dredging occurs within marine waters the result should be suitable for establishment of a variety of aquatic organisms including, where appropriate, salmonids and forage fish. 2.100 Flood Hazard Reduction Policies: (a) The City should recognize that seasonal flooding is an essential natural process and minimize alteration of such processes where feasible. (b) Flood hazard reduction measures should not result in a net loss of ecological functions associated with the rivers and streams. (c) Flood hazard reduction measures should be consistent with comprehensive strategies that recognize the natural hydro-geological and biological processes of water-bodies and should seek to restore ecological functions within frequently flooded areas. (d) Development in frequently flooded areas should be prevented or existing development removed when feasible and to maintain or restore a stream system's natural hydrological and geo-morphological processes. (e) Bioengineered flood hazard reduction techniques are preferred and should be examined and implemented where feasible rather than structural measures. 2.105 Landfill Policies: Landfill is the creation of dry upland area by the placement or deposition of sand, soil, Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 18 gravel or contaminated sediments into a water body. (a) Landfills waterward of OHWM should be allowed only when necessary to support, public access, beach restoration, or MTCA / CERCLA restoration projects and other water dependent uses that are consistent with this master program. (b) Landfills should be limited in the shoreline and should be the minimum necessary. 2.110 Restoration and Conservation Policies: Restoration is the improvement or reestablishment of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to: amending soils, planting native vegetation, removing derelict shoreline structures, removing or treating toxic materials, and restoring the natural configuration of banks within near-shore or riparian areas. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions (WAC 173-26). The citywide objective of restoration is to achieve a net gain in ecological function within the watershed. (a) The primary objectives of restoration projects should be to protect and restore natural processes controlling environmental factors. (b) The Suquamish Tribe, Corps of Engineers, Washington Department of Ecology, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and other appropriate resource agencies should be included at the beginning of the design and development stages of a restoration project or plan. (c) The goals of the Restoration Plan should be considered for all restoration and conservation projects. (d) Restoration and conservation may take place as a stand-alone project or as a required element of a larger development proposal. In either case the following should be achieved, as feasible: (1) Non-native vegetative species should be controlled and native vegetation established (soil amendments, including mulching, may be required to support native vegetation); (2) Installation of native vegetation should be an appropriate mix of deciduous, conifer, under-story and groundcover species that are capable of achieving substantial water body shading, provide food sources for a variety of species, enhance and connect to habitat corridors and slow movement of groundwater and sheet-flow towards the water body; (3) Introduction of large woody debris to the water body should not adversely impact fish passage or hydrologic function; and (4) Design and implementation of restoration projects that alter the location of the OHWM should not negatively impact abutting or proximate (third party) property owners, compromise the integrity or threaten the loss of existing structures, transportation routes, public access areas or cause significant additional erosion. 2.115 Shore Stabilization Policies: Shoreline stabilization measures are those mechanisms used to prevent erosion and Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 19 deterioration of shoreline areas as a result of waves, wind, tidal action, or flooding. Shoreline stabilization measures can include a wide range of works varying from hard armoring to vegetation conservation and anchoring of trees. (a) New development should be managed and designed to eliminate the need for shoreline modification or stabilization. (b) Replacement of rigid structurally engineered stabilization measures with the same new measures should not occur unless it is associated with a water-dependent use or there is a demonstrated need based on potential loss of a legally permitted primary structure or there is a threat to the viability of an existing water-dependent use. (c) Whenever feasible, bioengineered and soft-shore shoreline modifications and stabilization should be explored and implemented before reverting to structurally engineered techniques. 2.120 Stormwater Management Facilities Policies: Stormwater management (detention and treatment) facilities are necessary elements of development. If designed correctly and managed properly they can produce multiple benefits within the shoreline jurisdiction. (a) Stormwater facilities should not be located in areas where there would be an adverse impact to existing shoreline ecological functions. (b) Stormwater management facilities should be designed to incorporate Low Impact Development techniques. (c) All Shoreline Designations must comply with these requirements including the shoreline isolated locations. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 20 Chapter 3 - Definitions The following shall be deemed definitions for the Shoreline Master Program. Where these definitions conflict with other definitions in the Bremerton Municipal Code, these definitions shall prevail for projects within the shoreline jurisdiction. Where they conflict with definitions in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) or the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) the RCW or WAC provisions shall prevail. This list of definitions is not exhaustive; all definitions in RCW 90.58.030, WAC 173-26-020, BMC 20.42 and BMC 20.14.200 shall be deemed definitions for this title. Words not defined within any of these codes shall be as defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, latest edition. Accessory Use: A use that is demonstrably subordinate and incidental to the principal use and which functionally supports its activity. Act: The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW. [WAC 173-27- 030(1)] Adjacent Lands: Property which is immediately bordering or abutting lands under shoreline permit jurisdiction. (RCW90.58.340) Agriculture: Agricultural uses and practices include, but are not limited to: Producing, breeding, or increasing agricultural products; rotating and changing agricultural crops; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie fallow in which it is plowed and tilled but left unseeded; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie dormant; conducting agricultural operations; and maintaining agricultural lands under production or cultivation as defined in WAC 173-27-020. This excludes activities typically associated with single family residences, such as gardening and does not include fish hatcheries which are listed under aquaculture. Alteration: Any human activity which results or is likely to result in a significant impact upon the existing condition of a site. Alterations include, but are not limited to grading, filling, dredging, draining, channelizing, applying any hazardous substance, discharging pollutants except stormwater, paving, constructing, applying gravel, modifying surface water management purposes, cutting, pruning, topping, trimming, relocating or removing vegetation or any other human activity which results or is likely to result in a significant impact to existing vegetation, hydrology, wildlife, or wildlife habitat. Alterations do not include walking, fishing, or any other passive recreation or other similar activities. Applicant: A person who files an application for permit under this Title and who is either the owner of the land on which the proposed activity would be located, a contract purchaser, or the authorized agent of such person. Appurtenance: Development necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single family residence and located landward of the perimeter of an associated wetland and landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. Normal appurtenances include a garage, deck, driveway, utilities solely servicing a subject single family residence, and grading which does not exceed 250 cubic yards. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 21 Aquaculture: The culture, or farming of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants and animals. Activities include, but are not limited to the hatching, cultivating, planting, feeding, raising, harvesting, and processing of aquatic plants and animals and the maintenance and construction of necessary equipment, buildings and growing areas. Cultivation methods include, but are not limited to fish pens, fish hatcheries, shellfish rafts, racks and long lines, seaweed floats and nets and the culture of clams and oysters on tidelands and sub-tidal areas. Aquaculture does not include the harvest of wild geoduck associated with a state managed wild stock geoduck fishery. Associated Wetlands: Those wetlands which are in proximity to and either influence or are influenced by tidal waters or a lake or stream subject to the Shoreline Management Act. Average Grade Level: The average of the natural or existing topography of the portion of the lot, parcel, or tract of real property which will be directly under the proposed building or structure: In the case of structures to be built over water, average grade level shall be the elevation of the Ordinary High Water Mark. Calculation of the average grade level shall be made by averaging the elevations at the center of all exterior walls of the proposed building or structure. [WAC 173-27-030(3)] Beach: The zone of unconsolidated material that is moved by waves, wind, and tidal currents, extending landward to the coastline. Bluff: A steep headland, promontory, broad faced bank, or cliff running adjacent to and rising up from the shoreline. For the purpose of measuring buffers and setbacks from the top of a bluff the following shall apply: A bluff rises up from the OHWM to the first significant break in slope. The first significant break in slope is a bench at least thirty (30) feet wide. The top of a bluff is the point where the first significant break in slope occurs. Boat Ramp: Graded slopes, slabs, pads, planks, or rails used for launching boats by means of a trailer, hand, or mechanical device. Buffer: An area that is contiguous to and protects a critical area which is required for the continued maintenance, functioning, and or structural stability of a critical area. Bulkhead: A solid or open pile wall erected generally parallel to and near the ordinary high water mark for the purposes of protecting adjacent uplands from waves or current action. City: The City of Bremerton. Clearing: The removal of vegetation. Conditional Use: A use or development which is classified as a conditional use or is not classified within the Master Program, or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. Conservation Easement: A legal agreement that the property owner enters into a restricted use of the land. Such restrictions can include, but are not limited to passive recreation uses such as trails or scientific uses and fences or other barriers to protect habitat. The easement is recorded on a property deed, runs with the land, and is legally binding on all present and future owners of the property, therefore providing permanent or long-term protection. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 22 Covered Moorage: Boat moorage, with or without walls, that has a solid roof to protect the vessel and is attached to the dock itself or the substrate of the water body. Overwater boat houses are a type of covered moorage. Critical Areas: Any of the following areas or ecosystems: aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and wetlands as defined in RCW 36.70A and BMC 20.14. Critical saltwater habitat: Means 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 priority species have a primary association. Development: A use, consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling, dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to this program at any state of water level. This does not include dismantling or removing structures if there is no other associated development or re-development. [RCW 90.58.030(3d)] Docks: A fixed structure in the water or a structure floating upon the water that provides moorage for vessels, or for transfer of materials between a vessel and the shore, or for other services to a vessel such as fueling, maintenance and repair. Dredging: The removal of earth, sand, sludge or other materials from the bottom of a stream, river, lake, bay or other water body. Drift Cell, drift sector, or littoral cell: A particular reach of marine shore in which littoral drift may occur without significant interruption and which contains any natural sources of such drift and also accretion shore forms created by such drift. Ecology: The State of Washington Department of Ecology. Ecological Function or Shoreline Functions: The work performed or role played by the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem. (WAC 173-26-020(13)). Ecological Restoration: An intentional activity that initiates or accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity and sustainability. Restoration attempts to return an ecosystem to its historic trajectory. Frequently, the ecosystem that requires restoration has been degraded, damaged, transformed or entirely destroyed as the direct or indirect result of human activities. In some cases, these impacts to ecosystems have been caused or aggravated by natural agencies, such as wildfire, floods, storms, or volcanic eruption, to the point at which the ecosystem cannot recover its pre- disturbance state or its historic developmental trajectory. In cases where a historic trajectory cannot be determined one should use a combination of knowledge of the damaged ecosystem’s pre-existing structure, composition and functions rather than the historic trajectory. Emergency: An unanticipated and/or imminent threat to public health, safety, or the Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 23 environment that requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with the Master Program. Emergency construction is defined as that necessary to protect property and facilities from the elements. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the SMA and the Master Program (see RCW 90.58.030(3eiii)). Enhancement: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a feature to heighten, intensify, or improve specific ecological function(s) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for specified purposes such as water quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife habitat. Enhancement results in a positive change in ecological function but does not result in an increase in the area of the feature. Examples are planting vegetation, controlling non-native or invasive species, and modifying site ellevations to alter hydro- periods. Erosion: The process whereby wind, rain, water, and other natural agents mobilize and transport particles. Estuary: The zone or area of water in which freshwater and saltwater mingle and water is usually brackish due to daily mixing and layering of fresh and saltwater. Exempt development: Development listed in WAC 173-27-040 as exempt from the definition of “Substantial Development,” and, therefore, exempt from the Substantial Development permit process of the SMA. An activity that is exempt from the substantial development provisions of the SMA must still be carried out in compliance with policies and standards of the SMA and the Master Program. Conditional use and/or variance permits may still be required even though the activity does not need a Substantial Development permit (RCW 90.58.030(3e)). Extreme Low Tide: The lowest line on the land reached by a receding tide. [RCW 90.58.030(2a)] Fair Market Value: The expected price at which the development can be sold to a willing buyer. For developments which involve nonstructural operations, such as dredging, drilling, dumping, or filling, the fair market value is the expected cost of hiring a contractor to perform the operation, or where no such value can be calculated, the total of labor, equipment use, transportation, and other costs incurred for the duration of the permitted project. [WAC 173-27-030(8)] Feasible: Actions that meet all of the following conditions: (a) The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the past in similar circumstances, or studies or tests have demonstrated in similar circumstances that such approaches are currently available and likely to achieve the intended results; (b) The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose; and (c) The action does not physically preclude achieving the project's primary intended legal use. In cases where these guidelines require certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is on the applicant. In determining an action's infeasibility, the City may weigh the action's relative public costs and public benefits, considered in Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 24 short- and long-term time frames. Fill: The addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure, or other material to an area that increases the natural surface elevation. For wetlands this includes areas waterward of the OHWM, or on shorelands in a manner that raises the elevation or creates dry land. Floating Home: A structure designed and operated substantially as a permanently based structure and not as a vessel and is typically characterized by permanent utilities, a semi- permanent anchorage/moorage design, and by the lack of adequate self-propulsion to operate as a vessel. A single-family dwelling unit constructed on a float, that is moored anchored, or otherwise secured in waters, and is not a vessel, even though it may be capable of being towed. Floating On-Water Residence. Any floating structure other than a floating home, as defined in this chapter that (a) is designed or used primarily as a residence on water and has detachable utilities; and (b) whose owner or primary occupant has held an ownership interest in space in a marina, or has held a lease or sublease to use space in a marina, since a date prior to July 1, 2014. Floats (Rafts): Floating structures that are moored, anchored, or otherwise secured in the water that are not directly connected to the shoreline. Floodway: For purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program in conjunction with the definition of “shoreland,” “floodway” means the area, as identified in a Master Program, that either: (i) Has been established in federal emergency management agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps; or (ii) consists of those portions of a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of a watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified, under normal condition, by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of vegetative ground cover condition, topography, or other indicators of flooding that occurs with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually. Regardless of the method used to identify the floodway, the floodway shall not include those lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state. (RCW 90.58.030 and WAC 173-26-020(18)) Forage fish: Small, schooling fish which serve as an important source of food for other fish species, birds, and marine mammals. Examples of forage fish species are herring, smelt, anchovies, and sardines. Geotechnical Report: A scientific study or evaluation conducted by a qualified professional that includes a description of ground and surface hydrology and geology, the affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting, erosion, and other geologic hazards or processes, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the proposed development on geologic conditions, the adequacy of the site to be developed, the impacts of the proposed development, alternative approaches to the proposed development, and measures to mitigate potential site specific and cumulative geological and hydrological impacts of the proposed development, including the potential adverse impacts to adjacent and down-current properties. Geotechnical reports shall conform to accepted technical standards and must be prepared by a qualified professional engineer or geologist who has professional expertise about the Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 25 regional and local shoreline geology and processes. Grading: The movement or redistribution of the soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, or other material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land. Grubbing: The removal of vegetative matter from underground, such as sod, stumps, roots, buried logs or other debris, and shall include the incidental removal of topsoil and earth. Houseboat: A vessel used for living quarters but licensed and designed substantially as a mobile structure by means of detachable utilities or facilities, anchoring, and the presence of adequate self-propulsion to operate as a vessel. Height: The distance measured from the average grade level to the highest point of a structure: Television antennas, chimneys, and similar appurtenances shall not be used in calculating height. Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA): A permit issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for modifications to waters of the State in accordance with RCW 77.55.011. Invasive: A vegetative or animal species not native to a region and marked by a tendency to spread, especially with proclivity to replace healthy native species. In-Water Structure: A structure located waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Littoral drift: The mud, sand, or gravel materials moved parallel to the shoreline in the nearshore zone by waves and currents. Marina: A water dependent facility that provides wet and/or dry moorage for over ten (10) boats, and related accessory boat launching facilities and supplies and services for small commercial and/or pleasure craft. Marinas may be designated for temporary day- use only or for permanent (long-term) moorage. May: The action is acceptable provided it conforms to the provisions of the Program. Denotes the use of discretion by the Director in making a decision, provided the action conforms to the provisions of the Program and the policies of the SMA. (WAC 173-26- 03(21)) Mean Higher High Water (MHHW): The tidal elevation obtained by averaging each day's highest tide at a particular location over a period of nineteen years. It is measured from the mean lower low water = 0.0 tidal elevation. Mooring Buoy: A floating object anchored to the bottom of a water body that provides tie up capabilities for vessels, often containing loops or chains attached to the top and float on the water. Mooring buoys are regulated separately from docks and piers. Mixed-Use Commercial: Mixed-use commercial developments are shoreline developments which combine more than one separate but related activity into a coordinated package. Activities usually include one or more water-dependent uses with non-water dependent uses, and feature high amenity public access or recreational uses. The public benefit will be evaluated and weighed against the impact of the project in review of a mixed-use commercial development proposal. Modification: An action that modifies the physical configuration or qualities of the Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 26 shoreline area, usually through the construction of a physical element such as a breakwater, dock, boat launch ramp, or other shoreline structures. A shoreline modification also can consist of other activities such as dredging and filling. Must: A mandate; the action is required. Nonconforming Development: A shoreline use, site, or structure which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the Shoreline Management Act or the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the Master Program or policies of the Act. [WAC 173-14-040(1b)] Nonconforming Lot: A lot that does not meet the lot area, width or street frontage requirements of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code, but was lawfully created prior to the effective date of the adoption of the Shoreline Master Program and/or Zoning Code or subsequent amendments thereto. Nonconforming Structure: A building or structure that does not comply with the required setbacks, height, lot coverage and other development requirements of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code, but was lawfully constructed prior to the effective date of the Zoning Code and/or Shoreline Master Program or subsequent amendments thereto, and was continually maintained as defined in this chapter. Nonconforming Use: Any activity, development or condition that is not permitted outright or as an accessory use, or is not permitted by a Conditional Use Permit or other special permitting process by the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code; but was lawfully created prior to the effective date of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code, or subsequent amendments thereto, and was continually maintained as defined in this chapter. A nonconforming use may or may not involve buildings or structures and may involve part of or all of a building or property. No Net Loss: No Net Loss of ecological functions is the maintenance of existing shoreline ecological processes and functions at the level that existed at the time of approval of the major update to the shoreline master program in 2012 and reflected in the shoreline inventory and characterization dated December of, 2010, or for a development project, the conditions that existed prior to initiation of use or alterations of the shoreline that result in adverse impacts on ecological processes and functions. On a Citywide basis No Net Loss means that the ecological processes and functions are maintained within a watershed or other functional catchment area. Regulations may result in localized cumulative impacts or loss of some localized ecological processes and functions, as long as the ecological processes and functions of the system are maintained. Maintenance of system ecological processes and functions may require compensating measures that offset localized degradation. On a project basis, no net loss means that a permitted use or alteration of a shoreline will not result in deterioration of the existing condition of shoreline ecological functions. No net loss is achieved both through avoidance and minimization of adverse impacts as well as compensation for impacts that cannot be avoided. Compensation may include on-site Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 27 or off-site restoration of ecological functions to compensate for localized degradation. Non-Water Oriented Use: A use which does not require or depend on a location on or near the waterfront, and which is neither a water-dependent, water-related, or water- enjoyment use as defined herein. Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM): The mark on all lakes, streams, and tidal waters which will be found by examining the beds and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation, as that condition exists on June 1 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a local government or the department (WAC 173-22-030).Provided that in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water. (RCW 90.58.030) Photic Zone: The upper layer of a body of water delineated by the depth to which enough sunlight can penetrate to permit photosynthesis. Pier: A fixed, pile-supported structures extending over the water. Primary Structure: Any permanent building, road, bridge or utility requiring a permit or approval which is necessary to support the primary use of a site. Public Access, Limited (physical or visual): Access with restrictions that are deemed necessary to protect the health, safety or welfare of the public OR to protect and maintain a particular site. Restrictions may limit times of use, or allow access only to certain users. [A limitation to restrict access may not be based on race, sex, color, creed, age or physical disability.] For example, such restrictions may limit public use to daylight hours, limit use to residents of a private community, or restrict use of tidelands used for shellfish production. Public Access, Physical: Unobstructed access with public use improvements which are available to the general public extending from the public right-of-way to the OHWM or to the wetland directly abutting the OHWM. This includes access to the navigable waters of any water body and to tidelands in marine waters. Public Access, Visual: Access with public use improvements available to the general public which provide a view of the shoreline or water but do not allow physical public access to the shoreline. Qualified Professional: A person with experience and training in the pertinent scientific discipline whose expertise is appropriate for the relevant critical area and meets the following criteria: A qualified professional must have obtained a B.S. or B.A. or equivalent degree in biology, engineering, environmental studies, fisheries, geomorphology, or related field, and five (5) years of related work experience applicable to the scope of the project. AND A qualified professional proposing a structural solution, such as a bulkhead or retaining wall, must be a civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, or geologist with experience in the field and must be licensed in the State of Washington. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 28 A person with experience and training in the pertinent scientific discipline, and who is a qualified scientific expert with expertise appropriate for the relevant critical area subject in accordance with WAC 365-195-905(4). A qualified professional must have obtained a B.S. or B.A. or equivalent degree in biology, engineering, environmental studies, fisheries, geomorphology, or related field, and five (5) years of related work experience. (a) A qualified professional for habitats or wetlands must have a degree in biology and professional experience related to the subject species, and meet the requirements set forth in BMC 20.14.360. (b) A qualified professional for a geological hazard must be a professional civil or geotechnical engineer with experience in the field, or geologist, licensed in the State of Washington. (c) A qualified professional for critical aquifer recharge areas means a hydrogeologist, geologist, engineer, or other scientist with experience in preparing hydrogeologic assessments, and meets the requirements set forth in BMC 20.14.450. RCW: Revised Code of Washington. Reach: A longshore segment of a shoreline where influences and impacts, such as wind direction, wave energy, littoral transport, etc. mutually interact. Rehabilitation: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goals of repairing natural or historic functions and processes of a degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain or returning tidal influences to a wetland. Restore, Restoration, or ecological restoration: The reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to re-vegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions. Sea Level Rise: An increase in the elevation of marine waters associated with changes in the state of the climate which can be identified by changes in the mean and/or variability of its properties and that persists for decades or longer. Setback: For the purposes of this chapter, the setback is the horizontal distance required between the finished exterior wall of a structure and the buffer line. Setbacks are further also defined in BMC 20.42 Shall: A mandate; an the action that must be doneis required. Should: A particular action that is required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason, based on policy of the Shoreline Management Act and this program against taking the action. Shorelands or Shoreland Areas: Those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the Ordinary High Water Mark; Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 29 floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feed from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this chapter; the same to be designated as to location by the Department of Ecology. Shoreline jurisdiction: All shorelines of the state and shorelands as defined in RCW 90.58.030; in Bremerton this includes shorelands and water bodies waterward of OHWM out to the middle of Sinclair Inlet and Port Orchard Bay, all of Port Washington Narrows, Ostrich Bay, Oyster Bay, Phinney Bay and Mud Bay, the portion of Kitsap Lake within the Bremerton City limits, Union Reservoir, Twin Lakes, one mile of Gorst Creek and one mile of Union River. Shoreline Environment Designations: The categories of shorelines established by the City’s Master Program in order to provide a uniform basis for applying policies and use regulations within physically distinct shoreline areas. The City’s Shoreline Master Program classifies shorelines into the following environment designations: Aquatic, aquatic conservancy, commercial, downtown waterfront, industrial, isolated, multi-family residential, recreation, single family residential and urban conservancy. Shoreline Jurisdiction: Those lands extending landward for 200’ in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the OHWM; floodways and 100 year floodplains; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, tidal waters and all other areas as defined by RCW 90.58.030. In Bremerton these include shorelands and water bodies waterward of the OHWM out to the middle of Sinclair inlet and Port Orchard Bay, all of Port Washington Narrows, Ostrich Bay, Oyster Bay, Phinney Bay and Mud Bay, the portion of Kitsap Lake within the City limits, Union Reservoir, Twin Lakes, one mile of Gorst Creek and one mile of Union River. Shoreline Master Program: The general term for shoreline comprehensive plans and regulations prepared under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. Shoreline Permit: A Substantial Development, conditional use, revision, or variance permit or any combination thereof. [WAC 173-27-13) Shorelines: All of the water areas of the State, including reservoirs and their associated wetlands, together with the lands underlying them, except: (a) Shorelines of state-wide significance (sub-tidal Puget Sound); (b) Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty (20) cubic feet per second or less, and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and (c) Shorelines on lakes less than twenty (20) acres in size, and wetlands associated with such small lakes. Shorelines of Statewide Significance: Shorelines designated by the State of Washington that are major resources from which all people in the state derive benefit. Shoreline areas in the City that are designated as shorelines of statewide significance are portions of the Puget Sound adjacent to the city limits. Shoreline Substantial Development: Any development of which the total cost, or fair market value, whichever is higher, exceeds $5,000 $7,047 or as adjusted for inflation every five (5) years by the Office of Financial Management (WAC 173-27-040), or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 30 shorelines of the state. State Master Program: The cumulative total of all Shoreline Master Programs approved or adopted by the Department of Ecology. Structure: A permanent or temporary edifice or building, or any piece of work artificially built or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, whether installed on, above, or below the surface of the ground or water, except for vessels. (WAC 173-27-030). Tender Dock: A dock structure whose purpose is to provide temporary moorage to a small watercraft used to access an offshore location, such as a mooring buoy. Tidelands: Land on the shore of marine water bodies between the line of ordinary high tide and the line of extreme low tide. Topography, Natural or Existing: The surface including the relief and position of natural or manmade features of the lot, parcel, or tract of real property immediately prior to any site preparation or grading, including excavation or filling. Upland: Generally the area above and landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. Variance: A permit for the limited purposes of granting relief to specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the City’s Shoreline Master Program. Vessel: A ship, boat, barge, or any other floating craft which is designed and used for navigation and does not interfere with the normal public use of the water. WAC: Washington Administrative Code. Water Dependent Use: A use or portion of a use which cannot exist in any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Examples of water-dependent uses may include cargo terminal loading areas, ferry and passenger terminals, marinas, and sewer outfalls. Water-Related Use: A use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location but whose operation cannot occur economically without a shoreline location. Examples of water-related uses may include warehousing of goods transported by water, seafood processing plants, or log storage. (Also see Non-water-oriented Use.) Water-Enjoyment Use: A recreational use such as a park, pier, or other use facilitating public access as a primary character of the use; or, a use that provides for passive and active interaction of a large number of people with the shoreline for leisure and enjoyment as a general character of the use and which, through location, design and operation, assure the public's ability to interact with the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use, the use must be open to the public and most if not all of the shoreline oriented space in the facility must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that foster shoreline interaction. Water-enjoyment uses include, but are not limited to restaurants, museums, and mixed-use commercial, provided that such use conforms to the above requirements and the provisions of the Master Program. Water Oriented Use: Any combination of water dependent, water related, and/or water enjoyment uses. Non-water oriented serves to describe those uses which have little or no relationship to the shoreline. Examples of non-water oriented uses include professional office, automobile sales or repair shops, mini storage facilities, multifamily residential development, department stores, and gas stations. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 31 Wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands include artificial wetlands created from non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries pursuant to this chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. All areas within the City meeting the wetland designation criteria in that procedure are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this program. Will: Used to express a command and or an inevitability. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 32 Chapter 4 – Shoreline Maps and Designations 4.010 – Intent 4.020 – Maps 4.030 – Designations 4.040 – Shorelines of Statewide Significance 4.010 Intent: City shorelines are classified into specific environment designations. These designations are based on existing physical, biological and development characteristics of the shorelines. These are separate from the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning code in Title 20. Properties within any shoreline designation are required to comply with all applicable standards including provisions from both the more general zoning regulations and the shoreline specific requirements of the Shoreline Master Program. The local Shoreline Master Program is a function of the Shoreline Management Act, which represents statewide concerns and protects the rights of the people of the State of Washington. Therefore, in the case of a discrepancy between the local Comprehensive Plan, Zoning code or other development standard and the Shoreline Master Program, the Shoreline Master Program shall take precedence. 4.020 Maps: The following maps are the official maps of the Shoreline Master Program depicting shorelines of the state. The following includes shorelands and water bodies waterward of OHWM out to the middle of Sinclair Inlet and Port Orchard Bay, all of Port Washington Narrows, Ostrich Bay, Oyster Bay, Phinney Bay and Mud Bay, the portion of Kitsap Lake within the Bremerton City limits, Union Reservoir, Twin Lakes, one mile of Gorst Creek and one mile of Union River.. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 37 4.030 Designations: Shoreline designations are listed in alphabetical order. (a) Aquatic Purpose: The Aquatic designation is intended to protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. This designation applies to those area waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark of all shorelines of the state, (which may include; streams, marine water bodies, and lakes) together with their underlying lands and their water column, other than those lands designated Aquatic Conservancy. This environment does not include associated wetlands and other shorelands shoreward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Aquatic environment: (1) Allowed uses are those within the adjacent upland shoreline designation limited to water dependent use or public access. (2) New uses and over water structures should be allowed only for water dependent uses, public access, or ecological restoration and only when no net loss of ecological functions will result. (3) The size of new over water structures should be limited to the minimum necessary to support the structures intended use. In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources, multiple use of over water facilities is encouraged. (4) 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. (5) Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent degradation of water quality, minimize alteration of natural conditions and processes, and result in no net loss of ecological functions. (6) Uses and modification of public aquatic land should incorporate public access and ecological enhancement, except where inconsistent with the operation of water dependent uses. (7) Fish and wildlife resource enhancement, including aquaculture related to fish propagation should be allowed and encouraged. (b) Aquatic Conservancy Purpose: The Aquatic Conservancy designation is intended to preserve marine tidelands and waters whose existing natural state is relatively free of human influence, or whose resources, biological diversity, or other features are particularly sensitive to human activity. The Aquatic Conservancy designation should be applied to those areas of marine water bodies, waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark such as tidal lagoons, salt marshes and mudflats, as well as marine vegetation areas that support a significant community of kelp, eelgrass and/or other vegetation that provides special marine habitat value. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 38 Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Aquatic Conservancy designation: (1) Uses and activities which would potentially degrade or significantly alter the natural character of the shoreline should be severely restricted or prohibited. (2) Access should be limited to scientific, historical, educational, and low intensity recreational purposes, provided that no significant, adverse impact on the areas will result. (3) Physical alterations should be considered only when they serve to protect significant, unique, or highly valued features which might otherwise be degraded or destroyed. (4) Uses and activities adjacent to shorelines designated Aquatic Conservancy should be compatible with and not compromise the integrity of the Aquatic Conservancy environment. (5) Native vegetation zones should be preserved, enhanced or established to protect the functions and characteristics of the areas. (c) Commercial Purpose: This Commercial designation is intended to accommodate high intensity business districts, light industry, and various commercial operations located in the shoreline jurisdiction. The designation is suitable for existing and future high intensity water oriented uses and water oriented commercial uses. The designation encourages commercial development that could enhance visual and physical public access to the shoreline. A primary goal is to provide a setting for commercial operations that will be of economic benefit while protecting and/or restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded. Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Commercial environment: (1) Priority should be given to water dependent uses. Second priority should be given to water related and water enjoyment uses. Non-water oriented uses should not be allowed except 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 and where public access and ecological restoration are provided. (2) Policies and regulations should 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 in accordance with any relevant State and Federal laws. (3) Visual and/or physical public access should be required as a condition of development. (4) 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. (d) Downtown Waterfront Purpose: The Downtown Waterfront designation is a commercial designation for the downtown shoreline area that is subject to the Downtown Sub Area Plan. The intent of this designation is to encourage development of the downtown waterfront into a vital, attractive water oriented area that maximizes opportunities for large numbers of people to Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 39 interact passively and actively with the shoreline for leisure and enjoyment uses. The designation provides for an array of uses related to the water, multimodal transportation facilities, residential, mixed uses, increased building height, and pedestrian orientation, while maintaining view corridors and encouraging public access to the water. Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Downtown Waterfront environment: (1) First priority should be given to water dependent uses. Second priority should be given to water related and water enjoyment uses. Non-water oriented uses should be permitted only when they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water oriented uses or on sites where there is no direct access to the shoreline and where public access and ecological restoration are provided. (2) Policies and regulations should assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions as a result of new development. Where applicable, new development should include environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline in accordance with any relevant State and Federal laws. (3) Visual and/or physical public access should be required as a condition of development. (4) 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. (e) Industrial Purpose: This Industrial designation is intended to provide for efficient utilization of suitable shoreline areas for water dependent commerce and industry consistent with the Shoreline Management Act. The Industrial designation is appropriate for high intensity uses related to manufacturing, transportation, or navigation, or suitable and planned for high intensity water oriented uses. Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Industrial environment: (1) Priority should be given to water dependent industrial uses. Second priority should be given to water related and water enjoyment uses. Non-water oriented uses should not be allowed except 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 and where public access and ecological restoration are provided. (2) Policies and regulations should assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions as a result of new development. Where applicable, new development should include environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline in accordance with any relevant State and Federal laws. (3) Visual and/or physical public access should be required as a condition of development. (4) Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such as sign control regulations, appropriate development locations, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 40 (f) Isolated Purpose: The objective of the Shoreline Isolated designation is to recognize that there are areas that are within 200’ of the shoreline, but are isolated from the shoreline by intervening elements such as roads. In these areas the development standards outlined in the SMP, such as buffers, are not appropriate. This designation is appropriate for lands that are inherently isolated from the shoreline, however should the obstruction be removed so that the area is no longer isolated, the designation of isolated Isolated should also be removed. Policies: In these specific areas, the development standards of the SMP shall not be applied; however mandatory permit requirements of the Shoreline Management Act do apply. It is the intent that this area will be governed by underlying provisions of the zoning code, Critical Area Ordinance, Subdivision standards and stormwater requirements. Local, State and Federal regulations are applicable. (g) Multi-Family Residential Purpose: This Multi-Family Residential designation is intended for areas which are currently primarily multi-family residential or intended for multi-family residential use. These areas are to maintain existing character in terms of open space, bulk, scale, and intensity of use within the guidelines of the zoning code. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses for public enjoyment. Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Multi- Family Residential environment: (1) Standards for density, minimum width, setbacks, building bulk, lot coverage, buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality should be set to maintain no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (2) New multi-family residential developments should provide public access and joint use community recreational facilities where appropriate. (3) Access, utilities, and public services should be available and adequate to serve existing needs and/or planned future development. (h) Recreation Purpose: The Recreation designation is intended to provide recreational and public access opportunities along Bremerton’s shorelines. It is an appropriate designation for areas occupied by recreational purposes such as parks and marinas. An additional purpose is to maintain and restore ecological functions to the area and preserve open space within the City. Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Recreation designation: (1) Both to the goal of recreational use and the goal of ecological stewardship ensuring no net loss of ecological function should be implemented in all development. (2) Development should be related primarily to expanding recreational opportunities in the area. These activities include but are not limited to boating, swimming, walking, hiking, and recreational sports. Priority should be given to those developments related to a water dependent activity such as swimming or boating. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 41 (3) Recreational opportunities should be accessible to all demographic populations in the City. (4) Park management should encourage ecological stewardship as outlined in the Restoration Plan. This includes, but is not limited to such measures as setting picnic areas away from the water’s edge, planting and maintaining native vegetation buffers along the water, and making floodplain connections where feasible. (i) Single Family Residential Purpose: The Single Family Residential designation is intended for areas which are currently primarily single family residential, are planned, or are platted for single family residential use. These areas are to maintain existing character and be consistent with that character in terms of open space, bulk, scale, and intensity of use within the guidelines of the zoning code. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses for public enjoyment. Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Single Family Residential environment: (1) Standards for density or minimum frontage width, setbacks, lot coverage limitations, buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality should be set to maintain no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (2) New single family residential developments should provide public access and joint use community recreational facilities where appropriate. (3) Access, utilities, and public services should be available and adequate to serve existing needs and/or planned future development. (j) Urban Conservancy Purpose: The Urban Conservancy designation is intended to protect and restore ecological functions of lands within the shoreline jurisdiction. These areas are identified as having biological or physical limitations or other unique or hazardous characteristics that are incompatible with intense development. Activities permitted in these areas are intended to have minimal adverse impacts upon the shoreline. These areas are not generally suitable for intensive water dependent uses. Policies: The following management polices apply to all shorelines in the Urban Conservancy environment: (1) Primary allowed uses and their associated development standards should preserve the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space, floodplain or sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, either directly or over the long term. 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. (2) Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the urban conservancy designation. These standards should ensure that new development does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or further degrade other shoreline values. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 42 (3) Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and where significant ecological impacts can be mitigated. 4.040 Shorelines of Statewide Significance: Purpose: The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 designated certain shoreline areas as "Shorelines of Statewide Significance". These shorelines are important to the entire state because they are a major resource from which all people in the state derive benefit. This Master Program gives preference to uses which favor public and long-range goals. In the City of Bremerton, the portions of Puget Sound, lying seaward from the line of extreme low tide, are Shorelines of Statewide Significance. Accordingly, this Master Program shall give preference to uses which meet the principles outlined below in order of preference for these locations: (a) Recognize and protect the Statewide interest over local interest through the use of the following measures: (1) Solicit comments and opinions from groups and individuals representing statewide interests by circulating the Master Program, Master Program amendments and requests for Substantial Development permits on Shorelines of Statewide significance to state agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, and applicable interest groups. (2) Recognize and take into account state agencies' policies, programs, and recommendations in developing and administering use regulations. (b) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline through the following measures: (1) Designate and administer shoreline environments and use regulations to minimize manmade intrusions on shorelines; (2) Upgrade and redevelop those areas where intensive development already exists in order to reduce their adverse impact on the environment and to accommodate future growth, rather than allowing high intensity uses to extend into low intensity use or underdeveloped areas. (c) Ensure long-term over short-term benefits through the following measures: (1) Preserve the shorelines for future generations. For example, actions that would convert resources into irreversible uses or detrimentally alter natural conditions characteristic of shorelines of statewide significance should be severely limited; (2) Evaluate the short-term economic gain or convenience of developments in relationship to long-term and potentially costly impairments to the natural environment; (3) Actively promote aesthetic considerations when contemplating new development, redevelopment of existing facilities or for the general enhancement of shoreline areas. (d) Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines through the following measures: (1) Leave undeveloped those areas which contain a unique or fragile resource; (2) Prevent erosion and sedimentation that would alter the natural function of the water system. In areas where erosion and sediment control practices will not be effective, severely limit excavations or other activities which increase erosion; (3) Restrict public access onto areas which cannot be maintained in a natural condition under human uses. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 43 (e) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines through the following measures: (1) Preserve the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state consistent with the overall best interest of the people of the state; (2) Plan for a system of public access facilities that recognize exiting facilities, constraints, and opportunities. Identify appropriate public access provisions for specific shoreline reaches; (3) Improve pedestrian access to the shoreline through paths and trails to shoreline areas, linear access along the shorelines, and by developing connections to other trails and facilities; (4) Develop upland parking to serve public access areas where appropriate; (5) Design development to provide opportunities for public access compatible with other uses; (f) Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shorelines through the following measures: (1) Plan for and encourage development of public facilities for recreational use of the shorelines; (2) Integrate water-dependent recreation uses wherever possible as part of multiple use of private shoreline development. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 44 Chapter 5 - Permit Administration 5.010 – Applicability 5.020 – Permit Application Types 5.030 – Noticing Requirements 5.040 – Criteria of Approval 5.050 – Appeals 5.060 – Time Periods 5.070– Violations and Penalties 5.080 – Shoreline Moratorium 5.090 – Restoration Project Relocation of OHWM 5.100 – Special Procedures for WSDOT Projects 5.010 Applicability: (a) Liberal Construction: All regulations applied within the shoreline shall be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which they have been enacted. Shoreline Master Program policies establish intent for the shoreline regulations in addition to RCW 90.58 and Chapter 173 of the Washington Administrative Code 173-26 and 173-27. (b) Burden of Proof: The applicants for any permit shall have the burden of proving that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria as set out in the Shoreline Management Act. (c) Development Permit Compliance: (1) For all development within shoreline jurisdiction, the responsible official shall not issue a development or construction permit or an exemption for such development until compliance with the Shoreline Master Program has been documented. If a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required, no permit shall be issued until all comment and appeal periods have expired. Any development permit for work within the shoreline jurisdiction (200’ from the OHWM) shall be subject to the same terms and conditions that apply to the shoreline permit. (2) Critical Areas in the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the Critical Areas Regulations, (Ord. 5327 (exh B) (part), 2017: Ord. 4965 Section 7 (part) 2006)), codified under BMC 20.14 which is herein incorporated into this SMP however, the following sections of the Critical Area Ordinance do not apply: (i) BMC 20.14.145(d) Exemptions for Forest Practices; (ii) BMC 20.14.145(f) Exemptions for activities within improved Right- of-Way; (iii) BMC 20.14.155 Reasonable Use Exception; (iv) BMC 20.14.330(f) & (g) & (h)(3) Standard Wetland Buffers Widths; (v) BMC 20.14.730(d)(5) Buffer Reduction; (ix)BMC 20.14.730 (d)(8) Habitat Conservation Area Buffers; (d) Constitutional limitations: Regulation of private property to implement any Program goals, such as public access and protection of ecological functions, must be Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 45 consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations. These include, but are not limited to, property rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution, applicable federal and state case law, and state statutes, such as RCW 34.05.328 and 43.21C.060. (e) Agency coordination: The city will coordinate on issues relating to ecological conditions, functions and processes and on wetland and ordinary high water delineations with the Department of Ecology, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Suquamish Tribe, as well as other agencies with permit authority over a project to the extent that agencies are timely in their response and coordination does not interfere with meeting timelines for permit review. (f) Compliance with other regulatory requirements: Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, , Hydraulic Permit Act (HPA) permits, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification (Section 401) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits). The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this chapter. (Ord. 1164 § 4, 2004). (f)(g) Local review exceptions: Requirements to obtain a Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, letter of exemption, or other review to implement the Shoreline Management Act do not apply to the following: (1) Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial action at a facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW, or to the department of ecology when it conducts a remedial action under chapter 70.105D RCW. Periodic Review Checklist Guidance 6 September 2019 (2) Boatyard improvements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person installing site improvements for storm water treatment in an existing boatyard facility to meet requirements of a national pollutant discharge elimination system storm water general permit. (3) WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.356, Washington State Department of Transportation projects and activities meeting the conditions of RCW 90.58.356 are not required to obtain a Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, letter of exemption, or other local review. (4) Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant to RCW 90.58.045. (5) Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process, pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW. (h) Federal Jurisdiction: Areas and uses in those areas under exclusive federal jurisdiction and are established through federal or state statues are not subject to RCW 90.58. The Shoreline Management Act and Shoreline Master Program do not apply to Bremerton’s federal lands including, but not limited to the Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton, Naval Hospital, Jackson Park Housing Complex, Camp McKean, and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 46 (g)(i) Permit Revisions: An application for a permit revision is required whenever the applicant proposes substantive changes to the design, terms, or conditions of a project that has an approved permit. The City may approve a revision, rather than requiring a separate shoreline permit provided the revision is within the scope and intent of the original permit, and is consistent with all applicable standards within the SMP and SMA. Should the revision be found to be within the scope and intent of the original permit the City may approve the revision and submit it to the Department of Ecology. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-100 “Within the scope and intent of the original permit” means all of the following: (1) No additional overwater construction is involved except that pier, dock or float construction may be increased by five hundred square feet or ten percent (10%) from the provisions of the original permit, whichever is less: (2) Ground area coverage and height may be increased a maximum of ten percent (10%) from the provisions of the original permit; (3) The revised permit does not authorize development toe exceed height, lot coverage, setback, or any other requirements of the SMP except as authorized under a variance granted as the original permit or a part thereof; (4) Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with any conditions attached to the original permit and with the SMP; (5) The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and (6) No adverse environmental impacts will be caused by the project revision. (h)(j) Exemptions: A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall be required for all proposed use and development within the shoreline jurisdiction unless the proposal is specifically exempt from permit requirements pursuant to WAC 173-27-040, as amended. The City issues exemptions for all work that does not meet the threshold for a shoreline permit to be required. The following list of exemptions is an exact copy from the WAC, and is located here as a courtesy to the reader. Any exemptions adopted subsequently by the legislature shall apply without amendment to this program. An exemption from a shoreline permit is not an exemption from compliance with the Act or the Shoreline Master Program, or from any other regulatory requirements. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemption from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process. Exemptions are as follows: (1) Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, does not exceed seven-thousand and forty-seven dollars five thousand dollars, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. The dollar threshold established in this subsection must be adjusted for inflation by the office of financial management every five years, beginning July 1, 2007, based upon changes in the consumer price index during that time period. "Consumer price index" means, for any calendar year, that year's annual average consumer price index, Seattle, Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 47 Washington area, for urban wage earners and clerical workers, all items, compiled by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, United States Department of Labor. The office of financial management must calculate the new dollar threshold and transmit it to the office of the code reviser for publication in the Washington State Register at least one month before the new dollar threshold is to take effect. For purposes of determining whether or not a permit is required, the total cost or fair market value shall be based on the value of development that is occurring on shorelines of the state as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(c). The total cost or fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or materials; (2) Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to shoreline resource or environment. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment; (3) Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences. A "normal protective" bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of protecting an existing single-family residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if constructed for the purpose of creating dry land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or reconstructed, not more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be used as backfill. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired by construction of a vertical wall fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings. When a bulkhead has deteriorated such that an ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the bulkhead then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual ordinary high water mark. Beach nourishment and bioengineered erosion control projects may be considered a normal protective bulkhead when any structural elements are consistent with the above requirements and when the project has been approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. (4) Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment which requires immediate action within a time Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 48 too short to allow full compliance with this chapter. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures are deemed by the administrator to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit which would have been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, these regulations, or the local master program, obtained. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of chapter 90.58 RCW and the local master program. As a general matter, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency; (5) Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelands, construction of a barn or similar agricultural structure, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures including but not limited to head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels: Provided, That a feedlot of any size, all processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, alteration of the contour of the shorelands by leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations; (6) Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys; (7) Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single- family residence for their own use or for the use of their family, which residence does not exceed a height of thirty-five feet above average grade level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. "Single-family residence" means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance. An "appurtenance" is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland. On a statewide basis, normal appurtenances include a garage; deck; driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield and grading which does not exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Local circumstances may dictate additional interpretations of normal appurtenances which shall be set forth and regulated within the applicable master program. Construction authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of the ordinary high water mark; (8) Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 49 craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single-family and multiple-family residences. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities or other appurtenances. This exception applies if either: (i) In salt waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars; or (ii) In fresh waters the fair market value of the dock does not exceed: (A) Twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($22,500) for docks that are constructed to replace existing docks, are of equal or lesser square footage than the existing dock being replaced; or (B) Eleven thousand two hundred ($11,200) dollars for all other docks constructed in fresh waters. (C) However, if subsequent construction occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, and the combined fair market value of the subsequent and prior construction exceeds the amount specified above, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development for the purpose of this chapter. ten thousand dollars, but if subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, the subsequent construction shall be considered a Substantial Development for the purpose of this chapter. (ii)(iii) For purposes of this section salt water shall include the tidally influenced marine and estuarine water areas of the state including the Pacific Ocean, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound and all bays and inlets associated with any of the above; (9) Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored groundwater from the irrigation of lands; (10) The marking of property lines or corners on state-owned lands, when such marking does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water; (11) Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system; (12) Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization under this chapter, if: Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 50 (13)(12) (i) The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface; (ii) The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including but not limited to fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values; (iii) The activity does not involve the installation of any structure, and upon completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity; (iv) A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the local jurisdiction to ensure that the site is restored to preexisting conditions; and(v) The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550; (14)(13) The process of removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the department of agriculture or Ecology jointly with other state agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW; (15)(14) Watershed restoration projects as defined herein. Local government shall review the projects for consistency with the shoreline master program in an expeditious manner and shall issue its decision along with any conditions within forty-five days of receiving all materials necessary to review the request for exemption from the applicant. No fee may be charged for accepting and processing requests for exemption for watershed restoration projects as used in this section. (i) "Watershed restoration project" means a public or private project authorized by the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or a part of the plan and consists of one or more of the following activities: (A) A project that involves less than ten miles of stream reach, in which less than twenty-five cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported, disturbed or discharged, and in which no existing vegetation is removed except as minimally necessary to facilitate additional plantings; (B) A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that employs the principles of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water; or Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 51 (C) A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or reduce impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource available for use by all of the citizens of the state, provided that any structure, other than a bridge or culvert or in-stream habitat enhancement structure associated with the project, is less than two hundred square feet in floor area and is located above the ordinary high water mark of the stream. (ii) "Watershed restoration plan" means a plan, developed or sponsored by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, the department of natural resources, the department of transportation, a federally recognized Indian tribe acting within and pursuant to its authority, a city, a county, or a conservation district that provides a general program and implementation measures or actions for the preservation, restoration, re- creation, or enhancement of the natural resources, character, and ecology of a stream, stream segment, drainage area, or watershed for which agency and public review has been conducted pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act; (16)(15) Consistent with WAC 173-27-040, A public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage (including restoration of native kelp and eelgrass beds and restoring native oysters), that conforms to the provision of RCW 77.55.181. when all of the following apply: (i) The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife; (ii) The project has received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to chapter 77.55 RCW; and (iii) The local government has determined that the project is substantially consistent with the local shoreline master program. The local government shall make such determination in a timely manner and provide it by letter to the project proponent. (iv) Fish habitat enhancement projects that conform to the provisions of RCW 77.55.181 are determined to be consistent with local shoreline master programs, as follows: (A) In order to receive the permit review and approval process created in this section, a fish habitat enhancement project must meet the following and (II) of this subsection: (I) A fish habitat enhancement project must be a project to accomplish one or more of the following tasks: Elimination of human- made fish passage barriers, including culvert repair and replacement; or restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank employing the principle of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water; or Placement of woody debris or other in-stream Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 52 structures that benefit naturally reproducing fish stocks. The Department of Fish and Wildlife shall develop size or scale threshold tests to determine if projects accomplishing any of these tasks should be evaluated under the process created in this section or under other project review and approval processes. A project proposal shall not be reviewed under the process created in this section if the department determines that the scale of the project raises concerns regarding public health and safety; and (II) A fish habitat enhancement project must be approved in one of the following ways: By the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to chapter 77.95 or 77.100 RCW; or By the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan as provided in chapter 89.08 RCW; or • By the department as a Department of Fish and Wildlife-sponsored fish habitat enhancement or restoration project; • Through the review and approval process for the jobs for the environment program; • Through the review and approval process for conservation district- sponsored projects, where the project complies with design standards established by the conservation commission through interagency agreement with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the natural resource conservation service; • Through a formal grant program established by the legislature or the Department of Fish and Wildlife for fish habitat enhancement or restoration; and • Through other formal review and approval processes established by the legislature. (B) Fish habitat enhancement projects meeting the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection are expected to result in beneficial impacts to the environment. Decisions pertaining to fish habitat enhancement projects meeting the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection and being reviewed and approved according to the provisions of this section are not subject to the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). (C)(I) A hydraulic project approval permit is required for projects that meet the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection and are being reviewed and approved under this section. An applicant shall use a joint aquatic resource permit application form developed by the Office of Regulatory Assistance to apply for approval. On the same day, the applicant shall provide copies of the completed application form to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and to each appropriate local government. Local governments shall accept the application as notice of the proposed project. The Department of Fish and Wildlife shall provide a fifteen-day comment period during which it will receive comments regarding environmental impacts. Within forty-five days, the department shall either, issue a permit, with or without conditions, deny approval, or make a determination that the review and approval process created by this section is not appropriate for the proposed project. The department shall base this determination on identification during the comment period of adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by the conditioning of a permit. If the department Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 53 determines that the review and approval process created by this section is not appropriate for the proposed project, the department shall notify the applicant and the appropriate local governments of its determination. The applicant may reapply for approval of the project under other review and approval processes. (C)(II) Any person aggrieved by the approval, denial, conditioning, or modification of a permit under this section may formally appeal the decision to the hydraulic appeals board pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. (D) No local government may require permits or charge fees for fish habitat enhancement projects that meet the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection and that are reviewed and approved according to the provisions of this section. (17)(16) The external or internal retrofitting of an existing structure with the exclusive purpose of compliance with the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et. seq.) or to otherwise porovide provide physicacial access to the structure by individuals with disabilities. 5.020 Permit Application Types: (a) A permit for any action in shoreline jurisdiction not requiring a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit or Variance will be processed as a Type I permit pursuant to BMC 20.02, Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173-27 WAC. A Shoreline Exemption issued by the City is required for all such exempt activities. All uses and developments within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be carried out in a manner that is consistent with this Program and the policy of the Act as required by RCW 90.58.140(1), regardless of whether a permit, exemption, variance, or conditional use permit is required. The policies and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW, including the permit system, shall apply statewide to all nonfederal developments and uses undertaken on federal lands and on lands subject to nonfederal ownership, lease, or easement, even though such lands may fall within the external boundaries of a federal ownership. (b) All permits shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and shall comply with the submittal requirements of BMC 20.02. (c) A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application shall be processed as a Type II permit pursuant BMC 20.02 and as otherwise required by Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173-27. Permits may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Director. (d) A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be processed as either a Type II or Type III permit depending on project scope. Permits shall be processed pursuant to BMC 20.02 or as otherwise required by Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173-27 WAC. Permits may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Director or Administrative Hearing Examiner respectively. (e) A Variance permit shall be processed as a Type III permit pursuant to BMC 20.02 and as otherwise required by Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173-27 WAC. Permits may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Administrative Hearing Examiner. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 54 5.030 Noticing Requirements: When a notice of application is required, the following shall apply: (a) Timeline: The notice shall be provided within fourteen (14) days after the determination of completeness is issued. (b) Content: The notice of application shall include the following: (1) The file number assigned; (2) The date of application, date of the notice of completeness, and the date of the notice of application; (3) A description of the proposed project action and a list of permits included with the application and, if applicable, a list of requested studies; (4) Identification of known permits not included with the application; (5) Identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposal; (6) The location where the application and any studies can be reviewed; (7) A statement of the public comment period and which shall not be less than thirty (30) days; (8) A statement of the rights of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision and any appeal rights; (9) Any other information determined appropriate by the City. (c) Legal Notice: Notice shall be provided in the following manner as applicable: (1) Mail. The notice shall be sent by email, first class or higher mail to the following: (i) The applicant; (ii) Affected City Departments; (iii) State, federal, tribal, and local agencies with jurisdiction; (iv) For Type III Permits mailed notice shall also be sent to all property owners of real property (as shown by the records of the Kitsap County Assessor’s Office) within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property. Where any portion of a property abutting the subject property is owned, controlled, or under the option of purchase by the applicant, all property owners within a three hundred (300) foot radius of the total ownership interest shall be notified; and (v) Any person who requests such notice in writing to the Department. (2) Posting of the Property: Notice shall be posted according to the following: (i) At least one (1) location on or adjacent to the subject property and that shall be clearly visible and legible from an adjacent street or public area; (ii) The Director shall determine the specifications to the construction and installation of the notice boards. (3) Publishing Notice: A published notice in the City’s official newspaper of general circulation within the City boundaries is required. The content shall include the following: (i) Project location; Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 55 (ii) Project description; (iii)Type of permit(s) required; (iv)Comment period and dates; (v) Location where the complete application may be viewed. (d) Integration of Notices: The City will integrate the notice of application with SEPA review whenever possible. Notification for a notice of application should be combined with the notification for threshold determination and the scoping for a determination of significance whenever possible. (e) Issuance of Decisions: Except for a threshold determination, the City may not issue a decision or a recommendation on a permit until the expiration of the public comment period. (f) Public Comments: Comments shall be as specific as possible. Comments shall be received by the last day of the comment period specified in the notice. If no comments are received by the date specified it is presumed that those notified have no comments. 5.040 Criteria of Approval: (a) Shoreline Substantial Development Permits: (1) A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with: (i) The policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act RCW 90.58; and the provisions of the Shoreline Guidelines WAC 173-26 and WAC 173- 27, and (ii) This Shoreline Master Program, as well as the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations, to the extent that they are consistent with the Shoreline Master Program. (2) The City may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the act and this Shoreline Master Program. (3) Any ruling on an application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit under authority of this Master Program, whether it is an approval or denial, shall, with the transmittal of the ruling to the applicant, be filed concurrently with Ecology and the Attorney General by the Director. Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130 for shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline exemptions are not required to be filed with Ecology unless Environmental review is required. (b) Conditional Use Permits: (1) Conditional Use Permits are issued for proposed Substantial Development activities when the activity is classified as a Conditional Use or is an unlisted use in the Shoreline Use/ Activity Matrix (Table 20.16.690). The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to allow greater flexibility in the application of the Shoreline Master Program. Conditional Use Permits are processed as an Administrative Type II Director’s decision, but can at any point in the permit process be elevated to a Nonadministrative Type III Hearings Examiner decision Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 56 when the Director determines: (i) The use or project has a significant impact beyond the immediate site; (ii) The use or project is of a neighborhood or community wide interest; or (iii) The use or project is of a controversial nature. (2) Development activity considered a Conditional Use may be authorized if all of the criteria in WAC 173-27-160 criteria are met as follows: . The criteria include: (i) The proposed use is consistent with RCW 90.58.020 and the policies of Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program; (ii) The proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; (iii) The proposed use of the site and design are compatible with other permitted uses in the area; (iv) The proposed use will cause no net loss of ecological function to the shoreline environment; and (v) The public interest will not suffer a detrimental effect. (vi) When considering the application, consideration must be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for similar actions in the area. After the City makes a final decision on a Conditional Use Permit, the permit and application must be reviewed and approved by Ecology and the Attorney General. (c) Variance: Relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards in the Shoreline Master Program can be granted only when there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that strict implementation of the Shoreline Master Program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. (1) Development activities considered a Variance may be authorized if all of the criteria in WAC 173-27-170 are met. The criteria include: (i) The strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards would preclude or significantly interfere with the reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Shoreline Master Program; (ii) The hardship is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as lot shape, size or natural features, and the application of the Shoreline Master Program; (iii) The project design is compatible with other permitted uses in the area, and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; (iv) The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege, and is the minimum necessary to afford relief; (v) The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; and (vi) If the development is waterward of the ordinary high-water mark, the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. (2) After the City makes a final decision on a variance permit, the permit and Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 57 application must be reviewed and approved by Ecology. 5.050 Appeals: (a) Applicability: Any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 may, except as otherwise provided in chapter 43.21B RCW, seek review from the Shorelines Hearings Board by filing a petition for review within twenty-one days of the decision as provided for in RCW 90.58.140(6). (b) Type II Decisions: Type II decisions on Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits, and revisions to shoreline permits may be appealed to the Administrative Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter 20.02 BMC within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of the decision, provided that the applicant agrees to this local appeal. In the case of a Conditional Use Permit the Director may request that Ecology delay action in the approval until the local appeal process has been completed. In lieu of an appeal to the Administrative Hearing Examiner, or in the case where the applicant does not agree to a local appeal, an appeal of the local shoreline permit decision shall be heard by the Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB). Any person may file a Petition for Review to the SHB within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the date of filing of the decision with Ecology and the Attorney General pursuant to RCW 90.58.180(1). (c) Type III Decisions and Decisions on Appeals: Type III decisions, and decisions on appeal of Type II decisions may be appealed to the Shorelines Hearings Board by filing a Petition for Review within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the date of filing of the decision with Ecology and the Attorney General pursuant to RCW 90.58.180(1). (d) Ecology Approval: An appeal of a Conditional Use Permit or Variance by Ecology shall be filed with the Shoreline Hearings Board within twenty one (21) calendar days of notice of the Ecology Decision, pursuant to RCW 90.58.180(1). (e) Shoreline Master Program Adoption and Amendments. The decision of Ecology pertaining to the adoption of, or amendment to, the Shoreline Master Program may be appealed to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearing Board per Chapter 36.70A RCW. 5.060 Time Periods: (a) Type II Permits: No construction pursuant to such permit shall begin or be authorized and no building, grading or other construction permits or use permits shall be issued by the City until 21 days from the date a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit was filed with Ecology and the Attorney General, or until all review proceedings are completed as were initiated within the twenty one (21) days of the date of filing. Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130. (b) Type III Permits or Type II Conditional Use Permits: No permits and construction shall begin or be authorized until 21 days from the date of notification of approval by Ecology, or until all review proceedings are completed as were initiated within the twenty one (21) days of the date of filing. Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 58 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130. (c) Expiration: Unless a different time period is specified in the shoreline permit as authorized by RCW 90.58.143, construction activities, or a use or activity for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this Master Program, must be commenced within two (2) years and completed within five (5) years of the effective date of a shoreline permit, or the shoreline permit shall terminate and a new permit shall be necessary. However, tThe Director may authorize a single extension for a periodcommencing activity and a single extension for completing the activity, neitherot to exceed one year based on reasonable factors if an extension request is a request for extension has been filed with the City within thirty days of the permit expiry before the expiration date and . A notice of the proposed extension shall be forwarded to parties of record and Ecology. is given to parties of record and Ecology. Construction activities or commencement of construction means that construction applications must be submitted, permits must be issued, and foundation inspections must be approved and completed. (d) Extensions: A permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of no more than five (5) years after the effective date of a shoreline permit, unless a longer period has been specified pursuant to RCW 90.58.143, or as authorized above. If an applicant files a request for an extension prior to expiration of the shoreline permit, the Director shall review the permit and upon a showing of good cause may authorize a single extension of the shoreline permit for a period of up to one year. Otherwise said permit shall terminate. Notice of the proposed permit extension shall be given to parties of record and Ecology. To maintain the validity of a shoreline permit, it is the applicant’s responsibility to maintain valid construction permits in accordance with adopted Building Codes. (e) Reductions: If it is determined that standard time requirements of subsections c and d should not be applied, the Hearing Examiner, upon a finding of good cause, may establish shorter time limits, provided that as a part of action on a conditional use or variance permit the approval of Ecology shall be required. “Good cause” means that the time limits established are reasonably related to the time actually necessary to perform the development on the ground and complete the project that is being permitted. (f) Timing: For purposes of determining the life of a shoreline permit, the effective date of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance permit shall be the date of filing as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). The permit time periods do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of appeals or legal actions, or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed. (g) Responsibility: It is the responsibility of the applicant to inform the director of other permit applications filed with agencies other than the City and of any related administrative or legal actions on any permit or approval. (h) If an appeal is filed, construction may not commence until disposition of the appeal unless otherwise established by the Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(5)(b). Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 59 5.070 Violations and Penalties: (a) Any person who fails to conform to the terms of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, conditional use permit, variance or other permit issued under the Shoreline Master Program, or who undertakes a development or use on shorelines of the state without first obtaining a permit, or violates any other provision of the Shoreline Master Program, or who fails to comply with a cease and desist order or notice of violation issued under Chapter 1.04 BMC may be subject to enforcement and penalties as follows: (b) Any violation, as noted above, constitutes a civil violation under Chapter 1.04 BMC, as currently enacted or hereinafter amended, for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and enforcement may be required, as provided therein. (c) In addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty provided herein or by law, any person who commits a violation, as noted above, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor pursuant to RCW 90.58.220. (d) In lieu of or in addition to the above, the City may utilize the enforcement procedures and remedies, including requiring appropriate correction action, contained in WAC 173-27-240 through 173-27-300. (e) Any person subject to the regulatory program of this Master Program who violates any provision of this Master Program or the provisions of a permit issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damages to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to such violation. If a suit is pursued the City Attorney shall bring suit for damages under this subsection on behalf of the City. Private persons shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this subsection on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability has been established for the cost of restoring an area affected by violation the Court shall make provision to assure that restoration will be accomplished within a reasonable time at the expense of the violator. In addition to such relief, including monetary damages, the Court in its discretion may award attorney’s fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party. 5.080 Shoreline Moratorium: The City Council may adopt moratoria or other interim official controls as necessary and appropriate to implement the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act as outlined in RCW 90.58.590. 5.090 Restoration Project Relocation of Ordinary High Water Mark: The City may grant relief from Shoreline Master Program development standards and use regulations when the following apply: (a) A shoreline restoration project causes, or would cause, a landward shift in the ordinary high water mark, resulting in the following: (1) Land that had not been regulated under this chapter prior to construction of the restoration project is brought under shoreline jurisdiction; or (2) Additional regulatory requirements apply due to a landward shift in required shoreline buffers or other regulations of the applicable Shoreline Master Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 60 Program; and (3) Application of Shoreline Master Program regulations would preclude or interfere with use of the property permitted by local development regulations, thus presenting a hardship to the project proponent. (b) The proposed relief meets all of the following criteria: (1) The proposed relief is the minimum necessary to relieve the hardship; and (2) After granting the proposed relief, there is net environmental benefit from the restoration project; and (3) Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the shoreline restoration project and consistent with the Shoreline Master Program; and (4) Where a shoreline restoration project is created as mitigation to obtain a development permit, the project proponent required to perform the mitigation is not eligible for relief under this section. (c) If approved by the city, the application for relief must be submitted to Ecology for written approval or disapproval. (1) This review must occur during Ecology's normal review of a shoreline Substantial Development Permit, conditional use permit, or variance. If no such permit is required, then the department shall conduct its review when the local government provides a copy of a complete application and all supporting information necessary to conduct the review consistent with submittal and decision procedures of WAC 173-27-215. (2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection d of this section, Ecology shall provide at least 20-day notice to parties that have indicated interest to the department in reviewing applications for relief under this section, and post the notice on to their website. (3) The Department shall act within 30 calendar days of close of the Public Notice period, or within 30 days of receipt of the proposal from the local government if additional public notice is not required. (d) The public notice requirements of subsection c of this section do not apply if the relevant shoreline restoration project was included in a Shoreline Master Program or shoreline restoration plan as defined in WAC 173-26-201, as follows: The restoration plan has been approved by the department under applicable Shoreline Master Program guidelines; and the shoreline restoration project is specifically identified in the Shoreline Master Program or restoration plan or is located along a shoreline reach identified in the Shoreline Master Program or restoration plan as appropriate for granting relief from shoreline regulations; and the Shoreline Master Program or restoration plan includes policies addressing the nature of the relief and why, when, and how it would be applied. 5.100 Special Procedures for WSDOT projects Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 61 (a) Permit review time for projects on a state highway. Pursuant to RCW 47.01.485, the Legislature established a target of 90 days review time for local governments. (b) Optional process allowing construction to commence twenty-one days after date of filing. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.140, Washington State Department of Transportation projects that address significant public safety risks may begin twenty-one days after the date of filing if all components of the project will achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 62 Chapter 6 - Nonconforming Provisions 6.010 – Intent 6.020 – Establishment of a Legal Nonconformity and Applicability 6.030 – Annexations 6.040 – DefinitionsSubstantial Destruction 6.050 – Nonconforming Lots 6.060 – Nonconforming Structures 6.070 – Unsuitable Structure for Uses 6.07080 – Unlawful Uses and Structures 6.010 Intent: (a) To avoid undue hardship to property owners whose existing lots, structures, or uses were lawful at the time of their establishment, but are prohibited, regulated, or restricted under the Shoreline Master Program and Zoning Code. (b) To set forth conditions under which these nonconformities may continue to exist until such a time they are discontinued as prescribed by law. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to require a change in the plans, construction or designated use of any building or site legally established. 6.020 Establishment of a Legal Nonconformity and Applicability: (a) A party asserting the existence of a lawfully established nonconforming lot, use or structure has the burden of proof that the lot, use or structure was not substandard in meeting the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code that were in effect at its creation. (b) The rules of this chapter are applied by first reviewing which provisions are applicable to the nonconformity. When a combination of nonconforming lot, structure or use exists, each segment of the nonconformity is reviewed independently of the others. (c) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, a use, lot, or structure lawfully existing prior to the effective date of this Shoreline Master Program or any amendment thereto, which is rendered nonconforming by this Shoreline Master Program may continue and may also be repaired, remodeled, and/or restored in the manner and to the extent that it existed upon the effective date of this Shoreline Master Program. (b) 6.030 Annexation: (a) Lots, structures, uses of land, and structures that were legally in existence prior to annexation to the City, but that do not conform to the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code following the date of annexation, shall become a legal nonconformity subject to the requirements of this chapter. 6.040 DefinitionsSubstantial Destruction: (a) Nonconforming Lots: A lot that does not meet the lot area, width or street Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 63 frontage requirements of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code, but was lawfully created prior to the effective date of the adoption of the Shoreline Master Program and/or Zoning Code or subsequent amendments thereto. (b) Nonconforming Use: Any activity, development or condition that is not permitted outright or as an accessory use, or is not permitted by a Conditional Use Permit or other special permitting process by the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code; but was lawfully created prior to the effective date of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code, or subsequent amendments thereto, and was continually maintained as defined in this chapter. A nonconforming use may or may not involve buildings or structures and may involve part of or all of a building or property. (c) Nonconforming Structure: A building or structure that does not comply with the required setbacks, height, lot coverage and other development requirements of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code, but was lawfully constructed prior to the effective date of the Zoning Code and/or Shoreline Master Program or subsequent amendments thereto, and was continually maintained as defined in this chapter. (d)(a) Substantial Destruction: For the purpose of this chapter, "substantial destruction" means the repair or replacement of a building or structure which exceeds one of the following: (1) Seventy five percent (75%) of the assessed value of the structure as determined by the Kitsap County Assessor. An appraised value may be substituted for the assessed value at the request of the applicant and at the as deemed appropriate by the Director’s discretion. (2) For accessory structures which are typically not assessed (such as decks, sheds, garages, bulkheads, docks, and retaining walls) and the value cannot be determined, substantial destruction will occur at the point that seventy five percent (75%) or more of the structure is replaced. This does not include in- water structures as they are addressed in SMP section 6.070(d) of the SMP. (3) For both 1 and 2 above, all repair and maintenance work conducted within a five (5) year period on the structure shall be included in the calculation. 6.050 Nonconforming Lots: (a) Continuation and Development: A nonconforming lot may be developed for any use allowed by the Shoreline Master Program and Zoning Code provided the development meets, through design or by an approved variance the applicable development standards within. (b) Illegal Lot Modifications or Split: The following is applicable to all lots: (1) No lot may be modified, divided or adjusted in a manner that would violate the dimensional or area requirements of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code. (2) A government agency may lawfully modify a lot in a manner that would result in nonconformity, if portions of a lot are acquired for a public use or Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 64 purpose, or is allowed otherwise by law. 6.060 Nonconforming usesUses: (a) Continuation: Any legally established nonconforming use may be continued until such time that it is discontinued as prescribed in subsection (d) or (e) of this section. (b) Change of Use: A structure or property containing a nonconforming use may be changed to the following: (1) A use that conforms to the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program and Zoning Code; or (2) Another nonconforming use; provided, that all of the following criteria are met: (i) A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is approved pursuant to Chapter 5, and (ii) The existing nonconforming use was not discontinued as prescribed in subsection (d) or (e) of this section (see below under discontinuation / damage and destruction); and (iii) The new use is clearly a reduction in the nonconformity and intensity of the existing nonconforming use; and (iv) There is no net loss of ecological processes and functions resulting from the change in use. (c) Use Expansion: A nonconforming use may be expanded or enlarged only in the following circumstances: (1) If the existing nonconformity is not utilizing the entire structure, it may be expanded to other portions of the structure provided the enlargement is within the existing physical space of the building or use and all of the following criteria are met: (i) There is no increase outside the building walls of noise, light and glare and other proximity impacts that may adversely affect adjacent uses or elements of the natural environment; and (ii) There is no net loss of ecological processes and functions resulting from the alteration; and (iii) The expansion or enlargement does not restore the structure from substantial destruction. (2) Residential dwellings may have the building area expanded if all of the following criteria are met: (i) The number of dwelling units is not increased; and (ii) There is no decrease in the number of off-street parking spaces below the minimum requirements of the current code and the addition complies with all applicable development standards; and (iii) There is no expansion into an area designated as a critical area or shoreline buffer or building setback; and (iv) There is no net loss of ecological processes and functions resulting from the expansion. (3) Acquisition of additional accessory off-street parking may be allowed Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 65 provided the additional parking is not located in the shoreline buffer. (d) Discontinuation: A nonconforming use that is discontinued pursuant to the items below shall have its legal nonconforming status terminated and any subsequent use of the property or building shall be that of a use that conforms to all applicable development standards. A nonconforming use is determined to be discontinued if any of the following circumstances apply: (1) The nonconforming use is changed to a conforming use; or (2) Another nonconforming use is approved pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section; or (3) The nonconforming use has ceased for a period of more than twelve (12) consecutive months or for twelve (12) months during a two-year periodone (1) year. (4) Aquaculture occurring on nonconforming aquaculture sites is not considered discontinued until the use has ceased for a period of more than 5 years. (e) Damage or Destruction: If a structure containing a nonconforming use experiences substantial destruction, it shall constitute a discontinuation of the nonconforming use, except the nonconforming use may be allowed to continue under either of the following circumstances: (1) The structure has suffered substantial destruction as a result of fire or other casualty not intentionally caused by the owner and a complete building permit application is filed within one (1) year of such fire or other casualty; or (2) The nonconforming use is a detached or attached single-family dwelling located in a zone in which they are prohibited. The use may be re-established provided a complete building permit application is filed within one (1) year of substantial destruction. (f) Repair and Maintenance: A building or structure containing a nonconforming use may be repaired and maintained, if the work does not restore it from substantial destruction. 6.070 Nonconforming Structures: (a) Continuation: Any legally established nonconforming structure may be continued until such time that it experiences substantial destruction. If a structure experiences substantial destruction it shall constitute a discontinuation of the nonconforming structure and have its nonconforming status terminated. Any repair or reconstruction of the structure shall comply with the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program and the Zoning Code, except as follows: The nonconforming structure may be allowed to be rebuilt within the same footprint and size if the structure has suffered substantial destruction as a result of fire or other casualty not intentionally caused by the owner/parties of interest.., and a A complete building permit application shall be is filed within one (1) year. of such fire or other casualty. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 66 (1) (b) Expansion: A nonconforming structure may be enlarged or extended, provided the enlargement complies with the applicable setback, height, lot coverage, and other site development requirements of the Shoreline Master Program and the Zoning Code, and provided that such work does not restore the structure from substantial destruction. Such expansions shall comply with the following: (1) Expansions located outside of the setback and or buffer, but within the shoreline jurisdiction, may have a footprint expansion of up to five hundred (500) square feet without being required to provide vegetation enhancementa Vegetation Management Plan per SMP section 7.020. However, Ssuch an addition must comply with all other applicable development standards, including mitigation sequencing and tree retention requirements. (2) Expansions located outside of the setback and or buffer but within the shoreline jurisdiction with a footprint larger than five hundred (500) square feet may be permitted provided the existing buffer is densely vegetated with a native plant community. Should the vegetation within the buffer not be a dense community of native vegetation, enhancement shall be provided as followsper the Vegetation Management Plan required in SMP section 7.020. (These provisions are not applicable to that portion of a water dependent use which requires direct access to the shoreline.) (i) A native community of vegetation shall be provided on the waterward twenty five percent (25%) of the required buffers width, with a minimum required width of ten feet (10’). (ii) The area to be planted shall comply with the vegetation management plan requirements of the SMP section 7.20. (3) There is no net loss of ecological processes and functions resulting from the alteration. (4)(1) Expansions, including expansion of and structures meeting substantial destruction status as a result of an approved active building permit, located within the setback/buffer may be permitted provided: (i) Such expansion is located no further waterward than the existing foundation. In the case that no foundation exists, the expansion shall not exceed the existing building line. (ii) The expansion shall be limited to a footprint of two hundred and fifty (250) square feet. (iii) At least fifty percent (50%) of the required buffer shall be restored with natural vegetation per the requirements of Chapter 7 section 020SMP section 7.020; if the buffer is not currently characterized by a dense community of native vegetation. The Director may approve the natural vegetation as required in SMP section 7.020 of 50% of the distance between the structure and the shoreline. All proposed vegetation shall be located as close to the shoreline as possible. (iv) Natural vegetation to be planted must comply with the requirements for vegetation management plans as established in SMP section 7.020 for the Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 67 portion of the buffer to be planted. (v) There is no net loss of ecological processes and functions resulting from the alteration. (v)(vi) These expansion provisions do not apply to overwater homes, including but not limited to floating homes and floating on-water residences. (c) Repair and Maintenance: Normal repair and maintenance of a nonconforming structure and vacant nonconforming structures which are not vacant for twelve (12) consecutive months or a total of twelve (12) months during a two-year period, may be performed that maintains continued safe and sanitary conditions, provided such work does not restore the structure from substantial destruction as defined above in SMP section 6.040. (d) Repair and Maintenance of in-water structures: (1) When repairing and maintaining in-water structures, each component type (decking, pilings, or structural members) shall be reviewed independently for compliance with the “substantial destruction” criteria, as the replacement of each component must comply with current regulations when replacing more than 75% of that component. For example, the replacement of more than 75% of the decking on a dock requires that the new decking material provide light penetration as outlined in SMP section 8.060. (2) The use of creosote, arsenic and pentachlorophenol treated materials commonly used for in-water structures shall be prohibited. All new or replaced boards, piers, structural members etc. must comply with this prohibition regardless of the total percent of the structure being replaced, due to the long term impacts to water quality. 6.080 Unsuitable Structures for Uses: (a) An existing structure constructed for a use no longer allowed by the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code, which has lost its legal nonconforming status, and is not suited for other uses permitted by the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code, may have its use re-established if a shoreline Conditional Use Permit is approved pursuant to Chapter 5; provided the applicant demonstrates that: (1) The remaining life of the structure is adequate to warrant the proposed use of the structure; and (2) An use that is allowed in the zone and shoreline designation cannot be established; and (3) There is a demand for the use in the community or region that provides a public benefit; and (4) The use and renovation to the structure is not inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program and Comprehensive Plan; and (5) The Critical Area/Shoreline buffers are restored with native vegetation to the extent feasible, as established by a qualified professional, as provided in vegetation management plan requirements (see section 7.20); and Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 68 (6) There is no net loss of ecological processes and functions resulting from the use. 6.0890 Unlawful Uses and Structures: (a) Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to be authorization for, or approval of, the continuation of the use of a structure that is in violation of any ordinance in effect at the time of the passage of the ordinance codified in this chapter. The intermittent, temporary, or illegal use of land or structures shall not be sufficient to establish the existence of a nonconforming use and/or structure. (b) Any use, structure or lot which did not comply with the all applicable development standards at the time it was established or constructed and does not comply with the current development standards is illegal and shall be brought into compliance with all applicable development standards. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 69 Chapter 7 – General Standards and Regulations 7.010 – Buffers and Setbacks 7.020 – Vegetation Conservation 7.030 – Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Habitat Function 7.040 – Public Access 7.050 – Water Quality, Stormwater, and Non-Point Pollution 7.060 – Archaeologically Sensitive Areas 7.070 – Lighting Requirements 7.080 – Parking Requirements 7.090 – Use and Modifications Matrix and Height Table 7.010 Buffers and Setbacks: Upland areas adjacent to the shoreline perform essential functions necessary to sustain habitat and ecological processes. It is for this reason that development must be set back from the water’s edge and that natural buffers must be created and or preserved. The City currently regulates such areas through the Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordinance 4965 codified in BMC 20.14), however in areas regulated by this document within the shoreline jurisdiction, the following policies and regulations will supersede those within the Critical Area Regulations: Policies: (a) The critical areas that are within the shoreline jurisdiction are to be protected and managed in such a manner that the result of any use, activity, or development is no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (b) The City should protect critical areas and their existing shoreline ecological functions so they continue to contribute to existing ecosystem wide processes. (c) The City should promote uses and values that are compatible with other objectives of this section, such as public access and native vegetation management, provided there is no significant adverse impact to shoreline ecological functions. Regulations: (a) Critical Area Ordinance Applicability: Critical Areas that are within the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the Critical Areas Regulations, (Ord. XXXX Section X (Exh X) (part), 2020; Ord. 5327 Section 3 (Exh B) (part), 2016; Ord. 4965 Section 7 (part). 2006), codified under BMC 20.14 which is herein incorporated into this SMP however, the following sections of the Critical Area Ordinance do not apply: • BMC 20.14.130 Administration and Procedures; • BMC 20.14.140 Appeals; • BMC 20.14.145(d) Exemptions for Forest Practices; • BMC 20.14.150 Public Agency Exception; 45(f) Exemptions for activities within improved Right-of-Way; • BMC 20.14.155 Reasonable Use Exception; • BMC 20.14.160 Nonconforming uses/structures; • BMC 20.14.330(f) Category III and IV Wetlands; • BMC 20.14.330(g) Category IV Wetlands; and • BMC 20.14.330(h)(3) Reducing Wetland Buffer Widths; and Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 70 • BMC 20.14.730(d)(5) Buffer Reductions (b) Shoreline Buffers and Setbacks: (1) The following table (Figure 7.010 (a)) defines required shoreline buffers and setbacks for Type S waters. Buffers and setbacks for all other non-shoreline waters (Type F, Type Np, and Type Ns) are defined in BMC 20.14.730(d), Table 1. Figure 7.010 (a): Shoreline Buffers and Setbacks DESIGNATION Standard Shoreline Buffer Width Minimum Building Setback URBAN CONSERVANCY 175 feet 15 feet beyond buffer SINGLE-FAMILY & MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Lot depth less than 125’ 20% of lot depth (Minimum of 10 feet) 5 feet beyond buffer Lot depth 125’ to 199’ 20% of lot depth 10 feet beyond buffer Lot depth greater than 200’ 30% of lot depth (Maximum of 100’) 15 feet beyond buffer RECREATIONAL 100 feet 15 feet beyond buffer COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL/ DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT 50 feet 15 feet beyond buffer ISOLATED None None 1. Please note: For all designations, setbacks and buffers listed above the following shall applyThe following additional notes apply to all designations unless specifically listed: 1. Where parallel designations exist, the buffer for the waterward designation shall not apply to the landward designation. The buffer for the landward designation would be measured from the OHWM. 2. Where lot depth is less than 150 feet on lots within the Commercial or Recreational designations lots, the buffers listed above may be reduced to 20% of the lot depth, but in no case less than 10’, with an approved Habitat Management Plan per subsection (5) below. 3. In no case shall a buffer be less than 10’ or greater than 100’ in the Shoreline Residential Designation under shoreline buffer reduction options per subsection (6) below and listed in Figure 7.010(b) 4. Buffers are measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). 5. The standard buffers may be reduced by averaging the existing development setbacks on neighboring properties per subsection (6) below. 4.6. Water-dependent uses do not require shoreline buffers. Apply mitigation sequencing to avoid and minimize adverse impacts during development siting. (2) Buffers and Associated Building Setback Areas: The distance of the buffer shall be measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Buffers shall remain undisturbed natural beach or vegetation areas except where the buffer can be enhanced to improve its functional attributes, as approved by the Department. Buffers shall be Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 71 maintained along the perimeter of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areasthe shoreline, as outlined in the table above. Refuse, garbage, or debris shall not be placed in the buffers or on the beach. (3) Interrupted buffer: When a buffer contains an existing legally established public or private road, the Director may allow development on the landward side of the road provided that the development will not have a detrimental impact to the shoreline. The applicant may be required to provide a report to describe the potential impacts. In determining whether a report is necessary, the City shall consider the extent and permanence of the buffer interruption and potential impact on shoreline ecological functions. (3)(4) Determining Lot Depth: Areas inundated with water are not included in the calculation for lot depth, therefore the measurement may be taken from the OHWM. For lots with varying lot depth, the average depth may be used. (4)(5) Habitat Management Plans: Within shoreline jurisdiction, the requirements for a Habitat Management Plan as provided in BMC 20.14.730(e) and depicted within Table 2: Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas shall be determined on a case-by-case basis only as needed to incorporate Fish & Wildlife Conservation Areas not addressed by the requirements of 7.030 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Functions. The provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance (BMC 20.14.740) relating to Habitat Management Plans may also be used required to justify a reduction in the width of a standard shoreline buffer to no less than ten (10) feet provided enhancement features are installed that will provide a greater habitat function than the prescribed buffer would. (5)(6) Setback and Buffer AveragingReduction: The Director may grant modifications to the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areastandard shoreline buffer and setbacks required provided: (i) Sixty (60%) percent or more of like structures along the shoreline within the same numbered block as the subject propertyThe nearest adjacent like structure on either side of the subject property that are in the same shoreline designation are setback less than the required standard buffer/setback required by the SMP. The average total setback of the like structures may be used as a modified reduced buffer for the proposal; and (ii) In addition to the reduced buffer, a minimum of a 5’ building setback shall be required for the proposed structure; and (iii) No new structure may have a reduced buffer of less than ten (10’) feet;. (iii)(iv) A Vegetation Management Plan is prepared per SMP section 7.020 and includes a native community of vegetation on the waterward twenty five percent (25%) of the reduced buffer width, with a minimum required width of ten feet (10’); (v) One or more shoreline buffer reduction mitigation options included in Figure 7.010 (b) must be implemented, unless demonstrated infeasible or not applicable; (iv) Figure 7.010 (b): Shoreline Buffer Reduction Mitigation Options Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 72 Shoreline Buffer Reduction Mitigation Options (i) Removal of at least 50 percent of an existing hard structural shoreline stabilization measure and subsequent shoreline restoration to a natural or semi-natural state. (ii) Setting back at least 50 percent of an existing bulkhead a minimum of 10 horizontal feet based on feasibility of existing conditions and sloped a maximum three (3) vertical: one (1) horizontal to provide a dissipation of wave energy. (iii) Removal of creosote piling (iv) Installation of biofiltration/infiltration mechanisms in lieu of piped discharge, such as mechanisms that infiltrate or disperse surface water on the surface of the subject property. These mechanisms shall be sized to store a minimum of 70 percent of the annual volume of runoff water from the subject property, for sites with poor soils, or 99 percent of the annual volume of runoff water from the subject property, for sites with well-draining soils. The mechanisms shall be designed to meet the requirements in the City’s current surface water design manual. (v) Removal of one or more overwater structures. (vi) Any alternative jointly agreed upon by the Director and the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (1) (7) Fences: Fences are allowed within shoreline buffers and setbacks according to the following conditions: (i) Fences to be erected in the side yard abutting the fish and wildlife conservation area buffer, but are prohibitedmay be permitted within the buffer, subject to subsection (iv). (ii) Fences may also be erected upland of the buffer including within the shoreline setback area. (iii) General development standards for fences are located in BMC 20.464.020. Guardrails Safety or hand rails may be erected in association with pedestrian access areas provided they do not function as a fence and comply with the International Building Code. (v)(iv) A fence may be constructed within the outer half of the shoreline buffer when the fence has wildlife passable gaps or reductions to 42” in height every 100’ linear feet within the buffer. (6) (b)(a) Exemptions: The following development activities are not subject to fish and wildlife habitat area shoreline buffers and setbacks, provided they are constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on shoreline ecological functions, and further provided that they comply with all the applicable regulations in BMC Title 20 and this Program: (2) Those portions of an approved water-oriented development that require a location waterward of the ordinary high water mark, and/or within their associated buffers and setbacks; (3) Development activities on lots that are physically and functionally separated from shoreline by an improved paved public or private road or railroad or similar facility and/or by one or more existing developed lots under separate ownership such that the ecological functions provided by buffers do not occur. This provision shall not apply to such a facility within a development proposal or contiguous ownership that can be feasibly relocated to accommodate buffers. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 73 (4) Underground utilities; (5) Modifications to existing development that are necessary to comply with environmental requirements of any agency when otherwise consistent with this Program, provided that the City determines that: (i) The facility cannot meet the dimensional standard and accomplish the purpose for which it is intended; and (ii) The facility is located, designed, and constructed to meet specified dimensional standards to the maximum extent feasible; and (iii) The modification is in conformance with the provisions for non-conforming development and uses. (6) Roads, railways, and other essential public facilities that must cross shorelines and are necessary to access approved water-dependent development uses are subject to development standards in Chapter 8,SMP section 8.090. (7) Stairs, ADA ramps, and walkways not greater than 5 feet in width or 18 inches in height above grade, not including railings. (8) Shared moorages shall not be subject to side yard setbacks when located on or adjacent to a property line shared in common by the project proponents and where appropriate easements or other legal instruments have been executed providing for ingress and egress to the facility. (9) Water enjoyment elements associated with an approved upland use that result in less than fifty (50) square feet of development footprint within the buffer. 7.020 Vegetation Conservation: Policies: (1) The City should protect, conserve and establish native vegetation near shorelines in order to protect and restore the ecological functions and ecosystem wide processes performed within riparian and near shore areas which include but are not limited to: • Protecting plant and animal species and their habitats; • Providing food sources for aquatic and terrestrial species in the form of various insects and benthic macro invertebrates; • Providing shade necessary to maintain water temperatures for salmonids, forage fish, and other aquatic biota; • Protecting and increasing stability of banks and bluffs; • Reducing the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion; • Reducing the need for structural shoreline stabilization measures; • Improving the visual and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline; • Protecting and improving water quality through filtration and vegetative uptake of nutrients and pollutants; • Providing habitat corridors parallel and perpendicular to the water body. Regulations: (a) Vegetation Management Plan: A plan shall be submitted for all new development and redevelopment within the shoreline jurisdiction. Development proposed exclusively outside the buffer must provide a site plan, to scale, documenting existing native vegetation within the buffer and Notice to Title provisions per SMP 7.020(a)(8) below to protect this existing native vegetation. Development that is proposed within a shoreline buffer shall submit a Vegetation Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 74 Management Plan that provides for substantial enhancement of shoreline ecological functions and no net loss and provides the maximum ecological functions feasible, in accordance with the following: (1) The plan shall preserve, enhance or establish native vegetation within the entire specified critical area buffer. Vegetation management Unless otherwise specified, plans shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall describe actions that will be implemented to ensure that buffer areas provide ecological functions equivalent to a naturally occurring a dense native vegetation community on the shoreline. to the maximum extent feasible. The Director may waive the requirement for a qualified professional for minor single-family development. (2) The pPlan shall depict provide for planting of native trees, shrubs, and ground cover to a sufficient density to provide effective canopy cover and erosion control purposes throughout the in the buffer. The Director may allow for the trees and shrubs to be placed positioned and spaced in natural groups to allow for view preservation and a shoreline access trail. (3) The Plan plan shall include a sheet depicting existing vegetation conditions, including specify the predevelopment quantitiesy, species type, distribution, approximate height of native vegetation, tree diameter/driplines at four (4) feet in height, general successional stage of overall vegetative cover, potential native vegetation types, soil type / characteristics, and any existing hazard trees on the entire site. Said information shall be indicated and represented on a site plan drawn to scale and shall be reflected on an accompanying species and count matrix. (4) Identify existingication of native vegetation to be removed and protected as a result of the proposal must be shown on the site plan, as well as any noxious vegetation onsite. See tree replacement standards per subsection (b)(3) below. (5) At least 25% of newNew evergreen trees shall be a minimum height of four (4) feet and new deciduous trees shall have a two (2) inch minimum caliper. Planting plans must include plant spacing no less than the following densities: eight (8) feet on center for deciduous trees, sixteen (16) feet on center for coniferous trees, and three (3) feet on center for shrubs. Shrubs shall be of at least four different varieties. (6) Methodology shall be identified for removal of noxious vegetation. and for long term maintenance.The Director, as a condition of approval, may require the removal of all noxious species. (7) A financial surety (an assignment of funds or surety bond with no expiration date) shall be provided that accounts for 150% of the cost for improvements such as installation of plantings or other features identified in the plan. The Director may waive this requirement for single-family residential development where the cost of such improvements is less than five thousand ($5,000) dollars. The financial surety is intended to ensure implementation of a five year maintenance, performance and monitoring plan that ensures a survival rate of 100% for trees and 85% for all other vegetation. The five year maintenance and monitoring period shall begin at the time the required native vegetation has been installed, and verified by a representative from the Department of Community Development. Monitoring shall consist of site inspection documentation surveys and photographs taken by the applicant yearly indicating to indicate the continued survival of the plant survivals. TheSaid documents surveys and photos shall be submitted at the end of the 5 years to the City Department of Community Development for release of the financial surety. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 75 (i) Civil violations are not exempt from bonding requirements. (ii) Single-family proposals that do not request a buffer reduction or vegetation alteration in the buffer are not required to provide the financial surety. (iii) Failure to comply with a required plan shall result in a code violation. The City willmay not issue active permits or land use requests on the subject property. (8) Required vegetation shall be maintained over the life of the use and/or development. In order to ensure such maintenance, prior to permit issuance a recorded conservation easement or a Notice to Title shall be placed on the deed of the property identifying the buffer area and required plantings and remain in perpetuity. so that a record of the plan is available to all future property owners. The Notice to Title shall be recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor's Office. prior to issuance of the permit. (9) Repair, maintenance, and minor expansions of existing development may not be required to provide a vegetation management plan dependent upon the scope of the project. Please review section 6.70 to evaluate the requirements for expanding a nonconforming structure. (9) Removal of or alteration of native vegetation within the shoreline jurisdiction is strictly prohibited unless such activity is required for a permitted use or is determined to be hazardous by a qualified professional. (i)(10) Removal of trees greater than 6 inches in diameter at four (4) feet in height shall be replaced at a ratio of 3:1 with native species and shall be re-established within any required buffer on the project site. (b) Existing Landscaping: (1) In the absence of a development proposal requiring a permit, existing landscaping and gardens within the buffer may be maintained in their existing condition including but not limited to mowing lawns, weeding, removal of noxious and invasive species, harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning and replacement planting of ornamental vegetation or indigenous native species to maintain the condition and appearance of such areas as they existed prior to adoption of this code. (2) Removal of or alteration of native vegetation within the shoreline jurisdiction is strictly prohibited unless such activity is required for a permitted use or is determined to be hazardous by a qualified professional. (3) Tree removal and replacement. Removal of trees greater than 6 inches in diameter at four (4) feet in height shall be replaced according to the following: (i) at a ratio of 3:1 with native species For trees removed within a shoreline buffer, replacement and shall be re-establishedoccur within any requiredthe buffer on the project site at a ratio of 3:1 with native species.. (ii) For new development located outside of the shoreline buffer, tree replacement shall occur onsite within shoreline jurisdiction at a 2:1 ratio with native species for all trees removed outside the proposed building footprint. (iii) For trees removed outside of the shoreline buffer which are not associated with a new development proposal, replacement shall occur onsite within shoreline jurisdiction at a 2:1 ratio with native species (b)(iv) All replacement trees shall be a minimum of five-gallon or two-inch caliper in size at Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 76 the time of planting. 7.030 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Functions: Policy: For all developments, applicants must demonstrate that all alternatives have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to shoreline ecological functions. Regulations: (a) Shoreline use, development, and re-development shall be carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all developments and uses. Permitted uses shall be designed and conducted to minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment. Shoreline ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; ground water recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance. (b) Mitigation Requirement. If a proposed shoreline use or development is entirely addressed by specific, objective standards (such as, but not limited to, setback distances, structural dimensions, or materials requirements) contained in this Master Program, then the mitigation sequencing analysis described in subsection (c) is not required. In the following circumstances, the applicant must provide a mitigation sequencing analysis as described in subsection (c): (1) If a proposed shoreline use or development is addressed in any part by discretionary standards (such as standards requiring a particular action “if feasible”, requires the minimization of development size, or includes the reduction of a standard buffer) contained in this Master Program, then the mitigation sequencing analysis is required for the discretionary standard(s); or (2) When an action requires a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline Variance Permit; or (3) When specifically required by regulations contained in this Master Program; (b)(c) When required, Aan application for any permit or approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order: (1) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action outside the shoreline area; (2) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts; (3) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (4) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 77 maintenance operations during the life of the action; (5) Compensating for the adverse impact by following the mitigation sequence outlined herein; (6) Monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. (c)(d) Applicants for permits have the burden of proving that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Shoreline Master Program and the Act, including demonstrating that all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. 7.040 Public Access: Public access includes the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. Policies: (a) Public access, in its variety of forms, should be promoted whenever feasible provided the result is no net loss of the shoreline’s ecological function. (b) Public access should be provided to the shoreline as a primary use or as development occurs, while protecting private property rights and public safety. (c) Public access should not compromise the rights of navigation and space necessary for water-dependent and water-related uses. (d) To the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally, the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of shorelines of the state should be protected. (e) Property owners should implement a variety of techniques including acquisition, leases, easements, and design and development innovations to achieve public access goals and to provide diverse public access opportunities Regulations: (a) Applicability: Public Access shall be incorporated into a development in all of the following circumstances: (1) New development that will generate a demand for one or more forms of public access, (2) Water-dependent uses and developments that: (i) Increase public use of the shorelines and public aquatic lands, or (ii) Impair existing legal access opportunities, or (iii) Utilize public harbor or aquatic lands, or (iv) Are developed with public funding or other public resources. (3) Non-water-oriented commercial and industrial uses, (4) Non-single family development or use, or more than four (4) single-family residential lots or single-family dwelling units, including subdivision, within a proposal or a contiguously owned parcel, (5) Any development located on public aquatic lands, except as related to single- family residential use of the shoreline, Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 78 (6) Publicly financed or subsidized flood control and shoreline stabilization facilities or measures. (b) Location and Design Criteria: Required public access shall incorporate the following location and design criteria: (1) Proximity to water’s edge: Design of public access shall provide the general public with opportunity to reach, touch, view, and enjoy the water's edge and shall be as close to the shoreline’s edge as feasible; provided that public access does not adversely affect sensitive ecological features or lead to an unmitigated reduction in ecological functions. (2) Public access inside the buffer: Public access may be located inside the buffer provided the applicant demonstrates compliance with the mitigation sequencing requirements established above in SMP section 7.030. Walkways shall be buffered from sensitive ecological features and may provide limited and controlled access to sensitive features and the water’s edge where appropriate. Fencing no taller than four (4) feet in height may be provided to control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features where appropriate. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials for example non-treated elevated wooden walkways and limited to six (6) feet in width. The Director may consider public access alternatives with an approved report demonstrating no net loss and adherence to the Public Access policies in SMP section 2.040. to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources. (2)(3) Public access locations outside of buffers shall include: (i) Not less than ten (10) percent of the developed area within the shoreline jurisdiction or three thousand (3,000) square feet, whichever is greater. Water dependent uses are exempt from this requirement; and (ii) Public access shall extend along the entire water frontage, unless such access will interfere with the functions of water-dependent uses. The minimum width of public access facilities shall be ten (10) feet and shall be constructed of materials consistent with the design of the development. (3)(4) General Design Criteria: The entire public access area shall be: (i) Landscaped, preserving and enhancing native vegetation where feasible, and maintained by the property owner; (ii) Connected to a nearby public street, an adjacent existing public walkway, or a future walkway; and (iii) Compliant with the requirements of the American’s with Disabilities Act and other applicable standards for barrier free for the physically disabled, where feasible. (iv) The dedicated area shall generally be open to public access 24 hours a day unless specific exceptions are granted. If an exception is granted, access hours shall not be restricted from 10:00 a.m. to dusk (one-half hour after sunset) each day. Changes in access hours must meet the criteria of SMP Chapter 7 Sectionsection 7.040(c). (v) A submittal shall include specific design features of the walkway, landscaping, signs and other features as applicable. (5) (7) Access Requirements for Overwater Structures: Public access is required on Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 79 over-water structures that are located on public aquatic lands. Access shall include common use of walkway areas in accordance with all applicable requirements within this section. For instances triggering public access requirements, refer to applicability section 7.040(a). (c) (f) Modification of Public Access: Public access requirements may be modified only when one or more of the following criteria are met: (1) Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public will occur which cannot be prevented by any practical means; (2) Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the application of alternative design features or other reasonable solutions; (3) Unacceptable environmental harm will result from the public access that cannot be mitigated; (4) Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between any access provisions and the proposed use and/or adjacent uses would occur and cannot be mitigated; (5) Significant unavoidable environmental impacts will result from the public access. (6) Should any one of the abovementioned criteria impede the ability to provide public access the applicant must demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives have been pursued, including but not limited to: (i) Providing “limited public access” to protect specific identified features or limiting hours of use; (ii) Designing separation of uses and activities (e.g. terracing, use of one-way glazing, hedges, landscaping, etc.) to provide security for and protect adjacent sites from unreasonable intrusions into their privacy; and (iii) Providing for specific facilities for public visual access, including viewing platforms that may be physically separated from the water’s edge. Viewing platforms shall be utilized only if access adjacent to the water is not possible. (g) (d) Public Access Easements: Access easements are required for all developments requiring a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, or Shoreline Variance and shall meet the following standards: (1) Size and Design: Public access easements along shorelines are to be waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) to allow for improved lateral beach access and shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet in width. (2) Easements: Public access easements should connect to the nearest right-of-way through an easement of no less than ten (10) feet. (3) Minimum Width Exception: When the applicant demonstrates that undue hardship would result from minimum width standards, easement width may be reduced only to the minimum extent necessary to relieve the hardship. (4) Recording: Public access easements and permit conditions shall be recorded on the deed of title. Recording with the Kitsap County Auditor's Office shall occur prior to permit approval. (5) Signs: The sign(s) that indicate the public's right of access and hours of access shall be constructed, installed and maintained by the property owner in conspicuous Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 80 locations at public access sites and at the nearest connection to an off-site public right of way. These sign(s) shall identify the public right of access and hours of access. (6) Occupancy: Required public access sites shall be fully developed and available for public use prior to occupancy of the use or activity. (7) No diminution: Future actions by the applicant or other parties shall not diminish the usefulness or value of the public access provided. (h) (e) View Corridor Requirements: View corridors shall apply to proposals within the shoreline environment for multi-family and commercial development between Evergreen Park and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and shall include the following: (1) View Corridors are applicable only on sites with over 100 feet in width as measured parallel to the shoreline. (2) The View Corridor shall be no less than 20% of the building site width for buildings equal to or less than 40 feet in height. (3) The View Corridor shall be no less than 30% of the building site width for buildings greater than 40 feet in height. (4) View Corridors may contain structures no higher than 10 feet and may include parking areas and landscaping, if topography permits. (5) The Director, at their discretion, may require Tthe view corridor must to remain be in one continuous piece. 7.050 Water Quality, Stormwater, and Non-Point Pollution: Policies: (a) Prevent impacts to water quality and stormwater quantity that would result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, or a significant impact to aesthetic qualities, or recreational opportunities. (b) Ensure mutual consistency between shoreline management provisions and other regulations that address water quality and stormwater quantity, including public health, stormwater, and water discharge standards. (c) Protect aquatic resources from non-point pollution, such as water runoff from contaminated surfaces, contaminated groundwater, chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and petrochemicals, including, but not limited to discharge from failing onsite septic systems. Regulations: (a) Development within the City’s shoreline shall conform to all requirements of the most current version of the Bremerton Stormwater Management Plan and the most current Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. (b) The construction of new outfalls into water bodies and improvements to existing facilities shall comply with all appropriate Federal, State, and City regulations for water quality. (c) Pesticides applied using aerial spraying techniques within the shoreline jurisdiction, Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 81 including over water bodies or wetlands, shall be prohibited unless specifically permitted under the Washington Departments of Agriculture and Ecology. 7.060 Archaeologically Sensitive Areas: Policies: (a) Prevent the destruction of or damage to any cultural resources and any site having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational value as identified by the appropriate authorities, including The Suquamish Tribe, and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. (b) Land owners should provide access to qualified professionals and the general public if appropriate for the purpose of public education related to a cultural resource identified on a property. Regulations: (a) The City will work with tribal, state, federal, and other local governments as appropriate to identify significant cultural resources and local historical, cultural, and archaeological sites, in observance of applicable state and federal laws protecting such information from general public disclosure. Detailed cultural assessments may be required in areas with undocumented resources based on the probability of the presence of cultural resources. (b) Owners of property containing identified historical, cultural, or archaeological sites should coordinate well in advance of application for development to assure that appropriate agencies such as the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the Suquamish Tribe Archaeology and Historic Preservation program, and historic preservation groups have ample time to assess the site and identify the potential for cultural resources. (c) Upon receipt of an application for a development in an area of known cultural resources, the City shall require a site assessment by a qualified professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional and ensure review by qualified parties including the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the Suquamish Tribe Archaeology and Historic Preservation Program. (d) If historical, cultural, or archaeological materials, sites or artifacts are discovered in the process of development, work on that portion of the site shall be stopped immediately, the site secured and the find reported as soon as possible to the City. Upon notification of such find, the property owner shall notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Suquamish Tribe Archaeology and Historic Preservation Program. The reviewing official shall provide for a site investigation by a qualified professional and may provide for avoidance, or conservation of the resources, in coordination with appropriate agencies. 7.070 Lighting Requirements: Policies: (a) Lighting within shorelines and lands adjacent to shorelines if not properly managed can have an adverse impact on the ecological function, most notably the migration patterns of salmonids and terrestrial species. (b) Lighting should be minimized within shorelines, especially within close proximity to the Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 82 water. (c) Development should implement site lighting techniques that minimize the amount of spill- over into riparian and aquatic environments. These techniques should include but are not limited to reduction of pole heights, pole locations, and fixture designs including shading / shielding devices, bulb types and reduced wattages. Regulations: (a) Development proposals requiring a permit within shorelines shall include a lighting plan that provides and or meets the following standards: (1) The location of all outdoor lighting and building security lighting and associated wattages; (2) Pole heights shall not exceed 20 feet in height; (3) Fixture designs for all outdoor lighting shall shield the source or bulb of the light; and (4) A Photometric plan is required and shall not exceed a strength of 1 foot-candle at the property lines or OHWM. (b) Where lighting is required for new streets, driveways or public access features, the lowest level lighting possible shall be used. (c) The lighting plan is required with the permit application and shall be reviewed as a component of the shoreline permit. 7.080 Parking Requirements: Policies: (a) Parking includes private on-site, public lots/structures and loading areas. Parking within shorelines is a low priority. Converting land within shorelines for the sole use of vehicles is not an efficient land use. (b) Parking as a primary use (stand-alone use) within the shoreline jurisdiction should be prohibited. (c) Parking should not be allowed between development and the adjacent water body. (d) Where surface parking is developed within the shoreline jurisdiction, Low Impact Development techniques should be implemented. (e) Lighting for parking areas should be minimized. Regulations: (a) Parking as a primary or stand-alone use shall not be permitted within the shorelines jurisdiction of a property. (b) Parking shall not be located between shorelines and development unless no other location is feasible and it can be demonstrated that it will have no negative impact on ecological functions. (c) Parking facilities shall minimize the amount of impervious surface within the shoreline jurisdiction and should not disrupt planned public access or habitat restoration objectives. (d) Required parking for a permitted use on shorelines shall not be permitted between the Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 83 development and the adjacent shoreline with the exception of parking that is required for water-dependent uses. Loading and unloading zones that are an inherent element of a water- dependent or a water-related use are allowed between the shoreline and the use area when it is adjacent to the shoreline but, when feasible, should not be adjacent to a required buffer. (e) Parking ratios for all uses within the shoreline shall follow BMC 20.48 parking standards. The applicant may provide a parking analysis that demonstrates the parking need for the use. This analysis shall include examples of other existing similar uses and how the parking demand has been met in those locations and/or in other jurisdiction. (f) When surface parking areas for permitted uses are designed and constructed, they shall achieve the following objectives: (1) Landscape screening around the perimeter and within the parking area to soften edges and break up large parking areas; (2) Implementation of Low Impact Development techniques for stormwater management; and (3) Located as far from a required shoreline or critical area buffer as possible. 7.090 Use and Modifications Matrix and Height Table: (a) Use and Modifications Matrix: The table Figure 7.090 (a) determines which shoreline modifications and shoreline uses are allowed or prohibited in each Shoreline Designation. (1) Except for the land uses prohibited in this table, land uses allowed in the underlying zoning are allowed in the Master Program, subject to the preference for water-oriented uses and subject to specific criteria for uses included in these regulations. This chart is not exhaustive of all uses addressed in the zoning code. When referring to unlisted uses, the code is referring neither to uses listed here nor in the zoning code. If a use is prohibited in the underlying zoning district, it is also prohibited within the shoreline. (2) Aquatic Uses are determined by the adjacent Designation and are limited to water- dependent uses and public access. (3) Land uses in the underlying zoning that require a Conditional Use Permit, require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. (4) Land uses are defined in BMC 20.42 the definitions section of the zoning code. Shoreline activities are defined in the definitions section of this code. (5) A use located within the “Isolated” designation shall not be governed by the performance standards within SMP Chapter 7, General Standards and Regulations; Chapter 8, Shoreline Use Regulations, or Chapter 9 Shoreline Modifications, however the Director may determine the proposed development or use is clearly contrary to the intent of this program, and relevant elements of this program may be applied. Development and land use within this designation shall be governed by all other regulations of BMC Title 20 Land Use. The mandatory permit and procedural requirements of this program contained in Chapter 5, Permit Administration, shall apply to said development or uses. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 84 Figure 7.090 (a): Use and Modifications Matrix KEY: X= Prohibited P= Permitted CU= Conditional Use Urban Conservancy Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Recreation Commercial Downtown Waterfront Industrial Unlisted Uses: CU CU CU CU CU CU CU UPLAND USES Boat Sales, Storage and Repair X X X CU P P P Commercial uses such as but not limited to: general retail, general office, clinics, restaurants, drinking places, personal services, athletic fields, restaurants, community facilities, and entertainment uses. (See Zoning Code for specific allowed uses by zone) X X X X P P P Community, Cultural, Educational Facilities CU P P P P P X Golf Courses X CU CU X X X X Hotels and Lodging X X X X P P X Industrial X X X X X X P Worship and Religious Facilities X CU P CU P P X PARKING, TRANSPORTATION & UTILITIES Parking Serving Primary Use Within the Shoreline Jurisdiction P P P P P P P Parking Not Serving Primary Use Within the Shoreline Jurisdiction X X X X CU CU CU Transportation facilities that serve uses within the shoreline P P P P P P P Utilities that serve uses within the shoreline P P P P P P P RESIDENTIAL Adult Family Homes, Daycare, & Bed and Breakfasts CU P P X P P X Commercial/Residential mixed X X X X P P X Multi-Family Residential X X P X P P X Single Family Residential P P P P P P X SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS (All uses must meet applicable code criteria see Ch. 9) Boat Launch CU CU CU CU CU CU CU Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 85 KEY: X= Prohibited P= Permitted CU= Conditional Use Urban Conservancy Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Recreation Commercial Downtown Waterfront Industrial Aquaculture (including commercial, non- commercial, and geoduck) CU X X CU CU CU CU Ecological Restoration / Enhancement P P P P P P P Docks, Piers and Other In-Water Structures P P P P P P P Dredging P P P P P P P Flood Hazard Reduction P P P P P P P Mooring Buoys P P P P P P P Marinas CU CU CU CU CU CU CU Stabilization - New and Replacement P P P P P P P Stormwater Management Facilities P P P P P P P RECREATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS Recreation, Non-Water-Oriented CU CU CU CU CU CU CU Recreation, Water-Oriented P P P P P P P Trails, public pedestrian and bicycle not including overwater trails P P P P P P P OUTRIGHTLY PROHIBITED USES Adult Entertainment X X X X X X X Agriculture X X X X X X X Automobile Sales Service & Repair X X X X X X X (b) Height restrictions: Figure 7.090 (b) establishes the allowable height in each designation based on the type of use. All the applicable City standards still apply. In the event the provisions of this Program conflict with provisions of other regulations, the more restrictive shall prevail. Height measurement is defined in Chapter 3. (b)(c) This table establishes the allowable height in each designation based on the type of use. All the applicable City standards still apply. In the event the provisions of this Program conflict with provisions of other regulations, the more restrictive shall prevail. Height measurement is defined in Chapter 3. Figure 7.090 (b) Height Restrictions: ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION HEIGHT Commercial 35 feet Downtown Waterfront* 175 feet Industrial 35 feet Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 86 ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION HEIGHT Multi-Family Residential 40 feet Over-Water Structures** (All Designations) 15 feet Recreation 35 feet Single Family Residential 30 -35 feet Urban Conservancy 25 feet Table Notes: The height limit is restricted to that portion of the building physically located within the shoreline jurisdiction. * Heights in the Downtown Waterfront. Within the MFR 1 Waterfront Overlay Zone of the Downtown Subarea plan, maximum height shall be calculated from an average of the existing grade on Washington Avenue from the front property line of each parcel. ** Public Bridges. Height restrictions do not apply to public bridges; compliance with all other code provisions shall apply. (1) Heights in the commercialCommercial, & industrialIndustrial, and Multi-Family designationsdistricts may be increased outright to the to the zoning district height limit through a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the following provided criteria: (i) The increase does not substantially block views from a substantial number of upland residential properties, per RCW 90.58.320. (ii) Greater height is demonstrated to be needed for an essential element of an allowed use. (iii) The project may be required to include compensating elements that substantially enhance the visual and physical public access to the shoreline. (iv) It is demonstrated that No Net Loss of habitat function will be achieved. (iv) (2) Single-Family Residential heights may be increased to 35’ with the employment of a pitched roof when: (2) (i) The pitch of the roof is not less than 6:12 (ii)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. (iii)The pitched roof covers the entire structure. (3) Exceptions: The following structures listed below may be erected above the height limits established in Figure 7.090 (b): Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 87 (i) Cranes, gantries, mobile conveyors and similar equipment necessary for the functions of marinas, marine manufacturing, permitted commercial, industrial or port activities and servicing vehicles. (ii) Flagpoles or masts, transmission towers, chimneys, smokestacks, aerials or stairwells, when part of a permitted use. (iii) Belfries, monuments, spires or steeples, transmission towers, provided such structures must be designed to minimize obstruction of views. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 88 Chapter 8 – Shoreline Use Regulations 8.010 – Intent 8.020 – Aquaculture 8.030 – Commercial Development 8.040 – Forest Practices 8.050 – Industrial Development 8.060 – Marinas and Boating Facilities 8.070 – Recreational Development 8.080 – Residential Development 8.090 – Roads, Railways, and Utilities 8.010 Intent: The policies and regulations within this chapter shall apply to the specific common uses and types of development to the extent they occur within the shoreline jurisdiction. These policies and regulations are intended to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological function. Each use or development type includes a brief explanation and examples of the subject use, policies which are intended to guide and interpret the accompanying regulations, and then the regulations themselves. 8.020 Aquaculture: Aquaculture is the culture, or farming of fish, shellfish or other aquatic plants and animals. Activities include, but are not limited to the hatching, cultivating, planting, feeding, raising, harvesting, and processing of aquatic plants and animals and the maintenance and construction of necessary equipment, buildings, and growing areas. Cultivation methods include, but are not limited to fish pens, fish hatcheries, shellfish rafts, racks and long lines, seaweed floats, and nets and the culture of clams and oysters on tidelands and sub-tidal areas. Aquaculture does not include the harvest of wild geoduck associated with a state managed wild stock geoduck fishery. Aquaculture is a preferred water-dependent use. It should be encouraged to locate where it will not significantly conflict with navigation and other water dependent uses, and/or result in a net loss of ecological functions, and/or adversely impact eelgrass and microalgae. Harvest of wild stock free swimming fish, and/or harvest of wild stock geoducks on state owned aquatic lands do not require a shoreline Substantial Development permit. Policies: (a) Aquaculture should not be located in areas where it would result in a net loss of ecological functions. Aquaculture should not be permitted in areas where it would significantly conflict with navigation and other water-dependent uses. Regulations: (a) Aquaculture shall not be located in areas where it would result in the net loss of ecological functions., especially in near-shore areas where water quality, aquatic vegetation and co-occupying species habitats and migration corridors could be Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 89 impacted. (b) Aquaculture shall meet all applicable State and Federal requirements including, but not limited to: Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401, and the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48), local health codes and the applicable requirements of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for said facilities. (c) Aquaculture shall not be detrimental to visual access of the water body. Aquaculture shall not significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. (d) Aquaculture shall not significantly conflict with navigation. (e) The proponent shall demonstrate that the proposed location is suitable for aquaculture with little or no modification to the shoreline environment. Aquaculture shall not displace native plant or animal communities important to the food chain, particularly surf smelt spawning beaches, or areas important to the rearing of threatened or endangered species. (f) Aquaculture sites may be required to be separated from other aquaculture sites to prevent cumulative impacts upon shoreline processes. Appropriate separation shall be determined by the City in consultation with State and federal agencies, and tribal interests, based upon attributes such as water body characteristics, drift cell patterns, and upland development patterns. (g) Harvest activities shall be conducted in a manner that minimizes turbidity and the risk of impacts to aquatic vegetation and the intertidal bed by complying with State water quality standards and permit requirements. If a State water quality permit is not required, harvest activities must utilize the following methods: (1) Where water pumps are used, they must be placed on floating rafts and shall only be temporarily anchored to ensure water depths that avoid grounding. (2) Pump intakes shall be screened to minimize the capture of marine organisms. (3) Harvest activities within fine-grained beaches that are susceptible to sediment transport may be required to utilize sediment containment methods such as fencing or cloth tubes. (h) The installation of submerged or intertidal structures, or over-water structures shall be allowed only when the applicant demonstrates that no alternative method of operation is feasible and must comply with the view protection requirements below in Chapter 8, Section 020subsection (j). (i) Navigational access must be guaranteed for floating or submerged aquaculture structures. The applicant must provide evidence that the proposal will not interfere with general navigation lanes and traffic and that all structures remain shoreward of principal navigation channels. (j) View Protection: Aquaculture structures and equipment, EXCEPT navigation aids, shall be designed, operated, and maintained to blend into their surroundings through the use of appropriate colors and materials. (1) Over-water aquaculture structures shall be constructed of materials that blend in with the shoreline environment. (2) Storage of necessary tools and apparatus seaward of the OHWM shall be limited Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 90 to containers of not more than three feet in height, as measured from the surface of the raft or dock; except as permitted through a variance. (3) Materials which are not necessary for the immediate and regular operation of the facility shall not be stored seaward of the OHWM. (4) The applicant shall submit a visual impact analysis assessing the aesthetic, light, and glare impacts on adjacent uses and may condition a project to mitigate impacts or may deny a project if adverse impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated. (k) Aquaculture development shall control nuisance factors, such as noise and odor, and shall comply with all applicable regulations. No garbage, wastes or debris shall be allowed to accumulate at the site of any aquaculture operation. (l) Structures or activities associated with aquaculture that are not water-dependent, such as an office, shall be located upland, away from the shoreline and shall comply with all buffers and setback requirements. (m) Equipment, structures, and material shall not be abandoned in the shoreline or wetland area. The City may require that a bond be posted to help to ensure that this regulation is implemented. (n) All commercial aquaculture requires a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. All new commercial geoduck aquaculture or conversions from existing non-geoduck aquaculture to geoduck aquaculture requires a Conditional Use Permit and will be administered consistent with WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(ii), (iii), and (iv). Included with the CUP application, a complete baseline description of existing conditions, including characteristics of the water, substrate, vegetation and aquatic species, shall be provided by the applicant. This analysis shall include a monitoring plan establishing how the proposal will not negatively impact existing ecological functions. (o) All aquaculture proposals shall comply with the public access requirements found in Chapter 7 SectionSMP section 7.040. (p) The applicant shall coordinate with the Suquamish Tribe regarding treaty rights to ensure the proposal does not negatively impact the tribes Usual and Accustomed areas. 8.030 Commercial Development: Commercial development on the shorelines should be designed to bring large numbers of citizens to the shoreline. Policies: (a) Commercial development should be designed and constructed in such a manner as to result in no net loss of ecological functions. including implementation of Low Impact Development techniques, to the maximum extent feasible. (b) Public access should be provided in all locations, except where it is demonstrated to conflict with the intended use for reasons of safety, or security; or if it adversely impact the ecological function of the shoreline. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 91 (c) Non-water-oriented commercial uses within the shoreline jurisdiction should be allowed to locate and operate within existing structures. Regulations: (a) Priority of uses shall be in the following order: Water-dependent uses, water-related uses, water-enjoyment uses, and non-water related uses. (b) Water-dependent commercial development shall not interfere with or compromise the operation of existing adjacent water-oriented development or decrease opportunities for the general public to access adjacent shorelines. (c) Water-related uses shall not be approved if they displace existing water-dependent uses and must comply with the following: (1) All water-related uses shall be reviewed to ensure that the use has a functional requirement for a waterfront location, or the use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent uses, and/or the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient. (2) Mixed use development within 100 feet of the OHWM that incorporates water- dependent use may not include non-water-oriented uses at the ground level within 100 feet of the OHWM. (3)(2) Allowed water-related commercial uses shall be evaluated in terms of whether the use facilitates a community wide interest, including increasing public access and public recreational opportunities in the shoreline. (d) Water-enjoyment uses may not be approved if they displace existing water-dependent or water-related use. The applicant must demonstrate that the use will provide for the public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the proposal and must include the following: (1) The water-enjoyment use must be open to the general public. (2) The shoreline-oriented space within the project must be devoted to specifically foster shoreline enjoyment for a substantial number of people. (3) Development within 100 feet of the OHWM that incorporates water-enjoyment use may not include non-water-oriented uses on the ground floor within 100’ of the OHWM. (e) Non-water-oriented uses can be located in the shoreline jurisdiction when: (1) The site is physically separated from the shoreline by another private property or a public right-of-way such that access for water-oriented use is precluded. Such conditions must be lawfully established prior to the effective date of this Program. (2) A site where navigability is severely limited. (3) The developable portion of the site is physically separated from the shoreline in such a way access is infeasible, or (4) The use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water-dependent uses; and (5) In cases (2), (3 or (4) directly above, when the use provides significant public benefit with respect to the objectives of the Act by: Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 92 (i) Restoring the ecological functions both in aquatic and upland environments that provide native vegetation buffers as specified in SMP section 20.16.6107.010 and in accordance with the Restoration Element of this plan. (ii) The balance of the water frontage not devoted to ecological restoration and associated buffers shall be provided as public access where feasible. (f) All development shall provide opportunities for the public to access the shoreline adjacent to the subject use. Where public access has already been provided as part of a prior project or action, the said use shall be designed and constructed to be oriented towards the shoreline. (‘Oriented towards the shoreline’ means that the active space for customers and passersby is facing or directed towards the shoreline. Active space does not include service entries or load / unload areas.) Where physical access is unfeasible, visual access is required. (g) Parking shall be upland of the associated use whenever possible, and located, designed and screened so as to have minimum visual impact. (h) When parking or circulation elements must be located adjacent to the shoreline, they shall be designed to enable pedestrian access to and along the shoreline. (i) All development shall implement a range of Low Impact Development techniques as feasible to minimize the impacts on riparian, near-shore and upland areas. 8.040 Forest Practices: Forest practices within the City along shorelines would occur as a conversion of forested areas to a certain level of urban development (Class IV – General per the Forest Practices Act, RCW 76.09). Policy: Forested areas within shorelines should be preserved and protected where feasible. Regulations: (a) A forest practice that only involves timber harvesting is not a development under the Act and does not require a substantial development permit or a shoreline exemption. A forest practice that includes activities other than timber cutting may be a development under the Act and may require a substantial development permit, as required by WAC 222-50-020. (a)(b) Conversion of forested areas to urban development shall implement the mitigation sequencing as specified in Chapter 7,SMP section 7.030040. (b)(c) Forest practices for the sole purpose of timber harvesting shall not be allowed in the shoreline jurisdiction, except within the City Watershed and City Utility Lands. (c)(d) Any forest practice activity on shorelines of statewide significance shall comply with RCW 90.58.150. 8.050 Industrial Development: Water-dependent industrial uses are preferred and encouraged within shoreline areas. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 93 Policies: (a) Where necessary depth for industrial uses is adjacent, water-dependent industrial development should be given priority over water-related industrial uses provided, however, that in both instances, they do not conflict with planned or existing public access and habitat restoration. (b) Redevelopment of water-dependent industrial facilities and areas should be encouraged, provided it will not create a net loss of shoreline ecological function and processes. (c) New water-dependent industrial development should incorporate physical and/or visual public access to the water except when such access causes significant interference with operations or hazards to life or property. (d) On upland industrial sites, environmental cleanup and/or remediation should be implemented to serve a variety of future land uses. (e) Water-dependent and water-related industrial redevelopment is encouraged. (f) Priorities of uses are to be in the following order: Water-dependent uses, water- related uses, and water-enjoyment uses. Regulations: (a) Water-dependent and water-related industrial development shall not degrade the ecological function of the shorelines or disrupt existing or proposed public access amenities. (b) Water-dependent development shall not interfere with or compromise the operation of existing adjacent water-oriented development or decrease opportunities for the general public to access adjacent shorelines. (c) Industrial uses proposed over the water shall be limited to water-dependent uses, limited to the smallest feasible dimensions and shall require a Conditional Use Permit. (d) Non-water-oriented uses may be located in the shoreline jurisdiction when: (1) The site is physically separated from the shoreline by another private property or a public right-of-way such that access for water-oriented use is precluded. Such conditions must be lawfully established prior to the effective date of this Program. (2) A site where navigability is severely limited. (3) The developable portion of the site is physically separated from the shoreline in such a way access is infeasible or (4) The use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water-dependent uses; and (5) In all cases (2), (3) and (4) directly above, when the use provides significant public benefit with respect to the objectives of the Act by: (i) Restoring the ecological functions both in aquatic and upland environments that provide native vegetation buffers as specified in section 20.16.610SMP section 7.010 and in accordance with the Restoration Element of this plan. (ii) The balance of the water frontage not devoted to ecological restoration and Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 94 associated buffers shall be provided as public access where feasible. (e) Water-dependent and water-related industrial uses shall provide public access to the shoreline per the standards in Chapter 7, Section 060 SMP section 7.040 provided said access does not compromise the integrity or operation of the use, does not threaten the safety and welfare of the general public, does not interfere with an existing adjacent use and does not compromise existing ecological functions. (1) If a property is a designated EPA Superfund site, it may be considered exempt from public access requirements. (e) (f) Any type of industrial development on shorelines shall implement a range of Low Impact Development techniques to minimize the impacts on riparian and near-shore environments and upland areas. (g) Areas between industrial development and adjacent land uses and public access areas shall be located and landscaped so as to provide a transitional area as required for visual landscaped screening in BMC 20.50.050. (h) Ports with water-dependent and/or water-related uses shall also comply with the sections in this Master Program including, but not limited to: Transportation Facilities; Utilities; Water Access and Moorage Facilities. (i) Only water-dependent features shall be located on the shoreline within the buffer. All other features associated to an industrial use including, but not limited to waste treatment facilities, utilities, and transportation facilities not associated with water dependent elements of industrial shall be located as far away from the water's edge and recreational beaches as practical and must meet setbacks and buffers. (j) Outdoor storage is prohibited within shoreline jurisdiction, except by approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use permit. The applicant must demonstrate that the exterior storage is essential to the use and will not significantly impact shoreline views. (k) All proposed uses shall demonstrate that no spill or discharge to surface waters will result. The application must include a specific program to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with the activity. (l) Offshore log storage shall be allowed only to serve a processing use and shall be located where: (1) Water depth is sufficient without dredging; and (2) Water circulation is adequate to disperse polluting wastes; and (3) Log storage will not provide habitat for salmonid predators. (m) If a property is designated an EPA Superfund Site, shoreline armoring may be utilized as a means to prevent chemicals from leaching into the waterbody. (3) 8.060 Marinas and Boating Facilities: Marinas and boating facilities are water-dependent uses and are a preferred use on shorelines. Bremerton has a variety of such facilities that are both privately owned commercial and industrial facilities and those that are available to the general public. Boating facilities can include uses such as marinas, shipping and ferry terminals, transient mooring facilities, boat-ramps, upland dry-stack storage, boat construction, and boat Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 95 maintenance facilities. Policies: (a) New or expanded boating facilities should include restoration of ecological functions within the riparian and near-shore environment, especially for migrating salmonids and other aquatic species. (b) New or expanded boating facilities should be designed, constructed and managed such that there is no net loss of shoreline ecological function. (c) New or expanded boating facilities should provide the maximum amount of public access in a variety of forms. (Trail, view overlooks, transient and hand-carry craft moorage.) (d) New boating facilities should be located in areas where other water-oriented uses presently exist or could be established within close proximity. (e) New or expanded boating facilities should minimize the amount of associated parking and impervious surface within the shoreline jurisdiction. (f) New boating facilities should not include covered moorage and boathouses. (g) New boating facilities that require dredging for proper depth and/or removal of contaminated sediments should be consistent with all federal and state requirements for management of contaminated sediments and (h) Existing boating facilities, when retrofitted or as upgrades are necessary, should improve the existing ecological function by minimizing impacts to water quality, restoring hydrologic function and maintaining the viability of aquatic organisms. Regulations: (a) Boating facilities shall be designed to provide opportunities for aquatic ecological functions to establish and succeed. In order to do so, boating facilities shall be designed and located in areas that are previously disturbed or where impacts to existing ecological function can be avoided or minimized. (b) Boating facilities should be managed consistent with the Department of Ecology document titled “Resource Manual for Pollution Prevention in Marinas,” May 1998, Revised August 2009, Publication #9811. (c) Dry upland boat storage is preferred rather than over-water facilities in order to protect shoreline ecological functions, efficiently use shoreline space, and minimize consumption of public water surface areas unless: (1) No suitable upland locations exist for such facilities, or (2) It is demonstrated that wet moorage would result in fewer impacts to ecological functions, or (3) It is demonstrated that wet moorage would enhance public use of the shoreline. (d) New or expanded marinas shall be permitted only when the applicant has demonstrated that a specific need exists and there is not adequate supply in current facilities, permitted facilities, or facilities planned by public agencies, including Port Districts. Consideration of facilities shall include boat launching facilities and upland boat storage for smaller boats. (e) Marinas shall be permitted only on sites where it is demonstrated that: Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 96 (1) That they will not result in a net loss of ecological functions and specifically will not interfere with natural geomorphic processes including delta formation, water quality; water circulation and flushing or adversely affect native and anadromous fish. (2) Shoreline armoring is not required. (3) Future dredging is not required to accommodate navigability. (4) Shallow water embayments with poor flushing action or areas with extensive tidelands should not be considered. (f) Breakwaters constructed for protection of boating facilities shall be designed to allow public access along the top, where feasible. Pile or floating breakwater designs shall be used unless the proponent demonstrates that there are specific safety considerations that warrant alternative approaches. A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any boating facility that utilizes any construction other than piles or floating breakwaters. (g) Accessory uses at boating facilities shall be limited to those which are water- dependent, necessary for operation, or which provide physical or visual shoreline access to substantial numbers of the general public. Accessory uses shall be consistent in scale and intensity with surrounding boating uses. (h) New covered moorage is prohibited. Removal of existing covered moorage may be required as a condition of expansion or reconstruction of existing boating facilities. (i) Extended moorage is restricted on waters of the State except as allowed by applicable State regulations and unless a lease or permission is obtained from the State. (j) Boating facilities shall be permitted only when it is demonstrated that: (1) A specific need exists and there is not adequate supply in current facilities, permitted facilities, or facilities planned by public agencies, including Port Districts. (2) They will not result in a net loss of ecological functions and specifically will not interfere with natural geomorphic processes including processes including erosion, transport, and deposition of materials, water quality and adverse impacts on aquatic species. Areas with extensive tidelands should not be considered (3) They are served by adequate access over a public road that will not adversely impact residential uses; shall provide adequate on-site parking, including trailer parking, to assure that parking spillover does not occur on adjacent streets and uses; and shall be served by adequate utilities and public facilities, including restrooms. (4) Over water facilities, such as docks, shall be limited to the size and configuration needed to serve the boat launch function. (k) Application Materials: The following must be adequately addressed with the permit application submittal for a boating facility: (1) Provide adequate onsite parking as provided in BMC 20.48 and Chapter 6, Section 080.SMP section 7.080. (2) Provide adequate Utilities, (3) Address existing adjacent water-oriented uses, ensure new structures will not Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 97 impact such uses. (4) Provide documentation showing that the use will not impair block or introduce a hazard to existing or potential public access along beaches. (5) Ensure the use will not unreasonably impair shoreline views from upland residences and adjacent uses. (6) Include multiple uses such as dock fishing, boat lunching, and wet dry boat storage, and hand carry craft storage, as applicable for the boating facilities size and scope. (7) For marinas over forty (40) slips pump-out, holding, and waste treatment facilities and services shall be provided. (8) Provide public access as outlined in Chapter 6, Section 040SMP section 7.040. A public access plan is required and must address both visual and physical access and may be required to provide the following: (i) All marinas using public aquatic lands shall provide public access over at least twenty (20) percent of structures over aquatic lands, not including individual slips. (ii) Public restroom facilities shall be provided on marinas with more than 40 slips. (9) Address operational procedures for fuel handling and storage in order to minimize accidental spillage and to provide satisfactory means for handling spills that may occur. 8.070 Recreational Development: Water-oriented recreational development can include but is not limited to parks, trails, open spaces, beaches, boat or other watercraft rentals, fishing piers, aquariums, view platforms and over-water boardwalks. Policies: (a) Water-oriented recreational development is encouraged on shorelines provided it results in no net loss of ecological function and is a preferred use along shorelines of statewide significance. (b) Water-oriented recreational development on the shorelines should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the City of Bremerton Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan in terms of satisfying future demand and design. (c) Water-oriented recreational development should take precedence over non-water- oriented recreational uses. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 98 (d) Wherever possible, shoreline recreational facilities should be linked to other adjacent recreational attractions by pedestrian and/or bicycle trails. (e) Recreational development, where applicable, should include interpretive displays describing cultural, historical and scientific information. (f) Non-water-oriented recreational development uses should not be located on shorelines. Regulations: (a) Water-oriented recreation facilities shall be located and designed such that there is no net loss of shoreline ecological function. (b) Recreation activities are allowed when they do not displace water-dependent uses and are consistent with existing water-related and water-enjoyment uses. State-owned shorelines shall be recognized as particularly adapted to providing wilderness beaches, ecological study areas, and other recreational uses for the public in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(4). (c) Development of water-oriented recreation facilities shall comply with the mitigation sequencing specified in Chapter 7, SectionSMP section 7.030. (d) Development of recreation facilities shall implement, where applicable, the elements within the City of Bremerton Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan. (e) Recreational development shall be oriented towards the shoreline and shall provide the maximum possible amount of public access to the shoreline as follows: (1) Water-dependent recreation such as fishing, swimming, boating, and wading should be located on the shoreline. (2) Water-related recreation as picnicking, hiking, and walking should be located near the shoreline. (3) Non-water-related recreation facilities shall be located inland. Recreational facilities with large grass areas, such as golf courses and playing fields, and facilities with extensive impervious surfaces shall observe critical area buffers and vegetation conservation standards providing for native vegetation buffer areas along the shoreline. (f) New over-water structures for recreation use shall be allowed only when: (1) They allow opportunities for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. (2) They are not located in or adjacent to areas of exceptional ecological sensitivity, especially aquatic and wildlife habitat areas. (3) They are integrated with other public access features, particularly when they provide limited opportunities to approach the water’s edge in areas where public access is set back to protect sensitive ecological features at the water’s edge. (4) No net loss of ecological functions will be achieved. (5) The specific location and design is approved as a Shoreline Conditional Use. (g) Location and design of recreation facilities shall meet the following criteria: (1) The development shall provide parking and other necessary facilities to handle the designed public use. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 99 (2) Accessory facilities, such as restrooms, recreational halls and gymnasiums, commercial services, access roads and parking areas, shall be set back from the OHWM and shall meet Critical Area buffers unless it can be shown that such facilities are shoreline dependent. These areas may be linked to the shoreline by pedestrian walkways. (3) The development shall be located and designed to minimize detrimental impact on existing and planned use of nearby property. (4) The proposal will not create a net loss of ecological functions. (h) Street-end parks, where developed to serve community needs, shall be limited to walking on the beach, carry craft boat launching, waterfront viewing, swimming, or fishing, and shall be designed so as not to interfere with privacy of adjacent residential uses. (i) Private recreation uses and facilities that exclude the public from public aquatic lands are permitted only when the following additional criteria are met: (1) Reasonable public access shall be provided to the shoreline at no fee for sites providing recreational uses that are fee supported, including access along the water's edge where appropriate. In the case of facilities on public aquatic lands, no-fee access shall be provided to the public in common with any private use. (2) The development is located and designed to have no substantial detrimental impact on existing and planned use of nearby property. (j) Motorized vehicular access including the use of all-terrain and off-road vehicles in the shoreline area is prohibited, EXCEPT for boat launching and maintenance activities and EXCEPT where specific areas for such use are set aside and controlled, and then only when it can be demonstrated that demand is sufficient to warrant such activity. Provided that the exceptions above shall not apply to beaches, bars, spits, and streambeds. (k) Signs indicating the public's right of access to shoreline areas shall be installed and maintained in conspicuous locations at the point of access and the entrance. 8.080 Residential Development: Residential development includes subdivisions of large parcels, multi-family housing, condominiums, and single-family residences. Under the Shoreline Management Act, owner occupied single-family residences are a preferred use on the shorelines. Residential uses, however, can cause significant damage to the shoreline area through cumulative impacts resulting from vegetation loss, shoreline armoring, increased amount of impervious surfaces and resulting stormwater runoff, septic system failure, and additional vehicular trips. Policies: (a) Development of residential units should result in no net loss of ecological function. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 100 (b) Any residential development along the shoreline should be set back from steep slopes and eroding shoreline areas so that the shoreline is not further eroded nor structural improvements required to protect property. (c) In cases where either large tracts are subdivided into single-family residential parcels or where contiguous individual building sites are developed for single family residences, common public access areas and one joint-use dock, rather than single family docks, should be developed for the use of residents of the subject subdivision. (d) Design of residential development should include preservation of existing native vegetation to the greatest extent possible. (e) Residential development should be designed to minimize the amount of impervious area and should utilize Low Impact Development techniques to the greatest extent practicable (e.g., permeable pavers, stormwater infiltration and filtration). (f) New multi-unit residential development and the subdivision of land into more than five parcels should incorporate into the overall design planned public access amenities whenever feasible. Regulations: (a) Single Family Use Priority: Single family residential development is a priority use on the shoreline when developed in a manner consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment (b) Multi-Family Use Priority: Multi-family residential use is not a priority for location on the shoreline under the Shoreline Management Act and is subject to the preference for water-dependent and water-oriented use and must provide for meeting the requirements for ecological productivity and public access. (c) Water-Dependent Use Priority: Multi-family development may not be approved if it displaces existing water-dependent uses. Multi-family development is preferred as part of mixed used development including water-dependent, water-related and water- enjoyment use. Multi-family development uses may be permitted only where it provides significant public benefit with respect to the objectives of the Act by: (1) Restoration of ecological functions, both in aquatic and upland environments, shall provide native vegetation buffers according to the standards provided for critical areas or in accordance with the Restoration Element of this document. (2) Provision of public access in accordance with Chapter 7, Section 040 SMP section 7.040- Public Access. (d) Over-Water Homes: Over-water residences and floating homes are prohibited. Existing floating on-water residences legally established and moored within a marina within the City of Bremerton prior to July 1, 2014 are considered a conforming use and should be accommodated through reasonable permit conditions, or mitigation that will not effectively preclude maintenance, repair, replacement, and remodeling of existing floating on-water residences and their moorages by rendering these actions impracticable. (e) Shore Stabilization: New residential development shall not require shoreline stabilization. Prior to approval, a qualified professional must provide a site analysis establishing that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary for each new lot to Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 101 support intended development during the life of the development. (f) Fills: New residential development shall meet all critical area provisions of this program. Filling of, or into, water bodies or their associated wetlands for the purpose of subdivision or multi-family construction shall not be permitted. (g) Public Access: Residential developments, including subdivisions, and planned unit developments, of five (5) or more lots/units shall provide "improved public access" for all residents of the development and the general public, in compliance with public access standards contained in Chapter 7, SectionSMP section 7.040 - Public Access. (h) Private Docks: All new subdivisions shall record a prohibition on new private individual docks on the face of the plat in accordance with Chapter 9, SectionSMP section 9.030 - Docks, Piers, and In-Water Structures. An area reserved for shared moorage may be designated if it meets all requirements of this Program. (i) Low Impact Development: Residential development shall be designed to minimize the amount of impervious area and shall utilize Low Impact Development techniques to the greatest extent feasible (e.g., permeable pavers, stormwater infiltration and filtration). (j) Residential Subdivision: All subdivisions that create a new lot on the shoreline shall comply with applicable standard shoreline buffer and setbacks. In all cases, all new lots on the shoreline shall fully populate the standard buffer area with native vegetation, however, planting may be accomplished after final plat at the time the lot is developed; in these instances conditions shall be placed on the face of the recorded final subdivision document specifying conditions of approval. (j)(k) Application Requirements: Applications for development of subdivisions and multi- family developments shall include the following information (at minimum) in addition to other submittal requirements: (1) Details (graphic and textual) of any proposed alteration in the natural character of the shoreline; (2) Provisions for lot owner or occupant access to the water body; (3) Provisions for public access to the water body. 8.090 Roads, Railways, and Utilities: Roads, railways and utilities are necessary to provide efficient public circulation and the shipment of goods and services. These transportation circuits can include but are not limited to roads, highways and interstates, rail lines and spurs, public service water and sewer mains, power generation, transmission and distribution facilities, and wireless communication facilities. Policies: (a) All new roadways, arterials, utilities and railways, including expansions of these systems, should be located and designed to avoid shorelands, unless no feasible alternative is feasible, and should minimize impacts to shoreline ecological functions. (b) Location and design of new roadways including arterials should not compromise existing and planned shoreline public access or existing and planned habitat Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 102 restoration and enhancement. (c) New roadways, when necessary within shorelines, should be located and designed in such a manner that the minimum width and length of travel-way for vehicles is provided and appropriate provision made for pedestrian and multi-modal forms of transportation. (d) New roadways should be designed and constructed to implement a range of available Low Impact Development techniques. (e) New utilities for the delivery of services and products such as, but not limited to public sewer, water and storm mains and services, pipelines, power and transmission facilities should be located outside of shorelines, critical areas and their associated buffers unless intended specifically for a permitted use. (f) Whenever feasible, utilities should be co-located within existing right-of-way corridors. (g) Installation of utilities, including maintenance and expansion of existing utilities, should improve the project area from its original condition by native vegetation installation and management. (h) Utilities should provide public access to the shoreline when practical. Regulations: (a) Ecological Function: New roadways, utilities and railways shall mitigate their impacts such that the result is a no net loss of shoreline ecological function. (b) Location Priority: New or substantially expanded roads, railroads and bridges may be located within shoreline jurisdiction only if: (1) The facility is needed within the shoreline jurisdiction to support permitted shoreline activities. (2) No feasible upland alternative exists based on analysis of system options that assess the potential for alternative routes outside shoreline jurisdiction or set back further from the land/water interface. (c) Transportation Facilities: Transportation facilities shall be located and designed to avoid significant natural, historic, archaeological or cultural sites to the maximum extent feasible, and mitigate unavoidable impacts to result in no net loss of ecological processes and functions. (d) Design Criteria: Where permitted, transportation facilities shall meet the following design criteria: (1) Roads, railroads, and bridges shall cross the shoreline area by the shortest most direct route, unless such route would cause substantial environmental damage. (2) The project shall be located and designed to fit the existing topography as much as possible, thus minimizing alterations to the natural environment. (3) Facilities located within critical areas, particularly in wetlands areas, should be designed to avoid the resource and may be permitted only if in compliance with standards for those areas. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 103 (4) Construction of facilities shall be designed to protect the shoreline against erosion, uncontrolled or polluting drainage and other factors detrimental to the environment, both during and after construction. (5) All debris, cut and fill material, overburden, and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion from drainage into any water body. (6) Facilities shall provide for passage of high flows, flood waters, debris, fish passage, and wildlife movement by providing bridges with the longest span feasible and the greatest height feasible. When bridges are not feasible, culverts or other features shall be utilized that are large enough to provide for these functions. (7) The project shall provide the minimum width and length of travel-way for vehicles and provide facilities for safe pedestrian and other non-motorized travel along all public integrated with trail and bicycle systems along shorelines to the maximum extent feasible. When public roads will afford scenic vistas, viewpoint areas shall be provided. (8) New roadways should be designed and constructed to implement Low Impact Development techniques. (9) Landscape planting is required along all shoreline roads, parking, and turnout facilities to: (i) Provide buffers between pedestrian and auto users; (ii) Enhance the shoreline driving experience; and (iii) Enhance and complement potential views of shoreline areas. (10) Height restrictions do not apply to public bridges. Compliance with all other code provisions shall apply. (e) Unused ROW: In order to improve public access to the shoreline Tthe City should acquire and/or retain abandoned or unused road or railroad rights-of-way for public access to and/or along the water to improve public shoreline access. (f) Road Ends: Road ends abutting water bodies shall be reviewed for potential use and development for public access to the water, and be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Public Access Plan as appropriate. (g) Vacations: The City shall not vacate any public right-of-way in a shoreline location until adopting a Comprehensive Public Access plan for the area showing that the subject right-of-way cannot be used as a contributing element in that plan. The City shall vacate public right-of-way abutting a body of salt or fresh water only in compliance with RCW 35.79.035 which allows vacations of streets abutting bodies of water pursuant to state law criteria, or as amended. only when: (1) The vacation will enable acquisition of the property for public purposes; (2) The street or alley is not suitable for certain purposes (e.g. port, park, education); or (3) The vacation will enable implementation of a public access plan. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 104 (h) Utility Location Criteria: New or substantially expanded utilities may be located within shoreline jurisdiction only if: (1) The facility is needed within the shoreline jurisdiction to support permitted shoreline activities; (2) No feasible upland alternative exists based on analysis of system options that assess the potential for alternative routes outside shoreline jurisdiction or is set back further from the land/water interface; and (3) Facilities will not degrade or obstruct scenic views. (i) Utilities: Utilities shall be located and designed to avoid significant natural, historic, archaeological or cultural sites to the maximum extent feasible, and mitigate unavoidable impacts to result in no net loss of ecological processes and functions. (j) Utility Design Criteria: Utilities, where permitted, shall meet the following design criteria: (1) Facilities should occupy as little of the shoreline as feasible. Utility installation parallel to the shoreline should be avoided to the maximum extent feasible. Utilities shall cross the shoreline area by the shortest most direct route, unless such route would cause substantial environmental damage. (2) Utilities shall be located and designed to fit the existing topography as much as possible, thus minimizing alterations to the natural environment. (3) Facilities shall be located and designed to minimize obstruction of scenic views. (4) Utility crossings of water bodies shall be attached to bridges or located in other existing facilities, if feasible. If new installations are required to cross water bodies or wetlands, they should avoid disturbing banks and streambeds and shall be designed to avoid the need for shoreline stabilization. Crossings shall be tunneled or bored where feasible. Installations shall be deep enough to avoid failures or need for protection due to exposure due to stream bed mobilization, aggregation or lateral migration. Underwater utilities shall be placed in a sleeve if feasible to avoid the need for excavation in the event of the need for maintenance or replacement. (k) Architectural Compatibility: Facilities involving buildings, such as pump stations, electrical substation, or other facilities, shall be architecturally compatible and landscaped to assure compatibility with natural features, public access facilities, and adjacent uses. (l) Construction Practices: Construction shall be designed to protect the shoreline against erosion, uncontrolled or polluting drainage and other factors detrimental to the environment, both during and after construction. (m) Easements: Access easements to utility installations shall be no wider than needed to construct, maintain, or repair the utility. (n) Public Access: Utility development shall provide for compatible, multiple use of sites and rights-of-way through coordination with local government agencies. Such uses include shoreline access points, trail systems, and other forms of recreation and transportation, providing that public access will not unduly interfere with utility operations, endangers public health and safety, or create a significant and Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 105 disproportionate liability for the owner. (o) Landscape RestorationMaintenance Projects: Upon completion of installation of projects on shorelines, disturbed non-impervious areas shall be restored to pre- project configuration, replanted with native species, and provided maintenance care until the newly planted vegetation is established. A landscape restoration plan is required. (p) Storm Drainage/Sewer Outfalls: Storm drainage and sewer outfalls are encouraged to locate shall be located beyond the extreme low tide line/mean low lower water. However, at the discretion of Director on a case-by-case basis storm facilities may locate above the extreme low tide line in order to mitigate maintenance and sediment infill for the City. In addition, storm drainage and sewer outfalls must be located to avoid and minimize impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation, forage fish spawning beds, and shellfish beds. If this provision cannot be met, the applicant will demonstrate that alternatives with less to no impact on aquatic vegetation and shellfish beds are not feasible due to design constraints. (q) Applications: All applications for installation of utility facilities shall include the following information prepared by a qualified professional: (1) Reason why facility must be located in a shoreline area; (2) Alternative locations considered, including the feasibility of location within existing utility right-of-way, and reasons for their rejection; (3) Location of other facilities near the proposed project and if the location is to include other types of facilities; (4) Proposed method of construction and plans to control erosion and turbidity during construction; (5) Plans for reclamation of areas disturbed during construction; (6) Any other information deemed necessary. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 106 Chapter 9 – Shoreline Modifications 9.010 – Intent 9.020 – Clearing and Grading 9.030 – Docks, Piers, and In-Water structures 9.040 – Dredging 9.050 – Flood Hazard Reduction 9.060 – Landfills 9.070 – Restoration and Conservation 9.080 – Shoreline Stabilization 9.090 – Stormwater Control Management Facilities 9.010 Intent: These policies and regulations relate to land use proposals that are typically accessory and in support of primary land uses. Shoreline modifications should ensure no net loss of ecological functions and should be as natural as feasible. 9.020 Clearing and Grading: Clearing and grading are permitted as an element of development or re-development for an authorized activity or as otherwise allowed in this Title. Policies: (a) Disturbance to and removal of native soils should be minimized within shorelines. (b) Uses and site design should incorporate protection or reestablishment of the maximum amount of native vegetation on a particular site. (c) Vegetation that is removed as part of a permitted use should be reestablished within a required buffer. Regulations: (a) Clearing, grading, and shoreline native vegetation protection and removal shall comply with the standards in the general policies standards section (Chapter 7). (b) Disturbance to soils shall adhere to the following standards: (1) Land clearing, filling, and grading activities that are associated with a permitted use below the OHWM that shall be allowed only between May 1 and October 1 unless the City or Department of Fish and Wildlife extends or shortens the allowable work time window per on a case-by-case basis based on actual weather conditions as applied in BMC 20.14.700, which requires shoreline erosion control measures and a qualified professionals according to an approved report prepared by a qualified professional. (2) Filling or grading including excavation within or modification to a critical area is permitted only as part of an approved activity subject to the applicable requirements within this Title. (3) The soil duff layer (the matted, partly decomposed organic surface layer of forest Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 107 soils) shall remain undisturbed to the maximum extent possible. Where feasible any soil disturbed shall be redistributed to other areas of the project site. (4) The moisture holding capacity of the topsoil layer shall be maintained by minimizing soil compaction or reestablishing natural soil structure and infiltration capacity on all areas of the project area not covered by impervious surfaces. (5) Erosion control shall comply with the requirements in BMC 15.04. 9.030 Docks, Piers, and Other In-Water Structures: In-water (marine and freshwater) structures include but are not limited to jetties, pilings, fish ladders, mooring buoys, docks, piers, breakwaters, groins, marine railways, weirs, baffles, and similar structures . Policies: (a) In-water structures should be designed to minimize impacts to ecological functions of the water body including, but not limited to water quality, anadromous and forage fish habitat, spawning and rearing areas, migration, and passage. (b) In-water structures should not adversely affect hydrologic function including light penetration within the photic zone, sediment transport, and current and water circulation patterns. (c) The location and planning of in-water structures should give due consideration to the full range of public interests and environmental concerns. (d) Analysis of cumulative impacts of in-water structures should be conducted such that the connectivity between habitats for migrating salmonids is maintained and restored where feasible. Regulations: (a) Ecological Function: (1) New in-water structures shall be designed and constructed such that the result is no net loss of shoreline ecological function. New in-water structures shall not adversely affect hydrologic function, ability for light to penetrate within the photic zone, sediment transport and water-circulation patterns. (2) Piers and docks, including those accessory to single-family residences, shall be designed and constructed to avoid, or if that is not possible, to minimize and mitigate the impacts to ecological functions, critical areas resources such as eelgrass beds and fish habitats and processes such as currents and littoral drift. (3) Creosote, arsenic and pentachlorophenol treated materials used for in-water structures shall be prohibited. (b) Light Penetration: All piers, and docks and bridges must achieve light penetration by grating or other means unless it would pose a public safety or environmental risk, as follows: (1) Grating must be provided over at least (40%) forty percent of the pier or float area and must be provided over at least 60 percent of the structure(s) within 30 feet of the OHWM. Areas blocked by objects underneath, such as floatation devices shall not be counted toward the 40% forty percent total. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 108 (2) Grating must have at least 60 percent open area. The grating must be oriented to maximize the amount of light passage. This can be accomplished by orienting the lengthwise direction of the grate openings in the east-west direction. (3) To ensure that light transmission is not impeded, grating must not be covered or blocked (on the surface or underneath) with any objects, such as, but not limited to buildings, planters, storage sheds or boxes, nets, carpets, boards, tables, lawn furniture, traction devices or other items that will block sunlight. (4) Light penetration standards do not apply to public bridges. (c) Navigation: (1) In-water structures shall not impair or obstruct existing navigation channels or the public’s use of surface water or shoreline areas as required by the Coast Guard. (2) Piers, docks and moorage shall be prohibited where navigation may be impaired significantly at entrances to bays, channels, or coves. Piers and docks are prohibited in the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay, as depicted in Chapter 4, SectionSMP section 4.420 020 map M. In addition, to protect sensitive aquatic environment, docks and piers are prohibited within the Aquatic Conservancy designation (mooring buoys are not prohibited). (3) Piers and docks shall project the minimum distance necessary to service the appurtenant vessels and shall not create a hazard to navigation. When State harbor lines have been designated, piers and docks shall be located shoreward of the outer harbor line. (d) Use Priority: New in water structures shall be allowed only for water-dependent uses, and public access. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses may be allowed as part of mixed-use development on over-water structures where they are clearly auxiliary to and in support of water-dependent uses, provided the minimum size requirement needed to meet the water-dependent use is not violated. (e) Joint Use: Joint-use facilities are preferred over new single use piers, docks and floats. Easements ensuring adequate access for all users of the joint-use facility shall be required and recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor. In order to develop new moorage, an applicant must demonstrate that existing facilities (public and private marinas or shared moorage) are not reasonably available to meet demand. In cases where new moorage is approved, multiple use and/or expansion of existing piers, wharfs and docks may be required (in lieu of the proliferation of new facilities) in order to minimize the consumption of limited shoreline resources and cumulative impacts on ecological resources. (f) Subdivisions: New subdivisions with shoreline frontage shall provide community or shared docks if any docks are proposed. New subdivisions shall contain a restriction on the face of the plat prohibiting individual docks. A site for community or shared moorage shall be designated on the plat and owned in undivided interest by property owners within the subdivision. Shared moorage facilities shall be available to property owners in the subdivision for community access and may be required to provide public access depending on the scale of the facility. Approval shall be subject to the following criteria: (1) The applicant shall demonstrate that there is no reasonably available public or Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 109 private moorage that can serve the moorage needs of the subdivision. (2) Shared moorage to serve new development shall be limited to the amount of moorage needed to serve lots with water frontage. One moorage space per lot may not be presumed. (3) Development of more than one dock shall include documentation that a single dock would not accommodate the need or that adverse impacts on ecological functions would result from the size of dock required. (4) The size of a dock must consider the use of mooring buoys for some or all moorage needs and the use of all or part of the dock to allow tender access to mooring buoys. (5) Public access shall be provided in association with all shared docks utilizing public aquatic lands that accommodate five (5) or more vessels. (6) If a community or shared dock is not developed at the time of subdivision, a community association shall be established with the authority to levy assessments within the subdivision to construct and maintain a community dock in the future. The failure of a subdivision to develop a community or shared dock shall not affect the prohibition on individual docks. (g) Commercial & Industrial Docks: Permits for docks or piers serving single commercial or industrial enterprises shall not be granted unless it is demonstrated that the facility serves a water-dependent use and adjacent commercial and/or industrial enterprises are not willing to cooperatively develop a joint-use facility. (1) Non-Residential Piers and Docks shall be the minimum size feasible to serve the proposed water-dependent use. (h) Multi-Family & Commercial Moorage: Multi-family residences, hotels, motels, and other commercial developments proposing to provide moorage facilities shall meet the criteria for a marina. Use of the moorage must be open to the general public on the same basis as residents or occupants and shall provide public access. If approved, no more than one joint-use moorage facility may be provided. (i) Single Family Docks: No more than one (1) private noncommercial single-use dock is permitted per platted shoreline lot or un-platted shoreline tract on a residentially designated area (this does not apply to subdivisions approved on or after the adoption date of this code; for such subdivisions see subsection f, above). The dock must be designed and intended as a facility for access to watercraft. An applicant shall demonstrate that: (1) A mooring buoy is not feasible to provide moorage. A mooring buoy may be approved in conjunction with an individual or shared tender dock to provide small boat access to the buoy. (2) There is no shared moorage available, and there is no homeowners association or other corporate entity capable of developing shared moorage. (j) Single Family Dock Size Limitations: Residential piers and/or docks shall be limited to the minimum necessary to meet the need for moorage and are limited to the following sizes: (1) Length: Maximum length of a residential pier or dock shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish moorage for the intended boating uses, and shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of ten (10) feet of water as measured at Mean Lower Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 110 Low Water Line (MLLW) in marine shorelines or as measured at Ordinary High Water (OHWM) in fresh water shorelines. Any dock proposed to be sixty (60) feet in length or greater must demonstrate that a mooring buoy in conjunction with a shorter tender dock to provide small boat access to the buoy is not feasible. (2) Width: (i) The Landing area, particularly over shallower areas, should be built in the north-south direction, if at all possible to avoid shading effects that would occur with east-west orientation. (ii) The float shall have a maximum width of eight (8) feet. Single Use floats shall be no longer than thirty (30) feet. Joint Use floats shall be no longer than sixty (60) feet. (iii) Pier or walkway maximum width: Four (4) feet; (k) Community Piers and Docks Size Limitations: (1) Maximum Width and Length: To be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis based on the minimum dimensions feasible. (2) Density: No more than one (1) forty foot (40') moorage space per dwelling unit or lot with direct shoreline frontage. (l) Public Piers and Docks Size Limitations: (1) Maximum Width and Length: To be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis based on the minimum dimensions feasible. (l)(m) Side Yard Setbacks: Docks shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from side property lines. Exception: Community piers and docks may be located adjacent to or upon a side property line when mutually agreed to by contract/covenant with the owners of the adjacent property, a copy of which must be recorded with the County Auditor and filed with the application for permit. (m)(n) Floats & Buoys: Recreation floats and mooring buoys shall be located no further seaward than existing floats and mooring buoys or no further seaward than necessary to achieve minimum feasible depths and shall be readily discernible under normal conditions to the unaided eye at a minimum distance of 100 yards. The size and design must comply with the following: (1) Floats must be built so that the deck surface is no more than two (2) feet above the water's surface and must have reflectors for nighttime visibility. (2) Single property owner recreational floats shall be no larger than sixty-four (64) square feet. (3) Joint-use floats shall be no larger than ninety-six (96) square feet. (n)(o) Marine Rails: Boat launching ramps and marine railways shall be designed as to not obstruct longshore drift. Residential launch ramps or marine railways are prohibited. 9.040 Dredging: Dredging is the removal of material from a water body. The purposes for dredging might include navigation, remediation of contaminated materials, or material mining. Materials Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 111 generated from navigational and remedial dredging may be suitable for beneficial reuse (e.g., construction of habitat features or construction of uplands) or may require disposal at appropriate disposal facilities. Policies: (a) Dredging should be allowed only to accommodate existing navigational uses, remediation of contaminated materials, or approved water-dependent uses and then only when ecological impacts are minimized and mitigation is provided. (b) Deposition of dredge spoils waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark should be allowed only when necessary to support allowed water dependent use, public access, beach restoration or Model Toxics Control act or the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act and other water dependent uses that are consistent with this master program or consistent with locations approved by the State Departments of Natural Resources, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife where the alternatives of depositing materials on land is more detrimental to shoreline resources than depositing it in water areas. (c) Dredging within aquatic areas for the primary purpose of acquisition of fill material should not be allowed. (d) Where dredging occurs within marine waters the result should be suitable for establishment of a variety of aquatic organisms including, where appropriate, salmonids and forage fish. Regulations: (a) Dredging and dredge material disposal shall be done in a manner which avoids or minimizes significant ecological impacts. When impacts cannot be avoided they should be mitigated in a manner that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (b) New development shall be sited and designed to avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize the need for new and maintenance dredging. (c) Dredging for the purpose of establishing, expanding, relocating or reconfiguring navigation channels and basins shall be allowed where necessary for assuring safe and efficient accommodation of existing navigational uses, and then only when significant ecological impacts are minimized and mitigation is provided. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins shall be permitted only to the limits originally allowed. (d) Dredging waterward of the ordinary high-water mark for the primary purpose of obtaining fill material shall be prohibited, except when the material is necessary for the restoration of ecological functions. In this case the project must be either associated with a Model Toxics Control Act or a Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act remediation project, or a habitat restoration project approved through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. (e) Dredging spoils shall be deposited upland if feasible, and measures taken to prevent erosion of the deposited material. If the deposit area is on the shoreline, a vegetation inventory and restoration shall be required, consistent with the vegetation conservation and critical areas regulations of the Master Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 112 Program. (f) Spoil deposit sites in water areas shall be identified with the cooperation of the State Departments of Natural Resources, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, and Suquamish Tribe. Depositing of dredge materials in water areas shall be allowed only for habitat improvement, to correct existing problems of material distribution adversely affecting fish and shellfish resources, or where the alternatives of depositing materials on land is more detrimental to shoreline resources than depositing it in water areas. (g) Disposal of dredge material on shorelands or wetlands within a river's channel migration zone shall be discouraged. In the limited instances where it is allowed, such disposal shall require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. (h) All applications for dredging shall provide the following information prepared by a qualified professional and any other information deemed necessary: (1) An analysis of material to be dredged; (2) Time of dredging; (3) Method of dredging and disposal; (4) Location and stability of bedlands adjacent to proposed dredging area; (5) Ecological processes and functions affected by the proposed dredging; (6) Location, size, capacity, physical and ecologic characteristics of spoils disposal area. 9.050 Flood Hazard Reduction: Policies: (a) The City should recognize that seasonal flooding is an essential natural process and minimize alteration of such processes where feasible. (b) Flood hazard reduction measures should not result in a net loss of ecological functions associated with the rivers and streams. (c) Flood hazard reduction measures should be consistent with comprehensive strategies that recognize the natural hydro-geological and biological processes of water-bodies and should seek to restore ecological functions within frequently flooded areas. (d) Development in frequently flooded areas should be prevented or existing development removed when feasible and to maintain or restore a stream system's natural hydrological and geo-morphological processes. (e) Bioengineered flood hazard reduction techniques are preferred and should be examined and implemented where feasible rather than structural measures. Regulations: (a) Flood control works shall be permitted only when it is demonstrated by engineering and scientific evaluation by qualified professionals that: (1) They are necessary to protect health/safety and/or existing development; (2) Non-structural flood hazard reduction measures are infeasible; and (3) Measures are consistent with an adopted comprehensive flood hazard Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 113 management plan that evaluates cumulative impacts to the watershed or coastal reach. (b) New or expanding development or uses in the shoreline, including subdivision of land that would likely require new structural flood control works within a stream, channel migration zone, or floodway, should not be allowed. (c) New or expanded flood control works and in-stream structures should be planned and designed to be compatible with appropriate multiple uses of stream resources over the long term, especially in shorelines of statewide significance. (d) Flood control works should incorporate native vegetation to the extent feasible to enhance ecological functions, create a more natural appearance, improve ecological functions, and provide more flexibility for long term shoreline management. (e) To minimize flood damages and to maintain natural resources associated with streams, overflow corridors and other alternatives to traditional bank levees, revetments and/or dams should be considered. Setback levees and similar measures should be employed where they will result in lower flood peaks and velocities, and more effective conservation of ecological resources than with bank levees. (f) Non-structural and non-regulatory methods to protect, enhance, and restore shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline resources should be encouraged as an alternative to structural flood control works. Non-regulatory and non-structural methods may include public facility and resource planning, land or easement acquisition, education, voluntary protection and enhancement projects, or incentive programs. Removal of 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. (g) Flood management diking shall be located landward of the floodway base (100-year frequency) flood, and landward any wetlands associated or directly interrelated and interdependent with the water body. (h) Linear public access shall be provided whenever possible as outlined in the public access requirements in Chapter 7, sectionSMP section 7.040, unless it is demonstrated that public access would cause unavoidable public health and safety hazards, or security problems, or unmitigatable ecological impacts, or unavoidable conflicts with proposed uses, or unreasonable cost. Improved trail systems are preferred. At a minimum, flood control works should not decrease existing or potential public access to shorelines. 9.060 Landfills: Landfill is the creation of dry upland area by the placement or deposition of sand, soil, gravel or contaminated sediments into a water body. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 114 Policies: (a) Landfills waterward of OHWM should be allowed only when necessary to support, public access, beach restoration, or MTCA / CERCLA restoration projects and other water dependent uses that are consistent with this master program. (b) Landfills should be limited in the shoreline and should be the minimum necessary. Regulations: (a) Landfills within shorelines shall be permitted only through a Conditional Use Permit and shall be allowed only when necessary to support: (1) Water-dependent use, or; (2) Public access, or; (3) Cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an interagency environmental clean-up plan, or; (4) Disposal of dredged material considered suitable under, and conducted in accordance with the dredged material management program of the Department of Natural Resources, or; (5) Expansion or alteration of transportation facilities of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline, and then only upon a demonstration that alternatives to fill are not feasible, or; (6) Mitigation action, approved environmental restoration, beach nourishment, or an approved enhancement project. (b) (a) Shoreline fills or cuts shall be designed and located so that there will be no significant change to natural shoreline topography or damage to existing ecological systems or natural resources, and no alteration of local currents which would result in a hazard to adjacent life, property, or natural resources systems. (c) Landfills shall include restoration and/or enhancement of ecological functions within the shoreline consistent with the restoration objectives within the Restoration Plan and shall provide public access where feasible. (d) Applications which include landfills shall include the following information prepared by a qualified professional: (1) Physical, chemical and biological character of landfill material; (2) Proposed use of fill area; (3) Source of landfill material; (4) Method of placement and compaction; (5) Type of proposed surfacing or vegetation cover; (6) Method of perimeter erosion control; and (7) Any other information deemed necessary. 9.070 Restoration and Conservation: Restoration is the improvement or reestablishment of impaired ecological shoreline Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 115 processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to: amending soils, planting native vegetation, removing derelict shoreline structures, removing or treating toxic materials, and restoring the natural configuration of banks within near-shore or riparian areas. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions (WAC 173-26). The citywide objective of restoration is to achieve a net gain in ecological function within the watershed. Policies: (a) The primary objectives of restoration projects should be to protect and restore natural processes controlling environmental factors. (b) The Suquamish Tribe, Corps of Engineers, Washington Department of Ecology, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and other appropriate resource agencies should be included at the beginning of the design and development stages of a restoration project or plan. (c) The goals of the Restoration Plan should be considered for all restoration and conservation projects. (d) Restoration and conservation may take place as a stand-alone project or as a required element of a larger development proposal. In either case the following should be achieved, as feasible: (1) Non-native vegetative species should be controlled and native vegetation established (soil amendments, including mulching, may be required to support native vegetation); (2) Installation of native vegetation should be an appropriate mix of deciduous, conifer, under-story and groundcover species that are capable of achieving substantial water body shading, provide food sources for a variety of species, enhance and connect to habitat corridors and slow movement of groundwater and sheet-flow towards the water body; (3) Introduction of large woody debris to the water body should not adversely impact fish passage or hydrologic function; and (4) Design and implementation of restoration projects that alter the location of the OHWM should not negatively impact abutting or proximate (third party) property owners, compromise the integrity or threaten the loss of existing structures, transportation routes, public access areas or cause significant additional erosion. Regulations: (a) Restoration projects that are within critical areas, or their required buffers are permitted subject to the applicable requirements within this Title. (b) Restoration projects that achieve the objectives within the Restoration Plan shall have priority over other restoration projects. (c) Restoration projects that include structural modification or stabilization shall first consider preferred techniques as specified in Chapter 9, SectionSMP section 9.080 Shoreline Stabilization. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 116 (d) Restoration projects shall be designed and implemented such that there are no adverse impacts on ecological resources or functions. (e) Restoration projects shall include a maintenance and monitoring plan and financial surety as outlined in Chapter 7, sectionSMP section 7.020030 (vegetation plan) that includes a guarantee and/or contingency plan when said project does not achieve its intended objective. (f) Restoration projects shall take into consideration existing and lawfully erected structures and developments such that their safety is not compromised. (g) Restoration projects shall not conflict with existing utilities, roadways and public access points unless those functions can be relocated such that the public benefit remains the same or is improved. 9.080 Shore Stabilization: Shoreline stabilization measures are those mechanisms used to prevent erosion and deterioration of shoreline areas as a result of waves, wind, tidal action, or flooding. Shoreline stabilization measures can include a wide range of works varying from hard armoring to vegetation conservation and anchoring of trees. Policies: (a) New development should be managed and designed to eliminate the need for shoreline modification or stabilization. (b) Replacement of rigid structurally engineered stabilization measures with the same new measures should not occur unless it is associated with a water-dependent use or there is a demonstrated need based on potential loss of a legally permitted primary structure or there is a threat to the viability of an existing water-dependent use. (c) Whenever feasible, bioengineered and soft-shore shoreline modifications and stabilization should be explored and implemented before reverting to structurally engineered techniques. Regulations: (a) Hierarchy of Alternatives: Alternatives for shoreline stabilization shall be based on the following hierarchy of preference: (1) No action (allow the shoreline to retreat naturally), increase building setbacks, and relocate structures. (2) Provide flexible stabilization constructed of natural materials incorporating measures such as soft shore protection and bioengineering, including beach nourishment, protective berms, or vegetative stabilization. (3) Provide flexible stabilization, as described above, with rigid works, as described below, constructed as a protective measure. (4) Construct rigid works constructed of artificial materials such as riprap or concrete. (b) Stabilization Necessity: New structural stabilization measures shall not be allowed for existing developments except when necessity is demonstrated in the following Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 117 manner: (1) To protect existing primary structures: New or enlarged structural shoreline stabilization measures for an existing primary structure, including residences, shall not be allowed unless there is conclusive evidence, documented by a qualified professional, that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion caused by currents, or waves. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline erosion itself, without a scientific and geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need. Site analysis, at a minimum, must include the following to demonstrate the need of a structural solution: (i) On-site drainage issues. The report(s) must clearly evaluate and resolve existing drainage problems before considering structural shore stabilization. (ii) The report(s) must clearly evaluate supplementary beach nourishment and/or soft-shore measures and such measures must be shown to be impractical or non-effective, as demonstrated through a geotechnical report. (iii) The report(s) must clearly establish that the stabilization structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (iv) The report(s) must clearly establish the lack of structural integrity of the existing structure due to ongoing wave action. (2) To protect a new water-dependent development, or new single-family residences, when all of the conditions below apply and are documented by a qualified professional: (i) The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions such as the loss of vegetation and drainage. (ii) Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development further from the shoreline, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. (iii) The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report. The damage must be caused by natural processes such as currents, and waves. (iv) Supplementary beach nourishment must be shown to be impractical or non- effective, as demonstrated through a geotechnical report. (v) To protect an existing non-water-dependent development, when all of the conditions below apply and are documented by a qualified professional: The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions such as the loss of vegetation and drainage; (vi) Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible; (vii) Stabilization structures are needed to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion; (viii) Supplementary beach nourishment is shown to be impractical and ineffective; (ix) The affected structure cannot be feasibly located or relocated outside of the Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 118 area affected by natural shoreline erosion processes; (x) The stabilization structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (3) To protect projects for the restoration of ecological functions or hazardous substance remediation projects pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW. All of the conditions below apply and are documented by a qualified professional: (i) Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. (ii) The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (c) Creeks and Streams: Creeks and streams shall be maintained in their natural state, free of shoreline modification, where they are not now influenced by urban growth and channelization. Where natural processes and functions have been substantially altered, shoreline stabilization shall avoid substantial channel direction modifications, realignment and straightening as a consequence of shore stabilization and flood management. (d) Bulkhead/Seawall Location: (1) On all shorelines, bulkheads/seawalls shall be located landward of the OHWM, landward of existing protective berms (artificial or natural), and shall be located generally parallel to the natural shoreline. (2) On Marine Accretion Beaches, bulkheads/seawalls shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet landward of the OHWM, and shall parallel the natural shoreline; except on sloping or bluff/cliff shores where said setback is not feasible, in which case bulkheads shall be placed as far landward of the OHWM as is feasible. In no case shall the bulkhead be waterward of the OHWM. (3) On driftways and lake shores that are subject to erosion bulkheads/seawalls shall be located within one (1) foot of the bank toe and shall generally parallel the natural shoreline. (4) On bluff or bank shorelines with no adjacent bulkheads/seawalls the bulkheads/seawalls shall be as close to the bank as possible and in no case shall it be more than three (3) feet from the toe of the natural bank. (5) A bulkhead/seawall for a permitted landfill shall be located at the toe of the fill. (6) Replacement bulkheads/seawalls shall be located no further waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings (e) Design: new and replacement bulkheads/seawalls shall comply with the following design and construction criteria: (1) Bulkheads/seawalls shall be sited and designed consistent with appropriate engineering principles. Professional geologic site studies or design may be required for any proposed bulkhead if the City determines sufficient uncertainties exist. Grounds for such determination shall be inadequate information or expertise on local physical features; and/or the evidence of potential damage to other shoreline properties and features. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 119 (2) Bulkheads/seawalls shall be the minimum dimensions necessary to adequately protect the development. (3) Stairs or other permitted structures may be built into a bulkhead, but shall not extend waterward of it. (4) Bulkheads/seawalls shall be designed to permit the passage of surface or ground water without causing ponding or saturation of retained soil/materials. (5) Adequate toe protection (i.e. proper footings and a fine retention mesh, etc.) shall be provided to ensure bulkhead stability without relying on additional riprap. (6) Sheet piling and precast concrete slabs with vertical waterward faces shall include adequate tiebacks and toe protection. (7) Bulkheads/seawalls shall utilize stable, non-erodible, homogeneous materials (e.g. concrete, wood, rock riprap or other suitable materials) which will accomplish the desired end with the maximum preservation of natural shoreline characteristics. (8) Beach materials shall not be used for fill behind bulkheads/seawalls except clean dredge spoil from a permitted off site dredge and fill operation. (9) Bulkheads/seawalls may tie in flush with existing bulkheads/seawalls on adjoining properties to ensure there is no gap between the two except when: (i) An adjoining bulkhead/seawall extends waterward of the OHWM or the toe of the bank or permitted landfill; in which the location requirements of Regulation of Subsection D criteria 1,2, and 3 above shall apply. (ii) If there is an existing bulkhead/seawall on only one of the adjacent properties, the proposed bulkhead/seawall may tie in flush with the adjacent bulkhead/seawall at or landward of the OHWM in order to minimize the land area waterward of the required setback. The required setback, however, shall be met on the side not abutting an existing bulkhead/seawall. (f) Beach Enhancement: Beach enhancement/restoration should be employed on upland, tidal and/or submerged shorelines to restore, enhance or create recreational beaches, aquatic habitat, and/or to control erosion where geotechnical analysis confirms that it is practical and effective and specifically in cases where: (1) Beach restoration/enhancement will accomplish the following objectives: (i) Recreate or enhance natural shore conditions; (ii) Create or enhance natural habitat; (iii) Reverse otherwise erosional conditions; and (iv) Enhance access to the shore, especially to public shores. (2) Beach enhancement is prohibited where: (i) Littoral drift of the enhancement materials will adversely affect adjacent spawning grounds or other areas of biological significance; or (ii) It will interfere with the normal public use of the navigable waters of Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 120 the state. (3) Beach enhancement projects shall be designed so that the project avoids: (i) Detrimental interruption of littoral drift, or redirection of waves, current or sediments to other shorelines that may adversely affect adjacent properties or habitat; (ii) Any exposed groin-like structures; EXCEPT: Small drift cell or littoral cell groins may be used as a means of stabilizing restored sediment where part of a federally and/or state approved beach enhancement program; (iii) Extending waterward more than the minimum amount necessary to achieve the desired stabilization; (iv) Creating contours sufficiently steep to impede easy pedestrian passage, or trap drifting sediments (a 5:1 slope is generally recommended; a 4:1 slope is a minimum); (v) Creation of "additional dry land mass"; and (vi) Disturbance to significant amounts of valuable shallow water fish/wildlife habitat, unless such habitat is immediately replaced by new habitat that is comparable or better. (4) The size and/or mix of new materials to be added to a beach shall be adjusted to the local wave climate for maximum percolation and stability (generally similar to that of the natural beach sediment, but large enough to resist normal current, wake or wave action at the site). (5) The restored beach shall approximate the natural beach width, height, bulk or profile. Exceedance of these features shall be limited, and shall not create substantial additional dry land mass. (g) Breakwaters: Breakwaters shall be permitted only by Conditional Use Permit for navigational purposes, industrial activities and marinas and shall be approved only as integral components of a harbor, marina or port, where water-dependent uses are located seaward of the existing shoreline or shore protection from strong wave action is essential. The location of a breakwater shall not render the remaining open water surface unusable by the public. Open-pile or floating breakwaters shall be the only type allowed unless it can be shown that solid breakwaters will have no adverse effect on the aquatic biology and shore processes. (h) Jetties, Weirs & Groins: Jetties, Rock Weirs and Groins are allowed subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit only for navigational purposes, industrial activity, marinas, erosion control, fisheries or habitat enhancement, and public beach management and shall be approved only as integral components of an overall resource management plan. (1) The effect of proposed breakwaters, jetties, rock weirs, and groins on sand movement shall be evaluated during permit review. The beneficiaries and/or owners of large scale shore modification works which substantially alter, reduce or block littoral drift and cause new erosion of downdrift shores shall be required to establish and maintain an adequate long term beach feeding program Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 121 as follows: (i) Breakwaters, Rock Weirs and Groins shall incorporate artificial beach feeding. (ii) Jetties shall artificially transport sand to the downdrift side of the structure. (i) Vegetation Management: (1) All disturbed shore areas shall be restored or enhanced to provide the maximum benefits of non-structural measures, even if structural measures are approved and shall use native plant materials with a similar diversity and structure as the native climax community. (2) Vegetation shall be planted and maintained on shore modification structures in a manner that will reduce the visual impact of such structures. (j) Maintenance: Maintenance of shore modification activities shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner. (k) Liability: liability for any impact to neighboring properties caused by shore modification activities is the sole responsibility of the property owner providing such shore modification. (l) State & Federal Code Compliance: Construction and operation of shore modification works shall demonstrate approval of and compliance with all applicable federal and state permits. (m) Application Requirements: Proposals for shore modification shall include the following information, or as otherwise determined by the Director: (1) Purpose of Project (2) Description of Proposal: • Location of project; • Construction materials (e.g. materials used, dimensions of, design); • Method of construction (e.g. source of backfill, erosion controls); • Characteristics of the Site: • Toe and crest of uplands; • Existing buildings; • Existing shore stabilization and flood protection devices; • Ordinary, low, and high water elevations; • Net direction of littoral drift changes and tidal currents (if any); • General direction and speed of prevailing winds; • Beach type, slope and material; • Uplands type, slope and material; • Soil types (Soil Conservation Service); • Physical or geologic stability of uplands; • Profile of beach and uplands; (3) Extent of Impact Area: • Marine shores: Within drift sector; • Lakes and streams: Three hundred feet (300') on each side of proposed project; Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 122 (4) Existing characteristics: • Physical, geological and/or soil characteristics; • Existing shore stabilization and flood management devices; • Presence of fish/wildlife vital to the aquatic food chain, or their habitat; (5) Analysis shall include: • Potential impact upon area shoreline processes and functions, hydraulic processes, upland stability, natural habitat, adjacent properties, shoreline and water uses, and public access; and • Alternative measures (including non-structural measures) which will achieve the same purpose. Design alternatives shall include the best available technology, including, but not limited to beach enhancement where appropriate. (n) Professional Design: The City shall require professional design of the proposed project if it is determined there are sufficient uncertainties such as: (1) Inadequate data on local geophysical conditions; (2) Inadequate data on stream flow, velocity, and/or flood capacity; and/or (3) Effects on adjacent properties. 9.090 Stormwater Management Facilities: Stormwater management (detention and treatment) facilities are necessary elements of development. If designed correctly and managed properly they can produce multiple benefits within the shoreline jurisdiction. Policies: (a) Stormwater facilities should not be located in areas where there would be an adverse impact to existing shoreline ecological functions. (b) Stormwater management facilities should be designed to incorporate Low Impact Development techniques. (c) All Shoreline Designations must comply with these requirements including the shoreline isolated locations. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance 123 Regulations: (a) Stormwater management facilities shall be located outside of critical areas and their required buffers, except as specified in Chapter 7,SMP section 7.010. (b) Stormwater management facilities shall provide a minimum of enhanced treatment as defined by the latest version of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Western Washington and must comply with BMC 20.15 (stormwater). (c) New stormwater conveyance facilities (outfalls) shall not be constructed within required shoreline or critical area buffers, unless no other feasible alternative exists. Exhibit A to SMP Ordinance City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program’s Appendices For Periodic Update: Appendix I: Public Access Plan Appendix II: Restoration Plan Updates are shown in Legislative Markup with all edits in Red with additions being underlined and deletions being strikethrough. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Final, Nov 2013 1 Shoreline Public Access Inventory This document identifies existing and potential public shoreline access locations within the City. It is formatted to provide area specific information with a summary of each geographical location, a map, and photos. Improved public access can be achieved by the following: 1.Better utilization of existing City owned facilities. Existing underutilized City owned property such as sewage pump stations and street ends located on the shoreline are identified. 2.The Shoreline Master Program requires public access improvements on new commercial development and redevelopment of commercial properties. This document identifies locations within the City likely to be required to improve access. 3.The Shoreline Master Program requires improved access for new subdivisions of 4 or lots. Locations where this type of development is possible in the future are identified. Due to the density of existing lots along the shoreline this is not likely applicable in most areas. The photos in this document are to be used as a aid to the reader, not all underutlized areas are photographed. This document should be used to help guide neighborhood groups and City Staff in understanding where improvement potential exists, what are some potential benefits, and if any barriers are foreseeable. Ostrich Bay 1-3 ( South limit of Naval hospital to Meyers place.) Current Condition: •Public access is limited in the Jackson Park Naval Housing Community. While not gated these are Federal lands, access is conditional and may be denied at any time. •The area has a well lit paved trail system along the shoreline which runs from the hospital through NAD Park. The trail includes areas of second growth forest and developed lawn areas. •Amenities include a covered picnic area, basketball court, and play equipment. •The beach is accessible at multiple locations via formal and informal connections. Potential Improvements: •A formal agreement between the City and Navy would ensure future civilian pedestrian access. •Public access could be improved at the •City owned pump stations within the Navy Facilities located at Dowell Rd and Root Ct. •Public information and education signage could be installed along the trail system. Potential Barriers: •Currently the Navy is not supportive of an agreement to allow civilians onto Navy Facilities due to security issues.Dowell Rd Pump Station Notes: Covered picnic table. Pedestrian path following shoreline. Visual access to water. April 2021 Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance 2 Final, Nov 2013 •Improvements to City Pump Stations would not be accessible by civillians without approval by the Navy. Ostrich Bay 4 (NAD Marine Park) Current Condition: •Within NAD Park the shoreline is in open space with an established second growth forest. •There is continious public access via the trail system running paralell to the shoreline. •Beach access is avaiable at multiple lecations via formal and informal connections. Potential Improvements: •There are opportunities for public information and educational programs and signage along the trail system. •Park improvements could provide for increased public shoreline access and A.D.A. accessibility, kayak launching areas, picnic benches, etc that would enhance the pedestrian environment. Ostrich Bay 5 (1903 Shorewood Dr. to 2151 Madrona Pt Dr. – Tip of Madrona Point) Current Condition: •The area is developed with single-family residential uses with no current public access. •There are two existing pump stations directly across from one another approximately half way up Madrona Point Drive called “The Crossing”. A photo of the west station is shown to the right. The opposite pump station is addressed in the Oyster Bay section of this document. Currently these pump stations do not provide public access. Potential Improvements: •“The Crossing” pump stations could be improved to provide pedestrian access. Potential Barriers: •Vehicular access to “The Crossing” is extremely limited as they are located on a narrow pice of Right-of-Way and surrounded by private property. Stairway is steep and may pose a safety risk. •New public access locations are not likely due to the existing built out development pattern of the area. Oyster Bay 1 (2148 Madrona Pt to 924 Lower Oyster Bay Dr) Current Condition: •The area is developed with single-family residential uses with no current public access. •There are two existing pump stations directly across from one another approximately half way up Madrona Point Drive called “The Crossing”. Currently these pump stations do not provide public access. Potential Improvements: •Should new commercial development or large scale re- development occur, improved public access will be required. •Improvements to “The Crossing could enhance pedestrian access on Madrona Point. Potential Barriers: •Existing lot sizes are typically too small in this area for new public access requirements to be triggered by subdivision. •Due to topography the East Pump Station of “The Crossing” may not provide physical access to the shoreline. Oyster Bay 2 (From but not including - 924 Lower Oyster Bay Dr to 4320 Kitsap Way) Root Court Pump Station Notes: Rough paved path. Visual access to water. Steep vegetated bank. Madrona Point Alleys East Pump Station (The Crossing) Notes: Steep, stairway chained off. Encroachment by residents. Limited Views due to vegetation and the pump station. Madrona Point Alleys West Pump Station (The Crossing) Notes: Steep, narrow access. Encroachment by adjacent residents. Limited Views due to vegetation and the pump station. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance 3 Final, Nov 2013 Current Condition: •Developed with both residential and commercial uses, no current public access exists. •Existing pump station between the Oyster Bay Inn and the Flagship Inn does not provide public access. Potential Improvements: •New commercial development and large scale re-development will require improved public access. •The pump station located off of Kitsap Way between the Oyster Bay Inn and the Flagship Inn has potential for improved public access. Potential Barriers: •Existing lot sizes are typically too small in this area for new public access requirements to be triggered by subdivision. •The pump station on Kitsap Way is severely limited by topography and traffic patterns. The site has limited vehicular access, but is located in off a major arterial street. Oyster Bay 3 (4310 Kitsap Way to and including the lot north of 1705 Marine Drive) Current Condition: •Developed with both residential and commercial uses and characterized by steep slopes. •An existing stairway adjacent to the Family Pancake House descends from Kitsap Way to Oyster Bay Ct. which provides visual access, but does not reach the shoreline. •Street end of Forrest Avenue unimproved, steep and narrow. Potential Improvements: •Street end at Forrest Avenue could be improved to provide improved pedestrian access. •High probability of future commercial development and or redevelopment. Such development will require improvements to public access. •Addition of benches along stairway would provide quality viewing. Potential Barriers: •Existing lot sizes are typically too small in this area for new public access requirements to be triggered by subdivision. •Forrest Avenue Street end is limited by steep slopes and narrow street width. There is no location for vehicular parking or turnaround. Additionally neighbors are possibly encroaching into the Right-of-Way. Oyster Bay 4 – 6 North of (not including)parcel 152401-2-127-2004 to (but not including) 3042 Marine Dr. – Tip of Peninsula) Current Condition: •The area is developed primarily with single-family residential uses with no current physical public access. •Visual public access is provided from Marine Drive. Potential Improvements: •The street end at Kelly Rd. could be improved to provide a viewing platform. •This portion of Marine Dr. could be preserved as a scenic drive. •Sidewalks, bike lanes and viewpoints could be provided at key locations along the Right-of- Way. Potential Barriers: •Subdivisions of more than 4 lots require improved public access. Generally existing lot sizes are too small in this area for such subdivisions, however there are some larger lot sizes in Oyster Bay 6 where there is moderate potential for improved public access should large lots subdivide. Oyster Bay Stairs Notes: View from public stairs. No direct access to shoreline. Forrest Avenue Street End Notes: Steep, narrow roadway descends from Kitsap Way to Oyster Bay. Physical access to water. Kelly Road Street End Notes: Views from road. Low bank. Shoulder used informailly for parking. Snyder Avenue Pump Station Notes: Low bank. Informal access to water. Possible residential encroachments. April 2021 Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance 4 Final, Nov 2013 April 2021 Mud Bay 1-3 (3052 Marine Drive to 3544 Mathews Dr. NW (Tip of Rocky Pt.)Current Condition: •The area is developed with single-family residential uses with no current public access. Potential Improvements: •The street end at Older Avenue has legal access to State tidelands; therefore improvements are possible at this location. Potential Barriers: •Existing lot sizes are typically too small in this area for new public access requirements to be triggered by subdivision. •The street end at Older Avenue is heavily forested and is on a steep slope. Access is not likely in this location due to the sensitivity of the resources. Older Ave Notes: Thick trees and vegetation. No access to water. Steep slope. High bank. Phinney Bay 1 (3532 Mathews Dr NW to 2710 Yacht Haven Wy. ) Current Condition: •The area is developed with single-family residential uses with no current public access. Potential Improvements: •Subdivisions of more than 4 lots require improved public access. Existing lot sizes vary, should larger lots subdivide into more than 4 lots, improved public access will be required. Potential Barriers: •Subdivision of more than 4 lots is currently unlikely as this area is not serviced by City sewer. Lot sizes required for lots not serviced by sewer will severely limit subdivision density. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Final, Nov 2013 April 2021 Phinney Bay 2 (2700 Yacht Haven Way -Bremerton Yacht Club) Current Condition: •No current public access. Potential Improvements: •Expansion of the yacht club could trigger improved public access requirements. Additionally WAC 332-30-131(5) provides an incentive of reduced rent on aquatic lands where public access is provided. Potential Barriers: •Redevelopment is unlikely in the immediate future. Phinney Bay 3 (4105 NW Kennedy Dr to 3680 NW Phinney Bay Rd - Include Shaw Island)Current Condition: •The area is developed with single-family residential uses with no current physical public access. •Scenic views along most of Phinney Bay Drive. Potential Improvements: •Phinney Bay Dr could be preserved as a scenic drive. Sidewalks, Trails, bike lanes, and viewpoints should be provided on the public right-of-way. Potential Barriers: •Existing lot sizes are typically too small in this area for new public access requirements to be triggered by subdivision. Phinney Bay 4 & 5 (3423 NW Phinney Bay Rd to 2715 N. Lafayette Avenue)Current Condition: •The area is developed with single-family residential uses with no current public access. Potential Improvements: •Phinney Bay Dr could be preserved as a scenic drive. Sidewalks, Trails, bike lanes, and viewpoints should be provided on the public right-of-way. •The E. Phinney Bay pump station has high potential for public access improvement. Potential Barriers: •Existing lot sizes are typically too small in this area for new public access requirements to be triggered by subdivision. •The 26th Street end has low potential for public access as it is highly vegetated and is on a steep bank. West Port Washington Narrows 1 (2710 N Lafayette Ave to 2304 19th Street) Current Condition: •The area is developed with single-family residential uses which do not provide public access. •Public access improvements are required and planned for the Waterside Lane Development. •Limited public access at intersection of 25th and Snyder Avenue at the City pump station. Potential Improvements: •Improvements to pump station on Snyder Avenue could improve pedestrian access. •Public access adjacent to the shoreline for Waterside Lane will be improved as project develops. 26Th Street End Notes: Steep bank, vegetation blicks views. Development between road and shoreline. E Phinney Drive Pump Station Notes: Low bank. Informal access to water. Residential encroachments. Olympic Ave. Street End Notes:Low bank. Poor aesthetic of 5 building and landscaping. Residential encroachments. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Final, Nov 2013 April 2021 6 Potential Barriers: •Existing lot sizes are typically too small in this area for new public access requirements to be triggered by subdivision. West Port Washington Narrows 2 (1900 Naval Ave to Port Washington Apts – Anderson Cove) Current Condition: •The area is developed with single-family residential uses which do not provide public access. •Undeveloped Street end at Olympic. •City owned property at 2310, 2314, 2316, and 2320 19th Street, homes have recently been demolished, property is vacant. Potential Improvements: •Street ends on Olympic Ave could be improved to provide pedestrian public access. •Sidewalks, bike lanes and viewing platforms may be developed on the right-of-way to provide for greater public enjoyment. •The City owned property at 2310, 2314, 2316, and 2320 19th Street are planned to be improved by the Parks Department to provide a recreational facility and public beach access. Potential Barriers: •Existing lot sizes are typically too small in this area for new public access requirements to be triggered by subdivision. West Port Washington Narrows 3 (1805 Thompson - Port Washington Marina) Current Condition: • No public access. Potential Improvements: •Expansion of the marina could trigger improved public access requirements. Additionally WAC 332-30-131(5) provides an incentive of reduced rent on aquatic lands where public access is provided. Potential Barriers: • Redevelopment is unlikely in the immediate future. West Port Washington Narrows 4 (1806 Thompson Ave to Warren Ave Bridge.) Current Condition: •Industrial and single-family residential development. Informal public access at High Ave and Ohio Avenue. Potential Improvements: •There are several opportunities for improved access at street ends locations such as Thompson Ave, Pennsylvania Ave, High Avenue, Ohio Avenue, and Chester Avenue and the pump station on Ohio Avenue. West Port Washington Narrows 5 (Both sides Warren Bridge Roto-Vista Park) Current Condition: •Roto-Vista Park offers 130 linear feet of shoreline access with some amenities and limited on-street parking •Excellent vistas of Port Washington Narrows, limited physical access. Potential Improvements: •Park improvements should include increasing vehicular access and A.D.A. accessibility. West Port Washington Narrows 6 (Warren Ave Bridge to 710 Park Dr.) Thompson Ave. Street End Notes: Ajacent to marina. Steep bank. No existing public access. Chester Ave. Street End Notes:Steep bank. Nice view. Encroachment by single-family uses. Directly adjacent to to Olympic College. Pennsylvania Ave Street End Notes:Steep bank. Rugged informal footpath. Overgrown. Ajacent to industrial. High Ave. Street End Notes: Moderate/Low bank. Informal footpath to beach.Clear View. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Final, Nov 2013 April 2021 7 Current Condition: •Multi-family and single-family development with no formal public access provided on private parcels. •Informal pedestrian access is available along the parking lot between Elizabeth Avenue and Park Avenue. •Park Avenue street end provides informal public access. Potential Improvements: •More formal facilities could be developed at existing City owned parcels. Improvements to such parcels are wide ranging. West Port Washington Narrows 7 (Evergreen Park) Current Condition: •Evergreen Rotary Park includes 1,900 feet of visual and physical shoreline access and includes: a group shelter, picnic shelters and tables, BBQs and a boat launch. Potential Improvements: •The future waterfront connectivity project may traverse the public tide or aquatic lands in this area from the Turner Joy to Evergreen Park. •Future additions to the park could increase public access. The City owns the property to the northeast of the park and has preliminary plans for such improvements. West Port Washington Narrows 8 (Evergreen Park to Manette Bridge) Current Condition: •Multi-family district currently developed in single-family use with no existing physical access. •Existing views from roads.Potential Improvements: •The future waterfront connectivity project may traverse the public tide or aquatic lands in this area from the Turner Joy to Evergreen Park. •Street end at 11th Place St.Potential Barriers: •Steep bank, high density, developed area provides a limited area for improvements. West Port Washington Narrows 9 (Both sides of the Manette Bridge) Current Condition: • No current public access. Potential Improvements: •Replacement of the Manette Bridge have provided opportunity for public access in the location of the old bridge. Steep slopes and limited vehicular access will minimize the scope for this site; however substantial opportunity for improvement is available. Potential Barriers: •Steep bank, high density, developed area provides a limited area for improvements. West Port Washington Narrows 10 (Manette Bridge to 608 Washington Ave) Current Condition: •Existing multifamily development on steep bank waterfront with no public access. Potential Improvements: •The future waterfront connectivity project may traverse the public tide or aquatic lands in this area from the Turner Joy to Evergreen Park. •Redevelopment is likely for many of these lots, which would require improved public access. •6th Street connection to shoreline should be provided and is shown in existing Land Use applications. 11th Place St. Street End Notes: High bank. Think bramble. Great view. Some room for parking. Ohio Ave. Street End & Pump Station Notes:Utility access. Clear View. Beach accessible.Gentle bank. Park Ave. Street End Notes: Steep bank. Clear view of water. Bridgeport X 18th Street End Notes: Small street adjacet to the bridge. Steep bank. No physical or visual access. Private garage may encroach. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Final, Nov 2013 April 2021 8 Potential Barriers: •Steep bank, high density, developed area provides a limited area for improvements. Sinclair Inlet 1 (6th Street to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard) Current Condition: •There is a large public marina between the Ferry Terminal and Burwell Street in conjunction with a waterfront plaza that provides extensive public access. •Louis Mentor Boardwalk and southerly ferry terminal. •Bremerton Fountain Park between the shipyard and ferry terminal. Potential Improvements: •Public access trail could be provided running parallel to the shore. Potential Barriers: •High density, developed area provides a limited area for improvements. Sinclair Inlet 2 (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard) Current Condition: •Heavy industrial ship yard •Public access is not appropriate due to hazards and national security concerns. Sinclair Inlet 3 (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard boundary to, but not including 3958 SR 16 West - Gorst Creek) Current Condition: •The shoreline in this area is bounded by the US Navy Railroad, SR 3, and SR 304. •The majority of the shoreline consists of rock rip-rap. There is no formal public access to this area. Potential Improvements: •Future development of the “Mosquito Fleet Trial” could improve access. This could include bike lanes and pedestrian paths to connect Bremerton and Port Orchard. Potential Barriers: • Highly developed with industrial uses and Highway severely limit public access opportunities. Sinclair Inlet 4 (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard boundary to, but not including 3958 SR 16 West - Gorst Creek) Current Condition: • Commercial Development in the area along the Gorst Estuary. Potential Improvements: Sinclair Inlet 1 – Downtown Bremerton Notes: Densely developed with several public access points. •Future development of the “Mosquito Fleet Trial” could improve access. This could include bike lanes and pedestrian paths to connect Bremerton and Port Orchard. •Redevelopment of properties would require a public access trail along the shoreline that ensures connectivity between properties. Potential Barriers: •Highly developed and Highway severely limit public access opportunities. Sinclair Inlet 5 (3958 SR 16 West to 3050 SR 16 SW) Current Condition: Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Final, Nov 2013 April 2021 9 •This is the Sinclair Inlet Wildlife Area, a Kitsap County Park extending about 1,000 feet along SR 16 with a cove on the Gorst Estuary. Public access includes a wildlife viewing platform. Potential Improvements: •Ideally this area will remain a wildlife area. Access and parking are limited due to the proximity to SR 16. Potential Barriers: •Public access is limited due to the proximity to the highway and high sensitivity of habitat on site. Sinclair Inlet 6 (Elandan Gardens) Current Condition: •Elandan Gardens is a private nursery, informal public access is provided during business hours. No formal public access. Potential Improvements: •Redevelopment could require a public access trail along the shoreline that ensures connectivity between properties. Potential Barriers: •Access is limited due to proximity to the highway. East Port Washington Narrows 1 (Riddell Road to 3632 Tracyton Beach Rd) Current Condition: •Rural single-family residential Potential Improvements: •Opportunity for public access exists should larger lots subdivide. East Port Washington Narrows 2 (South of 3765 Tracyton Beach Rd to Sheridan Road) Current Condition: •Tracyton Beach Rd offers a scenic drive. •Pat Carey Vista provides amenities and views. Potential Improvements: •Opportunity for public access exists should larger lots subdivide. •Tracyton Beach Road could be declared a scenic drive. •Trails or sidewalks and viewpoints could be provided on the public right-of-way. •Street end at Sheridan Rd. has some improvement potential. Potential Barriers: •Areas that are encumbered by high bluffs may not be able to provide physical access without damaging the steep slopes. Access should not adversely affect sensitive intertidal areas. East Port Washington Narrows 3 (Sheridan Road to 2475 Stephenson Ave) Current Condition: •Lions Park provides public access along the shoreline and to the beach with many amenities available to the public. Potential Improvements: •Park improvements and ecological restoration measures are encouraged. •The street end at Stephenson Avenue is directly adjacent to Lyons Park, has ample room for improved access. Potential Barriers: Sheridan Rd. Street End Notes: Nice view. Heavy traffic flow. Very close to Lyons park.Private garage may encroach. •There is ample existing public access in this location, new access at pump stations may not be necessary. East Port Washington Narrows 4 2506 Stephenson Ave to Sheridan Park) Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Final, Nov 2013 April 2021 10 Current Condition: •This reach includes a city utility facility, multi-family development, and Lent’s Landing Park. A more formal pedestrian connection could be provided between Lions Park and the City’s utility facility. Potential Improvements: •Public access to the parks should be maintained, but may be modified in the future in conjunction with ecological restoration measures. East Port Washington Narrows 5 (Sheridan Park Warren Bridge Theater) Current Condition: •Single-family and multi-family use, Sheridan Park, and the Bremerton Community Theater on a City owned parcel. •Park and Recreation Department “laydown” site across from Sheridan Park Community Center. Potential Improvements: •Public access to the water below the bluff could be provided. •Eastside Village Subarea Plan identifies an opportunity to surplus and develop the laydown site and refocus parks and recreation at Campbell Way and Lebo Blvd. See East Port Washington Narrows 6. •SR 303 improvements may include a pedestrian priority ramp east from SR 303 to Lebo Blvd. This would be an opportunity to provide visual access to the shoreline. Potential Barriers: •Public access should be avoided in cases where damage to the steep slopes is likely and where it would adversely affect sensitive intertidal areas. East Port Washington Narrows 6 (1107 Campbell Way to 1921 Wheaton Way) Current Condition: •City-owned utility facility on the south side of the bridge. •Multi-family and commercial uses on Campbell Way and Wheaton Avenue. Potential Improvements: •There is an unopened street end at Main Street north of the Campbell Way/Wheaton Way intersection that provides the potential for a marine access and viewpoint. Shoreline viewing may be more feasible from the Campbell Way right-of-way. Goal to improve commercial frontage, Public Works access, and allow for shoreline viewing. •Eastside Village Subarea Plan identifies an opportunity to develop “triangle” property at Campbell Way and Lebo Blvd. with commercial amenities and stormwater treatment and offer shoreline viewing. Potential Barriers: •Main Street end is a steeply sloped area. Parking is limited. See Potential Improvements to Campbell Way or “triangle” park above. East Port Washington Narrows 7 (East of 1921 Wheaton to the Manette Bridge) Current Condition: •Domstad Park, in conjunction with open space on both sides of the Manette Bridge, provides a public viewpoint. Potential Improvements: •Improved access opportunities in the location of the Old Manette Bridge. Potential Barriers: •Steep slope and high density limit area for pedestrian access. East Port Washington Narrows 8 (Manette Bridge both sides) Current Condition: •Visual access to the water is provided. Potential Improvements: •New Manette Bridge will provide bike lane and improved sidewalk width. •Improvements are likely to occur on both sides of the bridge. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Final, Nov 2013 April 2021 10 Stephenson Ave. Street End Notes:Chain link fence around a large portion of Lyons field. Lent’s Landing Street End Notes:Water access, large lawn, gazebo, benches,parking, bus shed. Main St. View Point Notes: Informal Pathway to beach. Steep access to beach. 16th Steet End Notes:High bank with steep slope. Great view. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Final, Nov 2013 April 2021 11 East Port Washington Narrows 9 (Manette Bridge to 211 Shore Dr) Current Condition: •Retail, restaurant and multi-family uses. A pier is provided at The Boat Shed Restaurant. Potential Improvements: •A continuous walkway along the shoreline could be provided at the time these parcels redevelop. •Piers on public aquatic lands also could provide public access. •Pump station on Lebo Blvd just south of the Warren Ave Bridge.Potential Barriers: •The shoreline is densely developed, new access points are unlikely. Port Orchard Bay 1 (215 Shore Drive to 711 Shore Drive) Current Condition: •Single-family residential. •Developed street ends at 9th St and Hayward Avenue providing public access. •Existing visual access from Upper Shore Drive. Potential Improvements: •Upper Shore Drive could be preserved as a scenic drive with a trail or sidewalks and viewpoints provided on the public right-of-way. •The property between 327 and 3214 Shore Drive that is owned by the City could be improved to be a pocket park.Potential Barriers: •The shoreline is densely developed, new access points are unlikely. Port Orchard Bay 2 (805 Shore Drive to 1151 Shore Drive) Current Condition: •Lots developed with Single-family residential use. •Bachman Park at the Trenton Ave street end provides visual and physical access. •Jennifer’s Hill Climb at street end of 11th Street and Trenton Avenue. •Street end at 11th has encroachments from neighbors. •Views from Upper Shore Drive Potential Improvements: •Improvements to existing facilities such as public amenities for pedestrians. •Upper Shore Drive could be preserved as a scenic drive. •11th Street end could be improved to provide pedestrian access. Potential Barriers: • The shoreline is densely developed, new access points are unlikely. Port Orchard Bay 3 & 4 (1334 Jacobson Blvd to 2504 NE Enetai Beach Rd) Current Condition: •Developed with single family residences with no existing public access. Potential Improvements: •Jacobson Blvd could be preserved as a scenic drive.Potential Barriers: •The shoreline is densely developed, new access points are unlikely. 9th Avenue Street End Notes:Small picnic area, parking, and beach access. Hayward Avenue Street End Notes: Pump station predominates site. Access to water. Great view. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Final, Nov 2013 April 2021 12 Port Orchard Bay 5 (2700 NE Enatai Beach Rd to but not including 3735 Bahia Vista Drive) Current Condition: •Largely undeveloped. No current public access. Potential Improvements: •Largely undeveloped, when development occurs public access should include a trail eventually connecting to Illahee State Park. Port Orchard Bay 6 (3735 Bahia Vista Drive to Illahee State Park) Current Condition: •Single-family residential. No current public access. Potential Improvements: •Small lot size within single-family residential area. If development occurs public access should include a trail eventually connecting to Illahee State Park.Potential Barriers: •Coordination of trail system. Gorst Creek 1 (Sinclair Inlet to SR 3) Current Condition: •Undeveloped on the left bank, developed commercial use on the right bank. •No formal public access. Potential Improvements: •Future redevelopment will likely require improved public access. •Trail system running parallel to the shoreline should be included in public access for each project. Potential Barriers: •Coordination of trail system. Gorst Creek 2 (SR 3 to Sam Christopherson Avenue.) Current Condition: •Commercial and Industrial use. •No formal public access. Potential Improvements: •A shoreline public access path could be created when redevelopment occurs that ensures connectivity with other properties. Potential Barriers: •Coordination of trail system. Gorst Creek 3 (Sam Christopherson Avenue to W. Belfair Valley Rd) Current Condition: •Single-family residential, however, zoned for more intense purposes. Potential Improvements: •A shoreline public access path should be created when redevelopment occurs that ensures connectivity with other properties.Potential Barriers: •Coordination of trail system. Gorst Creek 4 (W Belfair Valley Rd to power line easement - Hatchery in Otto Jarstad Park) Gorst Creek Notes: Fish Habitat enhancement project in Jarstad Park. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Final, Nov 2013 April 2021 13 Current Condition: •Developed portions of Otto Jarstad Park offer public access as well as access and educational programs at the fish hatchery. Potential Improvements: •Park improvements could include formal access that recognizes sensitive features of the stream. Gorst Creek 5 (Power line easement in Otto Jarstad Park to end of shoreline jurisdiction) Current Condition: •Undeveloped portions of Otto Jarstad Park provide Informal access to the shoreline. Potential Improvements: •Park improvements could include formal access that recognizes sensitive features of the stream. Kitsap Lake 1 (South side of lake to 1976 Price Rd - Kitsap Lake Park) Current Condition: •Kitsap Lake Park includes both active recreation areas and a large natural area consisting of a large wetland complex. The active portion of the park provides public access along the shoreline. •Department of Fish & Wildlife Boat Launch provides physical and visual access with picnic tables and bathrooms, however park fees apply. Potential Improvements: •Additional interpretive trails and boardwalks may be developed in the wetland area, to the extent that they protect ecologically important resources. Kitsap Lake 2 (Easterly portion of Kitsap Lake Park) Current Condition: •Single-family residential. No current public access. Potential Improvements: •Unlikely possibility of future public access due to existing small lot sizes. •Pump stations on Price Rd, Cedarwood Dr, and Chico Way all have the potential to be improved to provide pedestrian access. Potential Barriers: •Pump stations are small and will likely have limited or no parking. Kitsap Lake 3 (Platted Kitsap Lake) Current Condition: •Single-family residential •Informal public access to the shoreline at the end of Francis Street. Potential Improvements: •Street end at Francis St Could be expanded. Potential Barriers: •New public access locations are unlikely due to density of existing neighborhood. Kitsap Lake 4 (1012 Kitsap Lake Rd Navy – Camp McKean) Current Condition: •Navy Park provides public access along the shoreline and to the beach however it is limited to naval personnel. Cedarwood Drive Pump Station Notes: Low bank. Beach inaccessible due to fencing. Could be improved with minal costs. Department of Fish & Wildlife Boat launch Notes: Boat launch, bathroom, parking, visual and physical access. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Final, Nov 2013 April 2021 14 Potential Improvements: •Subdivisions of more than 4 lots require improved public access. Existing lot sizes vary, should larger lots subdivide into more than 4 lots, new public access will be required. Potential Barriers: •The Navy is unlikely to offer access to civilians due to security risks. Chico Way Pump Station Notes:Low bank. Access to water. Great access to shoreline. Very close to neighboring residences. Francis Street End Notes:Low bank. Paved to beach. Parking. Could be improved with minimal costs. Union River Reservoir 1 Current Condition: •Undeveloped open space. Public access is prohibited. Potential Improvements: •None. Potential Barriers: •Public access presents a safety concern to the City’s water supply. State and Federal regulations prohibit public access in this location. Twin Lakes Current Condition: •Undeveloped open space. Public access is prohibited. Potential Improvements: •None Potential Barriers: •This is a surface expression of the aquifer. There are several State and federal regulations for watershed protections that prohibit public access to this location. Price Road Pump Station – Kitsap Lake Park Notes: Ample parking, restrooms, picnic tables, visual and physical access to water. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 (02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan Prepared for City of Bremerton Community Development 345 6th Street, Suite 600 Bremerton, WA 98337-1873 This report was funded in part through a grant from The Washington State Department of Ecology. Prepared by Parametrix 411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800 Bellevue, WA 98004-5571 T. 425.458.6200 F. 425.458.6363 www.parametrix.com April 2021 Update Addendum to this Report is attached at the end of the document. This update is due to the SMP Major periodic update. Addendum was developed by The Watershed Company Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance ii February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 CITATION City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington. February 2012. City Council Approval October 2012 Updated on April 2021. Update Prepared by The Watershed Company December 2020 City Council Approval April 2021 Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 SMP RESTORATION PLAN GOALS .................................................................... 1-1 1.3 ROLE OF RESTORATION IN THE SMP UPDATE .............................................. 1-2 1.4 ELEMENTS OF RESTORATION ........................................................................... 1-3 1.5 RESTORATION AND NO NET LOSS ................................................................... 1-4 2.BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 PLANNING AREA ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 PLANNING AREA CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................. 2-4 3.IDENTIFICATION OF SITES AND PROGRAMS WITH RESTORATION POTENTIAL ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 MARINE PROJECT REFERENCES ....................................................................... 3-2 3.2 FRESHWATER PROJECT REFERENCES ............................................................ 3-2 3.3 IDENTIFIED RESTORATION AND PROTECTION PROJECTS ......................... 3-3 3.4 PROGRAMMATIC RESTORATION ACTIONS ................................................... 3-5 4.EXISTING PROGRAMS AND FUNDING SOURCES ........................................ 4-1 4.1 GOVERNMENT AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION PROGRAMS .......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 CITY OF BREMERTON PROGRAMS ................................................................... 4-4 5.RESTORATION PRIORITIES ............................................................................ 5-1 5.1 RESTORATION STRATEGY ................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 RESTORATION STRATEGY BY WATER BODY ............................................... 5-1 5.2.1 Dyes Inlet ........................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2.2 Port Washington Narrows ............................................................................... 5-6 5.2.3 Sinclair Inlet .................................................................................................. 5-10 5.2.4 Port Orchard Bay ........................................................................................... 5-12 5.2.5 Kitsap Lake .................................................................................................... 5-13 5.2.6 Union River and Union River Reservoir ....................................................... 5-14 5.2.7 Twin Lakes .................................................................................................... 5-14 5.3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING, AND REVIEW ..................... 5-15 5.4 BENCHMARKS AND MONITORING ................................................................. 5-15 5.5 SMP REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 5-15 6.REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 6-1 7. Update - 2021 The Watershed Company Addendum..............................7-1 Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) iv February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Role of the Restoration Plan in the SMP Update ................................................... 1-3 2-1 Puget Sound Context of Bremerton Shorelines ...................................................... 2-1 2-2 Study Area for the Ecosystem Characterization of Bremerton Shorelines ............. 2-2 3-1 Rating of Priority Areas for Process-based Protection and Restoration ................. 3-1 LIST OF TABLES 2-1 City of Bremerton Shoreline Planning Area ........................................................... 2-2 3-1 Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Projects................................................................ 3-3 3-2 Freshwater Shoreline/Watershed Projects .............................................................. 3-4 4-1 Existing Governmental Restoration Programs ....................................................... 4-1 4-2 Private and Non-Governmental Organization Restoration Programs .................... 4-3 4-3 Potential Funding Sources ...................................................................................... 4-4 Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ALEA Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account BMC Bremerton Municipal Code BMP best management practice cfs cubic feet per second City City of Bremerton Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology ESRP Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program HWS Habitat Work Schedule LID low impact development LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund LWD large woody debris NNL no net loss PAA Potential Annexation Area PHS Priority Habitats and Species PIC Pollution Identification and Correction Plan Shoreline Restoration Plan PSNERP Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project PSRF Puget Sound Restoration Fund RCW Revised Code of Washington SMA Shoreline Management Act SMP Shoreline Master Program SR State Route SSWM Surface and Stormwater Management UGA Urban Growth Area WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 1-1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The City of Bremerton (City) is conducting a comprehensive Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update with the assistance of a grant administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (Shoreline Management Act [SMA] Grant No. G1000007). Cities and counties are required to update their SMPs to be consistent with the state SMA, Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58 and its implementing guidelines, and the shoreline management guidelines under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26. Washington’s SMA was passed by the State Legislature in 1971 and adopted by the public in a referendum in 1972. The SMA was created in response to growing concerns about the effects of unplanned and unregulated development on the state’s shoreline resources. The overall goal of the SMA is “to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state’s shorelines.” The SMP Shoreline Restoration Plan (Plan) is intended to be coordinated with other existing plans in the area. This Plan evaluates additional potential projects based on opportunities identified in the SMP Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis (City of Bremerton 2010) and coordinated with SMP policies and regulations. 1.2 SMP RESTORATION PLAN GOALS The goals of this Plan are: Continue to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 15 to implement the Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration Strategy. Use the scientific foundation and the identification of opportunities and constraints in the SMP Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis, together with other watershed, fish, and flood control plans, as resources to identify restoration strategies and projects. Use the comprehensive list of projects and other actions consistent with the Salmon Habitat Protection and other programs as sources of potential site-specific projects. Coordinate land use decisions, particularly mitigation required of development projects, with the comprehensive list of project actions for coordinated implementation of the most effective restoration strategy. Encourage voluntary restoration by homeowners and other shoreline property owners, in addition to agency-funded and project-related actions, as well as resource- friendly daily actions such as vegetation selection and management, pesticide/herbicide use, car washing, and other activities. Provide for management of City-owned parks and other facilities to provide for ecological restoration, along with recreation, flood control, and other goals. Seek funding for restoration actions and programs from a variety of sources and by working with other WRIA 15 stakeholders to obtain federal, state, grant, and other funding opportunities. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 1-2 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 1.3 ROLE OF RESTORATION IN THE SMP UPDATE The City of Bremerton’s SMP applies to activities and uses within its area of SMA jurisdiction. Activities that produce adverse impacts on shoreline ecological functions must have associated mitigation measures to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. By law, development within the area of SMA jurisdiction is not required to improve the affected shoreline beyond the baseline condition at the time the activity takes place. How then can shoreline ecological functions be improved over time in areas where the baseline condition is marginally, or even severely, degraded? The provisions of WAC 173-26-201(2)(f) address restoration as follows: Master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall identify existing policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and identify any additional policies and programs that local government will implement to achieve its goals. These master program elements regarding restoration should make real and meaningful use of established or funded non-regulatory policies and programs that contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should appropriately consider the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or non- regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws, as well as any restoration effects that may flow indirectly from shoreline development regulations and mitigation standards. Degraded shorelines are not exclusively a result of pre-SMP activities, but also of unregulated activities and exempt development. The new shoreline guidelines also require that, “Local master programs shall include regulations ensuring that exempt development in the aggregate will not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline” (WAC 173- 26-186(8)(b)(ii)). While some actions within shoreline jurisdictions are exempt from a permit, the SMP should require that such developments must still comply with the SMA or the local master program. Because the shoreline environment is also affected by activities taking place outside of a specific local master program’s jurisdiction (e.g., shoreline areas upstream of the city and otherwise outside of city limits), assembly of interlocal agreements, forums, programs, and policies can be essential for understanding how the city fits into the larger watershed framework. Watershed-wide goals and objectives are critical for the improvement of highly interconnected regional environments. Based on the shoreline management guidelines, this Plan summarizes existing or baseline shoreline conditions, lists restoration objectives both regionally and locally, evaluates ongoing programs and restoration projects, provides potential restoration opportunities within the city of Bremerton, and sets standards and goals for implementation and monitoring. This Plan is also intended to support grant funding of restoration projects by the City and/or non- governmental organizations. Additionally, it can provide resources for public and/or non- governmental organizations interested in engaging in restoration activities with the City. Regulatory programs and non-regulatory programs, such as voluntary restoration activities, contribute to environmental protection. However, regulatory programs are designed simply to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. Restoration activities undertaken by the public, private, and non-profit organizations are expected to be the primary sources of improvements to shoreline ecological functions. Many of the restoration opportunities noted in this Plan affect private property. This Plan does not require restoration on private property or to commit privately-owned land for restoration purposes without the willing cooperation and participation of the affected landowners. In addition, private landowners who are required to Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 1-3 provide mitigation for development-related impacts may wish to implement actions noted in this plan to meet their mitigation obligations on their own land or arrange with others to purchase rights for off-site mitigation. The difference between the role of regulatory and non-regulatory programs in achieving no net loss and restoration of ecological functions is illustrated below in Figure 1-1. Source: Washington State Department of Ecology Figure 1-1. Role of the Restoration Plan in the SMP Update 1.4 ELEMENTS OF RESTORATION WAC 173-26-020(27) defines restoration as “the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions.” These guidelines require that “provisions should be designed to achieve overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time, when compared to the status upon adoption of the master program.” These definitions emphasize the repair of past damage to natural resources and habitats, but not necessarily re-creating pristine or historic conditions. In addition, addressing the ecosystem processes and functions—not simply recreating the habitat or structure—is important for successful restoration. Therefore, this Plan emphasizes restoring impaired processes and protecting those that are currently functioning. In general, the restoration effort tends to exceed the requirements of the current regulations by taking steps to improve the existing conditions and resources of the shoreline. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 1-4 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 Restoration may be non-regulatory, voluntary, and undertaken by public agencies, environmental stewardship groups, or local governments often in partnership with private landowners. The same actions may also be undertaken as mitigation required as part of a permit to achieve no net loss of ecological functions for new shoreline development. There are a number of potential strategies for restoration (involving protection, preservation, and accompanying mitigation) in the SMP as outlined below. Protection and Preservation is achieved through: Urban Conservancy-designated shorelines that are provided increased protection for existing ecological processes and functions. Performance standards for mitigation (SMP 20.16.730) that provide for protection and preservation as the first priority in mitigation of any adverse impacts. Restoration and Mitigation is achieved through: Policies and development standards applied to individual, permitted projects. Mitigation, which is typically a required sequence of actions to offset impacts on ecological functions by taking steps to avoid and minimize project impacts prior to compensating for unavoidable losses. Compensatory mitigation projects, in which restoration is generally a component. 1.5 RESTORATION AND NO NET LOSS WAC 173-26-186(8) directs SMPs to “include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions.” No net loss means that, over time, the existing condition of the shoreline ecological functions should remain the same as when the SMP update was adopted. The major component in achieving no net loss is through regulatory compliance. Restoration planning is a separate mandate, which involves improving ecological conditions, and is designed to correct and compensate for past actions that have led to current levels of environmental degradation. Restoration is also needed to compensate for ongoing degradation from existing development or past actions. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 2-1 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 PLANNING AREA The city of Bremerton is located on the western side of Puget Sound, in the central portion of Kitsap County, about 15 miles west of Seattle as indicated in Figure 2-1. Jurisdictional shorelines in the city lie within Water Resource Inventory Area [WRIA] 15, which encompasses all of Kitsap County and portions of Mason, Pierce, and King counties (Vashon Island). Bremerton is located in the eastern portion of WRIA 15, or the East Kitsap watershed, and most of the area consists of numerous small drainages flowing directly into Puget Sound. The study area for freshwater shorelines includes drainage areas or sub-basins for the major streams and lakes, such as Gorst Creek, Kitsap Lake, and the Union Reservoir (Figure 2-2). Portions of the study area to the west and southwest of Gorst drain into the Union River and ultimately into Hood Canal. Figure 2-1. Puget Sound Context of Bremerton Shorelines Bremerton SMP Study Area Approximate Boundaries Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 2-2 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 Figure 2-2. Study Area for the Ecosystem Characterization of Bremerton Shorelines The marine waters of Puget Sound have been divided into sub-basins based on geography, oceanographic conditions (circulation, bathymetry, wave exposure), and common socio- economic issues and interests. Sub-basins, however, are classified differently by other studies. For this ecosystem-wide characterization, the study area for marine shorelines encompasses Dyes Inlet, Sinclair Inlet, and the Port Washington Narrows, which connects both inlets and a portion of Port Orchard Bay north of Sinclair Inlet. Table 2-1 provides additional details on the freshwater and marine shorelines in this planning area. Table 2-1. City of Bremerton Shoreline Planning Area Shoreline Water Body East Kitsap Inventory Reach Numbersa East Kitsap Inventory Unit ID Numbers General Description Approximate Size in acresb (shoreline length in feet) Approximate Percentage of City’s Shoreline (including PAA) FRESHWATER SHORELINES Kitsap Lake All NA Entire lake 54 (14,000) 2 Twin Lakes All NA Twin Lakes shoreline 21 (3,800) <1 Union All NA Entire Union Reservoir 64 2 Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Table 2-1. City of Bremerton Shoreline Planning Area (continued) February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 2-3 Shoreline Water Body East Kitsap Inventory Reach Numbersa East Kitsap Inventory Unit ID Numbers General Description Approximate Size in acresb (shoreline length in feet) Approximate Percentage of City’s Shoreline (including PAA) Reservoir shoreline (14,000) Union River All NA Reach of the Union River downstream of the reservoir to McKenna Falls 17 (3,800) <1 Lower Gorst Creek All NA Reach of Gorst Creek upstream of the estuary to the point upstream where flows are below 20 cfs (within shoreline jurisdiction) 24 (5,250) <1 MARINE SHORELINES Dyes Inlet Chico Bay 430, 431, 432, 433, 434 Chico Bay 188 (9,758) In study area but outside city and PAA Ostrich Bay Erlands Point 51, 89, 52, 53 424, 426, 427, 428, 429, From embayment to Erland’s Point and into east side of Chico Bay 211 (7,270) Erlands Point Ostrich Bay East ALL 416, 417, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423c Western shore of Ostrich Bay to embayment north of Elwood Point 242 (11,766) 6 Ostrich Bay Marine Drive 87 391, 392, 393, 394 Marine Drive Peninsula 113 (6,473) 4 Ostrich Bay Marine Drive North 86, 44 386, 387, 388, 389 Tip of Marine Drive Peninsula (between Mud Bay and Ostrich Bay) 99 (4,156) 2 Ostrich Bay Marine Drive 87 391, 392, 393, 394 Marine Drive Peninsula 113 (6,473) 4 Oyster Bay All 396, 399, 400, 401, 403, 408, 409, 411, 412, 413, 414 Inner portion of Oyster Bay to Madrona Point 227 (14,725) 8 Mud Bay 42, 43 380, 382, 383, 385 Mud Bay 86 (7,385) 4 Sinclair Inlet Blackjack Creek Blackjack Creek Blackjack Creek South side of Sinclair Inlet east of Gorst Creek 303 (14,752) In study area but outside city and PAA Gorst Estuary Gorst Estuary Gorst Estuary Sinclair Inlet/Gorst Estuary to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 605 (28,605) 16 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 383 (32,914) 12 Phinney Bay Phinney Bay Phinney Bay Phinney Bay 266 (14,889) 8 Port Washington Narrows Port Washington Narrows West 35, 149, 151, 150, 36 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 509 West side of Port Washington Narrows, Bremerton Waterfront to Phinney Bay 315 (14,263) 9 Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Table 2-1. City of Bremerton Shoreline Planning Area (continued) 2-4 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 Shoreline Water Body East Kitsap Inventory Reach Numbersa East Kitsap Inventory Unit ID Numbers General Description Approximate Size in acresb (shoreline length in feet) Approximate Percentage of City’s Shoreline (including PAA) Port Washington Narrows Phinney Bay 37, 38, 85, 39 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372 Phinney Bay 266 (14,889) 8 Port Washington Narrows East 137, 108, 135, 107 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 470d, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 228 Windy Point to Point Herron on east shore of Port Washington Narrows 634 (29,250) 17 Port Orchard Bay, Point Herron 55, 56A 229, 230 Point Herron to current city limits 140 (4,388) 2 Port Orchard Bay 56B 231, 232, 507, 233, 234, 235e, 236, 237, 239, 240 Shorelines along Bremerton side of Port Orchard Bay 247 (8,704) 6 Sinclair Inlet Downtown Bremerton 35 200, 202, 203, 502, 204, 504, 205, 503 South side of Sinclair Inlet east of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 303 (14,752) 9 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 34A 221, 222, 223, 224, 225 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 383 (32,914) 18 Gorst Estuary 34B 206, 505, 207, 208, 209f, 210, 211, 212, 213, 506, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 Sinclair Inlet/Gorst Estuary to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 605 (28,605) 16 Blackjack Creek 34C 200, 202, 203, 502, 204, 504, 205, 503 South side of Sinclair Inlet east of Gorst Creek 303 (14,752) In study area but outside city and PAA a Reach numbers for marine shorelines correspond to drift cell numbers used in the East Kitsap County Nearshore Habitat Assessment. b Nearshore areas based on assessment units defined in the East Kitsap Nearshore Habitat Assessment. These areas are larger than the area within shoreline jurisdiction. The freshwater area includes floodways and floodplains within 200 feet of floodways based on existing mapping sources. c Northern limit of planning area. d Start of planning area limit. e End of planning area limit. f Approximate eastern limit of planning area; just to west of Anderson Creek. PAA = Potential Annexation Area; cfs = cubic feet per second 2.2 PLANNING AREA CHARACTERISTICS The following is a summary from the SMP Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis; see this document for additional details and the sources referenced in the discussion (City of Bremerton 2010). Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 2-5 Climate: Bremerton’s climate is influenced by the temperate maritime patterns that define the overall climate of the Puget Sound lowlands (Mass 2009). In general, the climate is characterized by mild, wet winters, and warm, dry summers. Precipitation is strongly seasonal, with about two-thirds of the precipitation falling as rain between November and March. Precipitation typically occurs as frequent, low-intensity, and long-duration storms. Annual precipitation in the Puget Sound lowlands typically ranges from 32 to 37 inches. Bremerton precipitation averages about 39 inches per year, with higher precipitation (about 50 inches per year) falling at Green Mountain (Haring 2000). Snow is rare at the relatively low elevations within the study area. Geology: The East Kitsap watershed is geologically and topographically similar to other areas in the Puget Sound region, reflecting the influences of mountain building and glacial activity. During the Eocene Epoch (approximately 38 to 55 million years ago), the East Kitsap watershed was located at the western edge of the North American continent. Sediments were deposited in the coastal environment to the west of North America. The Pleistocene Epoch (or Ice Age), which began about 2 million years ago, formed most of the geologic features present in the watershed today. Cordilleran ice sheets, which originated in the coast and insular mountains of British Columbia, moved south to the southern end of the Puget Sound basin near Olympia. Up to 3,500 feet of glacial ice covered the Kitsap Peninsula. Geologic units from at least five major and several minor glacial advances have been identified in the Puget Sound basin, although only three are exposed (visible) in Kitsap County. Surface geology in the study area is a complex mix of glacial deposits, which include unconsolidated silts, sands, and gravels and typically cover a hardpan lying just below the surface. In the study area watersheds (Chico Creek, Gorst Creek, Union River), bedrock underlies the upper sections of watershed tributaries whereas the lower areas are underlain by glacial till, recessional outwash, and advance outwash deposited during the last ice-sheet advance. Following the final retreat of the Fraser Glaciation, more recent alluvial deposits from weathering, erosion, and sedimentation have continued to shape the landscape (Sossa 2003). Bluffs along the Puget Sound are being eroded and re-deposited as beaches and spits. Streams are eroding their banks and then depositing sediments in floodplains, wetlands, and bays. Soils in the region were formed from the complex deposits of the most recent glaciation and are relatively young. Seismic Activity: The Puget Sound region as a whole is in an area of active plate tectonics and seismic activity. Puget Sound is part of the Cascadia subduction zone, where the Juan de Fuca plate is moving under the North American plate. Several fault lines cross Puget Sound and are associated with seismic activity. Movement along the quaternary fault lines that cross Bremerton or other seismic events could cause liquefaction of the relatively loose soils that are commonly present along river and stream channels, lakes, stream deltas, and some marine shorelines. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which pore pressure in loose, saturated, granular soils increases during ground shaking resulting in a reduction of shear strength of the soil (a quicksand-like condition). Topography, Bathymetry, and Geomorphology: Most of the upland and freshwater portions of the study area consist of low, rolling hills with moderate slopes. Higher areas occur in the upper watershed of Sinclair Inlet to the west of Bremerton with some steep slopes (>50 percent slopes). The highest point is Green Mountain at about 1,500 feet. The most dramatic feature of the study area is the long marine shoreline of Puget Sound, formed by several inlets and many smaller bays. Puget Sound itself is a large, fjord-like estuary where freshwater from numerous rivers mixes with saltwater from the Pacific Ocean. The Sound contains many sub-estuaries where larger Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 2-6 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 rivers and small streams enter the Sound and create a mix of tidal freshwater, brackish, and salt marsh wetlands. As is typical of fjord-like estuaries elsewhere, Puget Sound is characterized by relatively deep basins that drop off steeply from a narrow fringe of shallow nearshore areas adjacent to the shoreline. Most of the Puget Sound shoreline in the study area has moderate to low banks, although higher, steep sloping bluffs occur along Port Washington Narrows. Major upland and freshwater landforms in the study area include (Montgomery and Buffington 1998; Buffington et al. 2003): Rolling uplands; Stream valleys with typical pool-riffle morphology, channel migration zones, and small floodplains; Wetlands in topographic depressions, on lakeshores, and on slopes; and Lakes with deeper open water and shallow littoral zones. Hydrology: The East Kitsap watershed lies between the backbones of the Kitsap Peninsula and Bainbridge Island, resulting in a narrow strip of land with many short streams that drain to the west side of Central Puget Sound. Streams in the study area are typical lowland type streams with generally moderate gradients. Upper reaches of streams are typical Puget Sound lowland headwater streams with low gradients that originate with perched groundwater in lakes and wetlands on upland plateaus and hills. Numerous wetlands occur in the study area. Considerable deciduous growth, interspersed with stands of conifers, farmland, and urban/suburban development, is common on all streams. None of the streams is supported by snow runoff, because the maximum elevation in the East Kitsap watershed is less than 1,650 feet. Stream power is generally low, limiting the ability of streams to transport sediment. Where streams flow off the higher rolling hills and plateaus down to the shore of the Sound, steeper ravines can create confined channels with greater sediment transport capacity. Because of the small size of most streams, large, extensive floodplains are not found in the study area. Water can be transported to storage areas via hyporheic (i.e., flow through streambeds and soils near stream channels) and overbank flow. Alternatively, precipitation can infiltrate the soil to recharge groundwater. Water is lost by flowing out of the watershed into the adjacent watershed or marine waters, as well as through evapotranspiration. In addition, water directly evaporates from the surface of lakes and marine waters. Plants pull water up from the soil through their roots and transpire large amounts of water vapor back into the atmosphere during photosynthesis. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 3-1 3. IDENTIFICATION OF SITES AND PROGRAMS WITH RESTORATION POTENTIAL In general, evaluating the functional importance of protection and restoration depends on land use and the degree to which the area supports ecosystem-wide processes (Figure 3-1). These two criteria for rating ecological functions result in three general categories: 1. Suitability for Protection: Areas with a moderate to high importance for processes and moderate to low levels of alteration—These areas have the highest priority for protection and preservation, as well as allowing the processes to continue with minimal change in existing conditions. 2. Suitability for Restoration: Areas for restoration with a range of importance for processes and a range for alteration—Figure 3-1 indicates that priority is generally based on the importance of the process rather than the extent of alteration. Some areas of high alteration may have high potential for restoration if the affected processes are important. 3. Suitability for Development: Areas with low importance for processes and high levels of alteration—These areas generally have the greatest suitability for human use development, which typically entails loss of ecological processes. Figure 3-1. Rating of Priority Areas for Process-based Protection and Restoration Sections 3.1 to 3.3 list the resources that have been used for identifying restoration opportunities in this Plan, and which may be used to identify and prioritize future restoration projects. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 3-2 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 3.1 MARINE PROJECT REFERENCES Primary sources that could be used to identify degraded areas and areas with restoration and protection potential for the marine and estuarine shorelines include: East Kitsap County Nearshore Habitat Assessment and Restoration Prioritization Framework and West Kitsap Addendum (Battelle 2009). Nearshore Assessment Units (sub-drift cell units of shoreline) were scored as being best suited for Protection, Restoration, Enhancement, Creation, or Restoration of site processes, depending on the likelihood of success based on current ecosystem processes and functions. Priority Habitats and Species (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]). This dataset is updated periodically to identify where important and unique habitats are located and where species of federal, state, and local importance may be found. These areas should be restored and protected to the greatest extent feasible. Priority Shoreline Conservation Areas, Kitsap Alternative Futures (2011). This document, which includes the most ecologically intact or important areas, is a compilation of regional assessments, Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) data, nearshore assessment scores, and other local studies. These areas should be restored and protected to the greatest extent feasible. Habitat Work Schedule (HWS). This is an online database, organized according to Lead Entity Region (West Sound and Hood Canal), which includes identified, proposed, and ongoing restoration and protection projects. Projects seeking salmon restoration funds will often first need to be identified in HWS. Projects on the Lead Entity’s state-mandated Three-Year Work Plan, which are reviewed and scored by a Technical Advisory Group, are also listed in HWS. Kitsap County Transportation Improvement Plan and Stormwater Improvement Plans. These annually updated improvement plans identify and prioritize projects such as replacement or repair of undersized culverts or fish-passage barriers, implementation of low impact development (LID) retrofits, or restoration of floodplains for storage and habitat improvements. 3.2 FRESHWATER PROJECT REFERENCES Primary sources that could be used to identify degraded areas and areas with restoration /protection potential for the freshwater shoreline include: PSNERP Puget Sound Watershed Characterization Project: Water Flow Processes (Ecology 2010). This assessment produces a “watershed management” map showing where protection and restoration actions are more likely to succeed and would most benefit the water flow processes of the watershed. Habitat and other scored elements will be included in future updates. Priority Habitats and Species (WDFW). This dataset is updated periodically to identify where important and unique habitats are located and where species of federal, state, and local importance may be found. These areas should be restored and protected to the greatest extent feasible. Habitat Limiting Factors Analyses (Haring 2000; Kuttel 2003). These reports, done for each WRIA, identified the current riparian conditions, health, biological attributes, and the factors limiting the proper functioning of each mapped stream. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 3-3 Habitat Work Schedule (HWS). This is an online database, organized according to Lead Entity Region (West Sound and Hood Canal), which includes identified, proposed, and ongoing restoration and protection projects. The projects seeking salmon restoration funds will often need to be identified in HWS. Projects on the Lead Entity’s state-mandated Three-Year Work Plan, which are reviewed and scored by a Technical Advisory Group, are also listed in HWS. Kitsap County Transportation Improvement Plan and Stormwater Improvement Plan. These annually updated improvement plans identify and prioritize items such as replacement or repair of undersized culverts or fish-passage barriers, implementation of LID retrofits, or restoration of floodplains for storage and habitat improvements. 3.3 IDENTIFIED RESTORATION AND PROTECTION PROJECTS Tables 3-1 and 3-2 list specific restoration and protection projects, which have been identified in one of the above resources within the Bremerton SMP, or within water bodies that would contribute to overall ecologic functions in Dyes Inlet, Port Washington Narrows, Sinclair Inlet, Port Orchard Bay, and related water bodies, including upstream watersheds. These tables identify the general location, primary affected processes, functions or species; describe the identified project(s) addressing those impacts; and list the current plan for that project. The marine and estuarine shoreline projects are a subset of projects identified on a WRIA 15 basis that relate to water bodies within or affected by Bremerton shorelines. Chapter 5 provides greater detail in identifying restoration strategies within specific watersheds and reach areas in Bremerton. Table 3-1. Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Projects Project Location Affected Process/Function/Species Project Description Status/Priority Chico Bay (Drift Cell 90) Tidal erosion and fluvial deposition affected by pilings, armoring, and groins; Chinook, chum, coho, steelhead Remove bulkhead at “Place of Salmon” park; remove invasive species/re- establish native vegetation; abandon/remove Kittyhawk Drive culvert; conduct estuary acquisitions Kittyhawk Drive, 2012; Enhance Anna Smith Park (Drift Cell 137) Sediment source and transport affected by pilings and armoring Remove bulkhead; restore shoreline and access Parks; Enhance, Create and Restore site process Mosher Creek (Drift Cell 137) Fluvial deposition Replace/remove culvert at Mosher Creek crossing Not planned; Enhance Gorst Estuary (Drift Cell 34) Tidal erosion, fluvial deposition, sediment transport, water quality; forage fish, Chinook, chum, coho, steelhead, waterfowl/shorebirds, shellfish Acquisitions/easements Enhance, Create, and Restore site process Retsil (Drift Cell 34) Sinclair Inlet Wave deposition affected by pilings, armoring, and marinas; water quality; chum, coho, surf smelt, sand lance Replace undersized culvert; restore natural shoreline processes near boat ramp Enhance, Create and Restore site process Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Table 3-1. Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Projects (continued) 3-4 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 Project Location Affected Process/Function/Species Project Description Status/Priority Beach Drive (Drift Cell 84) Sinclair Inlet Fluvial deposition (Nearshore Assessment Unit 486) affected by armoring; wave deposition/energy (Nearshore Assessment Unit 188) affected by armoring, pilings; chum, coho, surf smelt, sand lance, waterfowl concentrations Replace culvert at Sacco Lane; fix Waterman dock and restore shoreline; evaluate culvert size at Waterman Point Conserve and Restore site process Illahee (Drift Cell 56) Fluvial and wave deposition; critical aquifer recharge Protect remaining salt marsh; implement Illahee regional stormwater treatment facility Stormwater, 2016; Enhance Illahee State Park/Enetai (Drift Cell 56) Sediment source and transport affected by pilings and armoring Investigate soft-bank armoring alternatives Not planned; Create and Restore site process Illahee (Drift Cell 56) Fluvial and wave deposition; critical aquifer recharge Protect remaining salt marsh; implement regional stormwater treatment facility Stormwater, 2016; Enhance An additional project in Oyster Bay implemented by the Puget Sound Restoration Fund (PSRF) was designed to augment the existing native Olympia oyster (Ostrea lurida) population and habitat on State and privately owned tideland property. The project involved installing additional seasoned Pacific oyster shell to increase the footprint of the existing native oyster habitat area with the objective of increasing the abundance of the native oyster population in Oyster Bay. The freshwater projects listed in Table 3-2 are a subset of projects identified on a WRIA 15 basis that relate to water bodies within or affected by Bremerton shorelines. Many of these projects relate to marine water bodies because freshwater inputs are a critical element of marine ecology. Chapter 5 provides greater detail in identifying restoration strategies within Bremerton. Table 3-2. Freshwater Shoreline/Watershed Projects Project Location Affected Process/Function/Species Project Description Lower Chico Creek High impairment of surface water storage, groundwater recharge and discharge; culverts are velocity barriers; weirs are low flow barriers - Implement LID - Replace culverts at Kittyhawk Drive, State Route (SR) 3, and Golf Club Hill Road - Remove U.S. Department of Transportation trash rack after bridges in place - Improve riparian and channel conditions, especially at Erlands Point Park - Continue creating off-channel habitat for salmonid rearing and nesting - Implement other recommendations of the Chico Creek Alternative Futures Plan (including at Time Oil site) - Continue to monitor and remove knotweed and other invasive plants Upper Chico Creek and Wetland - Protect existing functions - Assess impacts of Seabeck Highway culverts and Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 3-5 Project Location Affected Process/Function/Species Project Description replace where needed - Decommission trails in sensitive areas at Newberry Heritage Park; add or improve other trails - Remove invasive plants/replant appropriate wetland shrubs or trees Kitsap Lake and Wetland - Implement LID retrofits Union River - Maintain riparian forest buffers and improve large woody debris (LWD) abundance - Re-establish natural cover - Retrofit existing structures with permeable pavement and rain gardens 3.4 PROGRAMMATIC RESTORATION ACTIONS Certain restoration actions should be broadly and comprehensively implemented on a programmatic basis to help achieve restoration goals. The following programmatic actions are recommended for shorelines within Kitsap County as funding permits. The entities that will take the lead on these actions will be determined in the future. Kitsap County and its current and potential partners will continue to coordinate with each other on restoration activities. The funding mechanism for many of these actions has not yet been identified. Education and Incentives Continue to educate shoreline property owners about shoreline processes, alternatives to armoring, benefits of native plants, etc. through various methods, including workshops, newsletters, websites and Beach Watchers/Stream Stewards classes. Identify feeder bluff locations and prioritize outreach on bulkhead removal or alternatives; provide support and incentives such as faster permitting or cost sharing. Planning Develop and implement a planning-by-watershed approach, incorporating land use, LID, restoration, protection, and public access. Use the Kitsap Alternative Futures model to support decisions on code modifications, policy, and prioritization of protection, restoration, and development locations. Infrastructure Continue to identify and replace undersized culverts or bridges for the passage of 100-year flood events, fish and wildlife, and nutrients, including LWD (average size tree from that watershed). Continue to identify and conduct LID stormwater retrofits. Remove and restore locations with state-identified leaking underground storage tanks, etc. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 4-1 4. EXISTING PROGRAMS AND FUNDING SOURCES 4.1 GOVERNMENT AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION PROGRAMS There are many existing government and private non-governmental organization programs and funding sources, which implement the Restoration and Enhancement goals and policies of this SMP update. Most restoration efforts are implemented because citizens, tribes, and non-governmental entities; and local, state, and federal resource agencies collaborate to solve problems and achieve shared goals. Continued collaboration at all levels is needed if the goals of this Plan are to be achieved. Table 4-1 identifies existing governmental restoration programs; Table 4-2 identifies private and non-governmental organization restoration programs; and Table 4-3 identifies potential funding resources. Table 4-1. Existing Governmental Restoration Programs Organization and Program Mission and Scope Role in Future Restoration Efforts Example of Restoration Projects Kitsap County Department of Community Development To enable the development of quality, affordable, structurally safe, and environmentally sound communities Environmental Programs Division combines permit review with long-range environmental planning and restoration grant administration Grant administration Planning and prioritizing restoration and enhancement Chico Creek In- stream Restoration and Mainstem/Estuary acquisitions Kitsap Nearshore Assessment and Restoration Prioritization Framework Kitsap Regional Shoreline Restoration Demonstration Project Kitsap County Health District (partial Surface and Stormwater Management [SSWM] funds) Striving to make Kitsap County the healthiest place on the planet to live, work and play Environmental Health Division: identifies and prioritizes cleanup of surface water (marine and fresh) Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) Program Review of appropriate on-site sewage system placement Stream, lake, and marine (shellfish) health monitoring and reports Coordinate restoration projects with PIC priority areas to enhance public awareness and participation Dyes Inlet Restoration Project Other PIC projects (Liberty Bay, Hood Canal, Yukon Harbor, etc.) Kitsap Conservation District (partial SSWM funds) Farm Plans (best management practices [BMPs]) Rain Garden Program Backyard Habitat Grants (Stream and shoreline restoration funds for communities) Coordinate rain garden implementation with priority watersheds and projects Prioritize habitat grants based on the priorities of this Plan Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Table 4-1. Existing Governmental Restoration Programs (continued) 4-2 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 Organization and Program Mission and Scope Role in Future Restoration Efforts Example of Restoration Projects Washington State University Kitsap Extension Beach Watchers/Stream Stewards Noxious Weed Control Program Provide outreach to shoreline property owners that is non- regulatory Provide project monitoring Provide technical support to landowners University of Washington Sea Grant Research and education Geoduck aquaculture research Public beach walks State of the Oyster (shellfish sample analysis) Educational materials U.S. Navy ENVVEST U.S. Navy, Sinclair and Dyes Inlet studies to identify and demonstrate alternative, long- term, cost-effective strategies for protecting these water bodies West Sound Watersheds Council East Kitsap Lead Entity for Salmon Recovery (Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office) 3-Year Work Plan for Salmon Recovery Prioritizes state- funded salmon recovery and restoration projects carried out by other entities Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Work Schedule Permitting Assist local jurisdictions in identifying local priority species Provide technical assistance in project identification and prioritization PHS mapping and data collection Conservation plans Washington State Department of Ecology Grants Permitting Washington Conservation Corps Suquamish Tribe It is the mission of the Suquamish Fisheries Department to preserve, protect and enhance treaty reserved resources within the Tribal usual and accustomed grounds and stations for subsistence, cultural and commercial benefits for present and future generations of Suquamish Tribal Members. Project lead or team for projects on Dogfish, Gorst, Salmonberry, Barker, Chico, Carpenter, and Cowling creeks Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Table 4-1. Existing Governmental Restoration Programs (continued) February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 4-3 Organization and Program Mission and Scope Role in Future Restoration Efforts Example of Restoration Projects Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe The Hood Canal Coordinating Council prioritizes and disperses over $2 million dollars annually for salmon restoration across their planning area. Point No Point Treaty Council Riparian Vegetation Study (2010) Note: Italics indicates direct quotations. Table 4-2. Private and Non-Governmental Organization Restoration Programs Organization and Program Mission and Scope Role in Future Restoration Efforts Example of Restoration Projects Great Peninsula Conservancy The Conservancy works in partnership with landowners, community groups and local governments, providing the tools and expertise to enable landowners to preserve forever the special landscapes of the Great Peninsula region. The Conservancy conserves land through donations of conservation easements or gifts of land, or by purchase with donated funds, and counsels property owners on preservation techniques available to them. Manage protection and restoration easements and acquisitions Work with communities to identify restoration or protection projects in their neighborhood Stewardship of shoreline easements and owner of acquisitions, including Indianola Waterfront Preserve and Clear Creek Trail Conserved over 5,700 acres of land The Mountaineers The premier Northwest outdoor recreation club, dedicated to the responsible enjoyment and protection of natural places Host classes and field trips for Stream Stewards or other workshops/training Partner in future acquisitions in Chico Creek watershed Preservation of thousands of acres of Chico Creek watershed Education through Salmon Safari for youth outdoor programs Mid Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group Fish America Foundation The conservation and research foundation of the American Sportfishing Association—keeping our nation’s fish and waters healthy. FishAmerica provides grants to non-profits, conservation minded groups to enhance fish populations, restore fisheries habitat, improve water quality and advance fisheries research to improve sportfishing opportunities and success. Wild Fish Conservancy West Sound fish-typing surveys (North Kitsap) Note: Italics indicate direct quotations Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 4-4 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 Table 4-3. Potential Funding Sources Agency Grant or Fee Name Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office/WDFW Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) Grants Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office Salmon Recovery Funding Board Grants Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office Washington Wildlife Recreation Program National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Community Salmon Fund Grants Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) Grants Washington Department of Natural Resources Family Forest Fish Passage Program Kitsap Conservation District/SSWM Backyard Habitat Grants/SSWM Fee Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Protection Fund/Terry Husseman Grants Burley Lagoon Shellfish Protection District Shellfish Protection District Fee Kitsap County Public Works—Roads Property Tax (~13% to Roads), and State Gas Tax U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Puget Sound Watershed Management Assistance Program 4.2 CITY OF BREMERTON PROGRAMS The City participates in West Sound Watersheds (East Kitsap), which covers the entire eastern portion of WRIA 15 and is the lead entity for salmon recovery. Other agencies involved in the project include Kitsap County, tribes, non-profit groups, and the Cities of Poulsbo, Bainbridge Island, Gig Harbor, and Port Orchard. In addition, the City has a variety of programs administered by various departments that contribute to salmon recovery, which are further described below. Public Works and Utilities Department, Surface and Stormwater Management Program This program includes a variety of efforts that assist with restoration including: The City, along with its regional partner, the Kitsap Peninsula Clean Runoff Collaborative, has a regional education and outreach program that provides education and focuses on proper pet waste disposal, promotion of water quality hot lines, and promotion of the regional “Puget Sound Starts Here” campaign. The City participates in the Kitsap County Stormwater Management Advisory Committee, which consists of 18 members representing citizens, water-related public agencies, tribal governments, and the four Kitsap County cities. The committee advises on program direction and implementation to address stormwater control and quality issues, and to promote interagency and interjurisdictional coordination. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 4-5 The City has regulations and monitoring programs to prevent illegal discharge into the stormwater system. The City regulates stormwater in new development through adoption of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington—the latest edition serves as the guiding criteria for the planning, design, and construction of stormwater facilities. The City encourages LID efforts through the Low Impact Development (LID) Guidance Manual - A Practical Guide to LID Implementation in Kitsap County—the guiding criteria for the planning, design, and construction of low impact development. The City reduces stormwater impacts associated with runoff from streets through participating in the Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program. The City addresses application of fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides through nutrient management and integrated pest management plans for all parks and other facilities. The City’s Public Works and Utilities Forestry and Natural Resources Division manages 8,300 acres of Water Utility forest lands for watershed protection, timber harvest, reforestation, biosolids utilization, and salmon restoration. The division also coordinates fishery and other environmental issues on Water Utility forest lands and provides education such as an annual salmon viewing and Kids’ Fishing Day. Park and Recreation Department The City’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan includes a specific recommendation regarding the department’s role in preservation and restoration of important natural areas: It is highly recommended that Bremerton identify potential natural area acquisitions and locate funding sources to help purchase additional natural area properties. Priority for natural land acquisitions may include undeveloped marine shoreline, second growth conifer forests (known habitat for eagles, osprey, great blue heron, harbor seals and harlequin ducks), parcels offering connectivity between protected upland habitat and bodies of water, and parcels that enlarge intact riparian buffer zones along creeks and streams to increase water quality for salmon. This proactive stance will ensure that additional natural areas are preserved to accommodate or offset partial development at the existing undeveloped parks and that the current ratio of natural areas and undeveloped parkland acres to population is kept intact as the number of people residing in the City increases. Other relevant policies of the plan include: Goal 3: Protect and manage the City’s natural resources, scenic areas, and environmentally sensitive lands to highlight their unique attributes. 3.1 Identify and inventory the City’s scenic, natural resource and environmentally sensitive lands. 3.2 Develop a prioritized plan to protect and/or acquire the most valuable properties to provide access and passive recreation, as appropriate. 3.3 Manage vegetation in natural areas to enhance or maintain native plant species, habitat function and other ecological values. Remove and control nonnative or invasive plants as appropriate. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 4-6 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 3.4 Develop management and restoration plans for significant community greenspaces and facilitate community-based volunteer restoration. 3.5 Develop forest management plans and contract with an arborist to improve the tree health in NAD, Forest Ridge, Sheridan, Stephenson Canyon, East Park and other forested parks. Gorst Creek A variety of programs have been implemented by the City in cooperation with other agencies for salmon recovery. In 2001, the Gorst Creek Restoration Project replaced 750 feet of concrete channel with 1,000 feet of channel that replicates a more natural stream system and provides spawning, rearing, and riparian habitat for salmonid species, as well as other wildlife. In 2010, the Comprehensive Watershed Plan for Sustainable Development and Restoration of the Gorst Creek Watershed was initiated with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grant funding, as well as local funding. Project participants included the City and Kitsap County, with assistance from Ecology, WDFW, the Kitsap County Health District, and other stakeholders. The project consisted of the following major tasks: Watershed Characterization Study and Comprehensive Watershed Plan; Land Use Plan and Development Regulations; Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement; Stormwater Plan; Capital Improvement and Corrective Action Plan, including an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for correction of the private landfill within a major tributary of Gorst Creek; and Outreach and Information Transfer program. The current study is expected to be completed in 2012. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 5-1 5. RESTORATION PRIORITIES This Plan is intended to complement other plans, such as the salmon recovery plans, but not to replace them. The Plan is also designed to promote coordination efforts with other agencies through salmon recovery and other programs. 5.1 RESTORATION STRATEGY The City’s overall restoration strategy is to pursue restoration projects with multiple stakeholders that provide multiple benefits. Such programs have the greatest potential for cost-effective and successful restoration of ecological functions. The City should pursue the following opportunities: Pursue water quality and habitat restoration opportunities as part of acquisitions and capital improvements for stormwater utility, transportation, parks, and other projects. Manage City assets such as the Union River and Reservoir, City parks, and other facilities for multiple uses, including restoration of ecologic functions where feasible. Cooperate with Kitsap County and other agencies in watershed-based restoration programs in recognition that ecologic functions cross jurisdictional boundaries. Partner with others in WRIA 15 to coordinate salmon recovery actions with mitigation efforts in future development when such development is required to incorporate ecologic enhancement as part of non-water-dependent development, or when development produces impacts that are most effectively addressed off-site. Make minor improvements to buffer areas and vegetation as properties undergo remodeling and redevelopment to address ongoing adverse impacts, such as from runoff that carries herbicides and pesticides into water bodies. 5.2 RESTORATION STRATEGY BY WATER BODY This section summarizes potential restoration strategies by the individual water bodies identified in the SMP Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis (City of Bremerton 2010). 5.2.1 Dyes Inlet Dyes Inlet is the marine embayment of west Puget Sound, which includes the northerly portion of the Bremerton Urban Growth Area (UGA). The Dyes Inlet watershed drains an area of 30,289 acres, including the creeks that flow into the inlet. It has approximately 22 miles of marine shoreline and 90 stream miles that include ten named streams. Approximately 40 percent of the watershed is within the urban area (12,231 acres) designated by Kitsap County. Within the study area, about 16 miles of marine shoreline with contributing drainage areas occur in Dyes Inlet. Bremerton and Silverdale are the major urban areas, with smaller retail centers at Chico, Tracyton, and Kitsap Lake. The Jackson Park Naval Reservation, Camp Wesley Harris, and parts of the Bangor Naval Reservation are located within the watershed. The Kitsap County Health District conducted the Dyes Inlet Restoration Project from 2005 to 2009. This project addressed fecal coliform contamination, which resulted in a substantial improvement in biological water quality due to identification and elimination of sources from on-site sewage disposal, sewer systems, and stormwater. As a result of the program, the State Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 5-2 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 Department of Health reclassified Chico Bay from “restricted” to “conditionally approved” for commercial shellfish harvest due to water quality improvements. Specific subareas considered in this Plan include: Ostrich Bay (with several subareas), Oyster Bay, and Mud Bay. 5.2.1.1 Ostrich Bay Ostrich Bay is a large embayment in Dyes Inlet that supports coho and chum salmon, as well as cutthroat trout. A concentration of surf smelt spawning areas is mapped around Elwood Point. Patchy eelgrass and salt marsh occur at a few scattered locations in Ostrich Bay. Bald eagle nests and foraging areas are associated with much of the Ostrich Bay shoreline. Land cover use surrounding Ostrich Bay is a mix of high-intensity residential, low-intensity residential, mixed forest, evergreen and deciduous forest, urban grasses, and small areas of commercial/industrial. Land cover is mostly developed (66 to 80 percent) and impervious surface is relatively high; impervious surface is 30 percent or above over most of the contributing area. Shoreline modifications include tidal barriers (3 percent of shoreline length), armoring (57 percent of shoreline area, roads (13 percent of shoreline area), and nearshore fill (2 percent of shoreline area). Overwater structures are concentrated in a few locations and cover less than 1 percent of the shoreline area. Ecology maintains a Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of water quality impaired marine and fresh water bodies. Ostrich Bay is listed as having impaired water quality because of fecal coliform, mercury, and low dissolved oxygen levels. Most of Ostrich Bay is a Prohibited Shellfish Growing Area. 5.2.1.2 Ostrich Bay North Ostrich Bay North includes the small embayment north of Elwood Point and the east and north side of Erlands Point, just into Chico Bay. The southern half of the embayment is the limit of the City’s planning area, but the entire reach is described here. Chico Creek is the most important source of freshwater inputs to this area, including the entire west and south portions of Ostrich Bay. The predominant land use in the area is single-family residential. There is U.S. Navy and public ownership of the south side of the Chico Creek Estuary. Restoration Strategy Chico Creek and estuary restoration activities are likely to contribute to a number of processes relative to the marine environment, including freshwater inputs and sediment inputs. Efforts that directly affect the marine shoreline include the Chico Estuary Restoration Project, which involves driveway and roadway culvert removal and channel restoration, as well as future acquisitions and restoration in the estuary. Other restoration activities would include improvement of riparian conditions, especially at Erlands Point Park. Kitsap County is the lead agency for Chico Creek restoration. Ownership of a large portion of this area by the U.S. Navy provides the potential for enhancement and successful restoration of much of the marine nearshore and upland areas. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 5-3 5.2.1.3 Ostrich Bay South Ostrich Bay South includes the portion of the bay within the City. The primary land uses are the U.S. Navy Hospital, the Navy’s Jackson Park residential community, the City’s NAD Marine Park, and residential use. Ostrich Bay Creek enters at the south end of the bay. It has a watershed area of about 450 acres in developed urban land uses. There is a pocket estuary at the delta of the stream. This stream supports coho and chum salmon and cutthroat trout. Fish passage barriers occur at Kitsap Way, SR 3, and Price Road. The Kitsap Health District placed the stream on a Public Advisory informing the public to avoid contact with the waters due to the fecal coliform bacteria levels in the stream. A seal and sea lion haulout area, as well as a concentration of surf smelt spawning areas, is mapped at Elwood Point. Patchy eelgrass and salt marsh occur at a few scattered locations in Ostrich Bay. Bald eagle nests and foraging areas are associated with much of the Ostrich Bay shoreline. Restoration Strategy Chico Creek and estuary restoration activities are likely to contribute to a number of processes relative to the marine environment, including freshwater inputs and sediment inputs as the largest tributary on the west side of Dyes Inlet. The City may contribute to better water quality in the south Ostrich Bay area through incremental improvements in the storm drainage system and by public education in order to reduce the discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. This is especially the case for the tributary area of Oyster Bay Creek, which currently has bacterial and other contaminant issues. Efforts that directly affect the marine shoreline include improvement of riparian conditions, especially at Erlands Point Park. Ownership by the U.S. Navy and the City of a large portion of this area provides the potential for enhancement of the marine nearshore and upland areas. The City’s NAD Marine Park is planned for largely passive use and would likely continue to provide a range of positive inputs to the nearshore. U.S. Navy lands can be enhanced primarily by expansion of the buffer areas and management responsibility to develop mature native vegetation along the marine frontage of the hospital, the park, and the residential area. Removal or reduction in size of the inactive munitions pier would reduce impacts of overwater structures. The developed area, with primarily single-family residences, has mostly lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline. The runoff discharged from this area has ongoing adverse impacts because the discharge contains sediment and toxins from pesticides and herbicides. Public education is likely the most effective means of changing these existing practices. The addition of native vegetation buffers adjacent to the water to provide filtering and uptake of pollutants, as well as providing shade to reduce desiccation of the nearshore area, may be addressed by educational efforts and voluntary planting of buffers. As individual properties undergo major remodeling or redevelopment, minimal buffers on the shoreline would be required. Cumulatively, these efforts are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat. Existing docks and moorage facilities are limited, but would require enhancement such as adding grating to docks and piers for light penetration, and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 5-4 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 5.2.1.4 `East Ostrich Bay East Ostrich Bay includes Madrona Point, Marine Drive Point, and the westerly portion of Rocky Point above Mud Bay. Rocky Point is currently outside of the Bremerton city limits but in the UGA. This is a generally an older residential area. The areas not on city sewer were platted and developed prior to existing on-site sewage system regulations. The natural physical conditions of the area, primarily the surface, groundwater conditions, and the soil types and depths are not conducive for the utilization of “standard gravity” on-site sewage systems. Development patterns along the shoreline and adjacent uplands include land cover, which is about 40 to 48 percent natural and 55 to 60 percent developed, with some mixed forest, deciduous forest, and urban grasses. Impervious surfaces are mostly below 30 percent in the contributing drainage. Restoration Strategy The developed single-family areas on Madrona Point and along Marine Drive provide primarily lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline. The runoff discharged from this area has ongoing adverse impacts because the discharge contains sediment and toxins from pesticides and herbicides. Public education is likely the most effective means of changing these existing practices. The addition of native vegetation buffers adjacent to the water to provide filtering and uptake of pollutants, as well as providing shade to reduce desiccation of the nearshore area, may be addressed by educational efforts and voluntary planting of buffers. As individual properties undergo major remodeling or redevelopment, minimal buffers on the shoreline would be required. Cumulatively, these efforts are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat. Existing docks and moorage facilities are limited in number, but would require enhancement such as adding grating to docks and piers for light penetration, and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. The City may contribute to water quality in the bay through incremental improvements in the storm drainage system and in public education in order to reduce the discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. 5.2.1.5 Oyster Bay Oyster Bay is a shallow protected embayment with a relatively narrow opening to Ostrich Bay. Oyster Bay has no significant tributary streams. The tributary area from which surface water flows into the bay is relatively small but also is highly urbanized. Most water is from runoff from a relatively narrow area surrounding the bay and from tidal flows. Oyster Bay has shallow habitat areas supporting high primary productivity for marine life and a diverse assemblage of benthic invertebrates and fish. The bay also provides the potential for habitats, such as for eelgrass. Oyster Bay has a low water exchange environment that is particularly vulnerable to alterations that affect water quality including excess nutrients, pathogens, and toxins that tend to accumulate or have longer residence times due to limited flushing. Oyster Bay is listed on Ecology’s 303(d) list with impaired water quality due to fecal coliform, mercury, and low dissolved oxygen levels. All of Oyster Bay is a Prohibited Shellfish Growing Area. The majority of land in the bay is single-family residential with a small commercial area at the south end. Land cover is mostly developed urban area (about 70 percent developed and 30 percent natural), with most of the contributing area having high levels of impervious surface (>50 percent impervious surface). The south shore of Oyster Bay has the highest level of development and impervious surface. Shoreline modifications include significant alteration to Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 5-5 tidal action (11 percent of shoreline length with tidal barriers), moderate to high levels of armoring (50 percent of shoreline length), roads affecting the shoreline (13 percent of shoreline area), and relatively low levels of nearshore fill and overwater structures (less than 1 percent of shoreline area). Restoration Strategy The commercial area near the south end of the bay has the potential for some restoration of the shoreline as part of future non-water-dependent development, which requires shoreline restoration and public access. The existing development in this area is not water-dependent and it is doubtful that water-dependent uses would be appropriate given the shallow nature of the bay and the proposed “Aquatic Conservancy” designation. The developed area, with primarily single-family residences, has mostly lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline. The runoff discharged from this area has ongoing adverse impacts due to the runoff containing sediment and toxins from pesticides and herbicides. Public education is likely the most effective means of changing these existing practices. The addition of native vegetation buffers adjacent to the water to provide filtering and uptake of pollutants, as well as providing shade to reduce desiccation of the nearshore, may be addressed by educational efforts and voluntary planting of buffers. As individual properties undergo major remodeling or redevelopment, minimal buffers on the shoreline would be required. Cumulatively, these efforts are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat. Although existing docks and moorage facilities are limited, they would require enhancement. Such actions would include grating for light penetration and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. New overwater and inwater structures would be limited by the proposed “Aquatic Conservancy” designation. There is little public land in this reach and therefore little opportunity for public enhancement projects on the shoreline. The Puget Sound Restoration Fund (PSRF) has augmented the existing native Olympia oyster (Ostrea lurida) population and habitat on State and privately owned tideland property by installing additional seasoned Pacific oyster shell to increase the footprint of the existing native oyster habitat area. The objective is to increase the abundance of the native oyster population in Oyster Bay. Such efforts should be monitored and possibly expanded if effective. Redevelopment of the 83-acre Bay Vista site (the Bremerton Housing Authority Westpark Community) is likely to result in improved water quality discharge to Oyster Bay through current stormwater management practices; however, the redevelopment area is only a part of the tributary watershed draining into the bay. The City may contribute to improved water quality in the bay by incrementally upgrading the storm drainage system, as well as educating the public, in order to reduce the discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. 5.2.1.6 Mud Bay The east side of Mud Bay is currently outside of the Bremerton city limits but in the UGA. It is surrounded by relatively large residential lots. Mud Bay completely empties at lower tides and supports a mud flat with high primary productivity for marine life that contributes a diverse assemblage of benthic invertebrates to the food chain. It is a low water exchange environment that is particularly vulnerable to Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 5-6 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 alterations that affect water quality, including excess nutrients, pathogens, and toxins that tend to accumulate or have longer residence times due to limited flushing. Most parcels were platted and developed prior to existing on-site sewage system regulations. The natural physical conditions of the area, primarily the surface and groundwater conditions, soil types, and depths, are not conducive for implementing “standard gravity” on-site sewage systems leading to potential high nutrient levels. Land cover use is about 40 to 50 percent natural and 50 to 60 percent developed, with some mixed forest, deciduous forest, and urban grasses. The contributing drainage area is very small. Shoreline modifications are limited, as one would expect in a low energy environment. The area has a moderate to high amount of shoreline armoring (55 percent of shoreline length), some barriers to tidal flow (2 percent of shoreline length), and roads (8 percent of the shoreline area). In addition, numerous overhanging docks and piers, including pilings, are scattered along the shoreline. However, this reach lacks large overwater structures and the low energy areas in Mud Bay are generally not armored. Riparian vegetation is lacking for most of the shoreline, but areas along the eastern shore of Mud Bay and some areas along Rocky Point have intact riparian vegetation. Restoration Strategy The developed single-family area provides a variety of buffer conditions varying from wide buffers of native trees to lawn and ornamental vegetation. Where ornamental vegetation predominate, the adverse impacts from runoff discharge containing sediment and toxins from pesticides and herbicides, which are likely to be most effectively addressed by public education. Many lots have the potential for subdivisions to be developed when urban services such as sewers are provided. The SMP buffer requirements are likely to preserve existing buffers and enhance those buffers that are not currently maintained. In addition, the City will require detention and treatment of stormwater that would where certain criteria are met. Larger developments would be encouraged to use low-impact development techniques. The addition or enhancement of native vegetation buffers adjacent to the water (to provide filtering and uptake of pollutants and provide shading to reduce desiccation of the nearshore) may be addressed by educational efforts and voluntary planting of buffers. As non- subdividable properties undergo major remodeling or redevelopment, minimal buffers on the shoreline would be required. Cumulatively, these efforts are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat. Existing docks and moorage facilities are limited in number and size, but would require enhancement such as adding grating to docks and piers for light penetration and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. New overwater and inwater structures are limited by the proposed “Aquatic Conservancy” designation. 5.2.2 Port Washington Narrows Port Washington Narrows is a tidal strait connecting Port Orchard Bay with Dyes Inlet. Tidal currents attain velocities in excess of 4 knots at times. The formal boundaries are Rocky Point to the northeast, Point Turner to the southwest, and Point Herron to the southeast. For the purpose of this discussion, the Tracyton Beach area is considered within Dyes Inlet, and will be included in the discussion of the east side of the Narrows. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 5-7 5.2.2.1 Phinney Bay Phinney Bay is a large embayment at the western end of Port Washington Narrows and eastern end of Dyes Inlet and extends from Rocky Point to North Lafayette Avenue. Phinney Bay has some high bank areas on the eastern shore, but it mostly consists of low bank and/or marsh lagoon shoreforms dominated by mud, sand, and gravel substrates. One surf smelt spawning location is mapped on the northeast side of Phinney Bay. Non-floating kelp occurs along the northeastern side, with continuous eelgrass habitat along most of the bay shoreline. Patchy salt marsh occurs at the southern end and in the lagoon on the western side of the bay. Eelgrass also is mapped in continuous distribution along the south and west shores of Phinney Bay. Some oyster beds occur at the north end of the bay, although Phinney Bay is currently classified as a Prohibited Shellfish Growing area. Water quality issues include fecal coliform and possibly low dissolved oxygen. The Kitsap Health District listed Phinney Creek on a Public Advisory alerting the public to avoid contact with the waters. The bay has a large number of stormwater outfalls, especially on the western side. The eastern side of Phinney Bay (to Corbet Drive NW) is currently outside of the Bremerton city limits but in the UGA. The primary land use is single-family residential, but there is one marina, the Bremerton Yacht Club, on the eastern shore. About 30 percent of the drainage area contributing to Phinney Bay has impervious surfaces greater than 50 percent, but a relatively large portion of the drainage area (55 percent) is covered by less than 10 percent impervious surface. This is due to the mostly natural land cover, low-intensity residential use, and the mixed forest. Shoreline modifications include moderately high levels of shoreline armoring (64 percent of shoreline length), roads affecting the shoreline (8 percent of shoreline area), and overwater structures (5 percent of shoreline area). The Bremerton Yacht Club marina comprises most of the overwater structure in the area. Restoration Strategy The east side of the bay (currently unincorporated Kitsap County) contains large single- family lots with a variety of buffer conditions varying from wide buffers of native trees to lawn and ornamental vegetation. On the west side of the bay, smaller urban lots generally have a limited buffer although lawn and ornamental vegetation predominates. Where non- native vegetation predominates, adverse impacts from runoff discharge containing sediment and toxins from pesticides and herbicides can likely be most effectively addressed by public education. Many lots on the east side have the potential for subdivision development when urban services such as sewers are provided. The SMP buffer requirements would likely preserve the existing buffers and provide enhancement where buffers are not currently present. For existing lots, the addition or enhancement of native vegetation buffers adjacent to the water may be addressed by educational efforts and voluntary planting of buffers. As non- subdividable properties undergo major remodeling or redevelopment, minimal buffers on the shoreline would be required. Cumulatively, these efforts are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat by providing filtering and uptake of pollutants, as well as providing shade to reduce desiccation of the nearshore. Existing docks and moorage facilities will require enhancement such as adding grating to docks and piers for light penetration and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. New overwater and inwater structures in the far south end of the bay are limited by the proposed “Aquatic Conservancy” designation. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 5-8 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 The City may contribute to improved water quality in the bay by incrementally upgrading the storm drainage system and educating the public in order to reduce the discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. 5.2.2.2 Port Washington Narrows West This area extends from North Lafayette Avenue to Point Turner (which for convenience will be considered at 6th Street in downtown Bremerton). This area has complex urban land uses including single-family and multi-family residential, industrial, and parkland. A few locations for surf smelt spawning are mapped along this reach. Continuous non-floating kelp is distributed along most of the shoreline, but no eelgrass or marsh vegetation is found here. Hardshell clam areas occur along the Narrows, but are mostly associated with the eastern shore. Waterfowl concentrations occur at the entrance to the Narrows, between the ferry docks and Evergreen Park. High waterfowl concentrations also occur opposite Lions Park. There is a large pelagic cormorant roost under the Warren Avenue Bridge, as well as a peregrine falcon nest. Shoreline modifications include heavily armored shorelines (80 percent shoreline length), numerous roads (12 percent of shoreline area), and fill within the nearshore (2 percent of the area). In addition, numerous overhanging structures; piers, docks, and floats; and old pilings occur along the Narrows shoreline. Impervious surfaces along the shoreline are mostly above 50 percent, with 90 to 100 percent at some locations including along the Bremerton waterfront, where the Warren Avenue Bridge crosses the Narrows, and just east of Anderson Cove. Land cover is predominantly high-intensity residential or commercial/industrial, with small areas of low-intensity residential. Restoration Strategy Single-family lots in this area generally have little or no native vegetation buffer. Public education is the primary means of influencing individuals to change vegetation management to include more native vegetation along the shoreline and it has the potential to influence a much greater proportion of the shoreline. As single-family properties undergo major remodeling or redevelopment, minimal buffers on the shoreline would be required. Cumulatively, education and regulatory requirements are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat by providing native vegetation that contributes filtering and uptake of pollutants and providing shade to reduce desiccation of the nearshore. Existing docks and moorage facilities will require enhancement such as adding grating to docks and piers for light penetration and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. There are very limited areas of industrial and multi-family zoning, which may provide opportunities for enhancement of the shoreline upon redevelopment. The industrial area near Pennsylvania Avenue has the potential for some restoration of the shoreline as part of future non-water-dependent development, which requires shoreline restoration and public access. The extent of restoration required would depend on the extent of water-dependent development and the extent that mitigation may be required to meet the criteria for no net loss of ecological functions. The multi-family area within the downtown subarea will be redeveloped with medium- to high-density residential with a strong relationship to the street. The high bank waterfront limits other than visual access to the water in most cases. As part of redevelopment, buffer areas will be augmented and feeder bluff functions enhanced. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 5-9 Public parks provide a variety of opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation depending on topography and other conditions implemented as part of ongoing park management. Enhancement opportunities, however, must be balanced with the goals of providing public visual and physical access to the shoreline. The City may contribute to better water quality in the bay through incremental improvements in the storm drainage system and public education in order to reduce discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. 5.2.2.3 Port Washington Narrows East The far north easterly portion of Port Washington Narrows is characterized by large-lot rural development in the area north of Sheridan Road, which is in unincorporated Kitsap County and within the UGA. The remainder of the reach is single-family, multi-family, commercial, and park use. For convenience, the area south of Manette Bridge on Point Herron is considered in the discussion of Port Orchard Bay. Three streams discharge into this area, but most of the natural conveyances have been covered and are contained in culverts. Parmann and Moser creeks north of Tracyton Beach Road still have continuous vegetation along much of the riparian area. A few locations for surf smelt spawning are mapped along this reach. Continuous non- floating kelp is distributed along most of the shoreline, but no eelgrass or marsh vegetation is found here. Hardshell clam areas occur along the eastern shore; however, the area is closed to shellfish harvest. Waterfowl concentrations occur at the entrance to the Narrows. Sheridan Park, Lions Park, and East Park occur along this reach. Shoreline modifications include heavily armored shorelines (80 percent shoreline length), numerous roads (12 percent of shoreline area), and fill within the nearshore (2 percent of the area). In addition, numerous overhanging structures such as piers, docks, and floats, and old pilings occur along the Narrows shoreline. Impervious surfaces along the shoreline are mostly above 50 percent, with 90 to 100 percent at some locations including where the Warren Avenue Bridge crosses the Narrows. Land cover is predominantly high-intensity residential or commercial/industrial, with small areas of low-intensity residential. Restoration Strategy Single-family lots with shoreline frontage predominate only in the currently unincorporated area north of Tracyton Beach Road. Most lots have no native vegetation at the shoreline with lawns and ornamental vegetation the primary ground cover. Many of these lots have the potential for subdivision development when urban services such as sewers are provided. The SMP buffer requirements implemented at subdivision are likely to result in provision and enhancement of native vegetation buffers. In addition, the City will require detention and treatment of any stormwater that would be discharged. Larger developments would be encouraged to use low-impact development techniques. In the interim, and for properties not subdividable, educational efforts may result in some changes in vegetation management leading to voluntary establishment of limited buffers. Cumulatively, education and regulatory requirements are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat by providing native vegetation that contributes filtering and uptake of pollutants and providing shade to reduce desiccation of the nearshore. There are extensive areas of commercial and multi-family zoning in this reach, which are likely to provide opportunities for enhancement of the shoreline upon redevelopment. The most extensive potential redevelopment area is the Bremerton Gardens multi-family Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 5-10 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 community between Magnuson Way and 16th Street, which would provide the opportunity for setbacks and buffers to allow feeder bluffs and adjacent areas to function more naturally. The commercial area along Campbell and Wheaton Way south of the Warren Avenue Bridge would likely redevelop incrementally. Because non-water-dependent development requires shoreline restoration and public access, buffer areas would be augmented and feeder bluff functions enhanced. Existing docks and moorage facilities will require enhancement such as adding grating to docks and piers for light penetration and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. Public parks provide a variety of opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation depending on topography and other conditions implemented as part of ongoing park management. Enhancement opportunities, however, must be balanced with the goals of providing public visual and physical access to the shoreline. The extensive, but narrow corridor between the shoreline and Tracyton Beach Road may be enhanced by augmenting native vegetation. The City may contribute to improved water quality by incrementally improving the storm drainage system and educating the public in order to reduce discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. 5.2.3 Sinclair Inlet Sinclair Inlet is the arm of Port Orchard Bay west of Port Washington Narrows. It includes downtown Bremerton, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Gorst Estuary, and the city of Port Orchard on its south side. The Sinclair Inlet watershed drains an area of 27,492 acres, including the creeks that flow into Sinclair Inlet (primarily along the southern shore) and the Beaver Creek watershed to the east. The watershed includes 57 miles of saltwater frontage, approximately 46 lakes with 9.7 miles of shoreline, and about 62 miles of streams. The watershed is characterized by many small streams that drain relatively small areas. Gorst and Blackjack creeks are the main dischargers of freshwater into the inlet. Estimates of freshwater runoff into Sinclair Inlet range from 335 cfs in January to 5 cfs in August. The contribution of groundwater flow to the inlet is unknown but thought to be substantial. The currents of Sinclair Inlet are relatively weak, at only 0.8 knots. The estimated total flushing time is approximately 14 days. 5.2.3.1 Downtown Bremerton Most of the area from 6th Street to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard within the downtown subarea has been redeveloped with an array of residential, office, and mixed uses with strong connections and views to the waterfront and only a few additional lots are available for development. This area has high bluffs along the waterfront that precludes water-dependent use. Because non-water-dependent development requires shoreline restoration and public access, buffer areas will be augmented and feeder bluff functions enhanced. Restoration Strategy Restoration potential in this reach is limited due to intense urban development. Future development in the downtown will preserve and enhance steep slopes resulting in augmentation of vegetation and feeder bluff functions. The City may contribute to water quality by incrementally improving the upstream storm drainage system and educating the public in order to reduce discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 5-11 5.2.3.2 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard This reach is heavily modified by the development of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Impervious surface along the shoreline is more than 80 percent and frequently more than 90 percent along the entire shoreline. More than 90 percent of the shoreline length is armored and overwater structures affect approximately 50 percent of the shoreline area. Restoration Strategy Restoration potential in this reach is limited due to intense development. The major opportunity for enhancement is continuing efforts by the U.S. Navy to improve water quality through improvements in treating their process water and stormwater runoff. 5.2.3.3 Gorst Estuary and Gorst Creek Gorst Estuary is the largest estuary in the planning area and provides significant shoreline functions to Sinclair Inlet and Puget Sound. The estuary receives freshwater flows from Gorst Creek, as well as several small independent drainages nearby. Wright Creek is about 1.2 miles long and enters Sinclair Inlet between Gorst and Bremerton. Tributary streams support a variety of species including coho, chum, cutthroat, and steelhead. Gorst Estuary itself is shallow, with fringing marshes and mud flats that provide excellent production of prey for salmonids. Biological resources in the estuary include waterfowl concentrations at the mouth and along the north and south shorelines of Sinclair Inlet, and shorebird concentrations along the north shore. Continuous mixed marsh and patchy salt marsh occurs along the inner estuary and north and south shorelines of Sinclair Inlet. Patchy eelgrass occurs between the edge of the marsh vegetation and adjacent mud and sand flats. Surf smelt spawning areas are mapped along the north and south shore of Sinclair Inlet just east of the estuary. Bald eagle nests are associated with the estuary along the south shore of Sinclair Inlet with nest management and foraging areas within the entire estuary. Shoreline modifications include significant alteration to tidal processes, with tidal barriers affecting 6 percent of the shoreline length. Shoreline armoring affects 88 percent of shoreline length, road density is high (18 percent of shoreline area), overwater structures affect 4 percent of the shoreline area, and nearshore fill affects 20 percent of the shoreline area. These modifications are reflected in the loss of habitats. Estimates of the loss of historic shoreforms include 100 percent of former barrier estuaries, 65 percent of coastal inlets, and more than 80 percent of tidal wetlands. About 1,500 feet of estuarine shoreline on the north side of the inlet were rehabilitated in the early 2000s through grants from the Salmon Recovery Board and funding by local sources. Restoration Strategy The City is in the process of developing the Gorst Creek Watershed Comprehensive Plan, which will outline development, preservation, and enhancement opportunities. The plan is not yet final, but generally will: Identify portions of the watershed which should be conserved and managed to protect the City’s water supply; Identify areas that should be preserved for enhancement of water supply to the watershed and estuary, including wetlands and other areas; Identify areas that should be preserved and enhanced for habitat value score and as salmon refugia; and Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 5-12 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 Identify areas more appropriate for higher density development based on identification of areas with lower water resource and habitat value. There are extensive areas of commercial development south of Gorst Creek that could be redeveloped in the future. Because non-water-dependent development requires shoreline restoration and public access, buffer areas will be augmented and proximity impacts to the estuary reduced. The City may contribute to water quality through incremental improvements in the storm drainage system in developed portions of the estuary and in public education in order to reduce discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. 5.2.4 Port Orchard Bay 5.2.4.1 Point Herron/Shore Drive For purposes of this analysis, this reach extends from the Manette Bridge to the northeasterly end of Shore Drive. The northerly end of this reach is occupied by the Boat House Restaurant and multi-family development. The remainder of the reach comprises single-family lots about 50 feet wide and between 70 and 100 feet deep. The shoreline is more than 50 percent impervious surface. There is a large pier at the Boat House Restaurant and six marine ‘railways’ at single-family residences, although not all are currently functioning. Almost the entire shoreline is armored with riprap and concrete bulkheads. There are no trees along the shoreline, but in many places there are very narrow lawns or ornamental plantings. Restoration Strategy There are few opportunities for restoration in the reach. The Boat Shed Restaurant is likely to retain its existing non-conforming status, even if other tenants occupy it. In the long term, the existing pier would be reconstructed, when major repair or replacement was required, to include adding grates for light penetration and less surface coverage, which would enhance nearshore ecological functions. If the multi-family development were to be redeveloped, very minor buffers might be included. The proposed provisions of the SMP to provide minimal buffers when residences undergo major renovation and replacement may reduce the discharge of nutrients and toxins from fertilizers and herbicides/pesticides, but the SMP would not require residents to provide trees for shading thus there would be no improvement to existing upper beach desiccation. The City may contribute to better water quality through incremental improvements in the storm drainage system and in public education in order to reduce discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. 5.2.4.2 Port Orchard Bay East The area east of Shore Drive in Bremerton is characterized by large single-family lots with extensive forested uplands. Portions of the areas are within the city; the remainder is in the UGA. Percent impervious surface within 200 feet of the marine shoreline ranges from 8 to 17 percent, while forest cover within the 200-foot shoreline area averages less than 2 percent. Over 50 percent of the shoreline is armored, with 6 percent of the shoreline affected by roads. A small independent creek (Dee/Enetai) enters Port Orchard Bay approximately 1 mile northeast of Point Herron. The creek currently supports chum, coho, and cutthroat in the lower reaches. There are a number of fish passage barriers in this watershed. The riparian condition upstream of Trenton Avenue is poor, with little remaining riparian vegetation, Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 5-13 while the riparian condition in the steep ravine reach downstream of Trenton Avenue is considered to be generally good. Flows are very flashy, likely the result of the intense development in the watershed with no stormwater controls. This creek also has fecal bacterial contamination. The eastern part of this reach in the UGA is largely undeveloped within the UGA, but with development above the steep bluff that begins at the shoreline. Restoration Strategy The preservation of existing undeveloped shoreline in the eastern part of the reach is likely to be accomplished by the proposed “Urban Conservancy” designation with likely future development concentrated at the top of the slope. Large lots in this area have a variety of buffer conditions varying from wide buffers of native trees to lawn and ornamental vegetation. Where non-native vegetation predominates, adverse impacts from runoff discharge containing sediment and toxins from pesticides and herbicides are likely to be most effectively addressed by the addition or enhancement of native vegetation buffers adjacent to the water through educational efforts and voluntary planting of buffers. As non-subdividable properties undergo major remodeling or redevelopment, minimal buffers on the shoreline would be required. Cumulatively, these efforts are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat by providing filtering and uptake of pollutants and providing shade to reduce desiccation of the nearshore. The City may contribute to water quality in the bay through incremental improvements in the storm drainage system that discharges into Dee/Enetai Creek and in public education in order to reduce discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. Installation of a public sewer system, as recommended by the Kitsap Health District in areas served by failing on-site sewage systems, would address the major source of fecal contamination. 5.2.5 Kitsap Lake Kitsap Lake is within the Chico Creek drainage. The lake is approximately 238 acres and the shoreline includes land within the city of Bremerton, as well as land within unincorporated Kitsap County. Most of the lake shoreline comprises single-family residential lots, with numerous docks, large areas of modified shoreline, and very little riparian vegetation. There is a large wetland on the south side of the lake, a City park, and a U.S. Navy park on the west side of the lake. The lake supports resident cutthroat, coho, steelhead, and pink salmon. There is one bald eagle nest and foraging area along the shoreline. Restoration Strategy The major restoration activity that will contribute to improved water quality in the lake is protection and restoration of the upstream tributaries, which are addressed in the Chico Creek Management Strategy. Public parks owned by the City, the county, and the U.S. Navy provide a variety of opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation depending on topography and other conditions implemented as part of ongoing park management. Enhancement opportunities, however, must be balanced with the goals of providing public visual and physical access to the shoreline. Single-family lots with shoreline frontage predominate on the shoreline; these lots are relatively small and narrow. Most lots have no native vegetation at the shoreline, with lawns and ornamental vegetation the primary ground cover. Few of these lots have the potential for subdivision. Educational efforts may cause some changes in vegetation management leading Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 5-14 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 to voluntary establishment of limited buffers. Where substantial remodeling or replacement occurs, minimal buffers would be required. Cumulatively, education and regulations are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat by providing native vegetation that contributes filtering and uptake of pollutants. It is doubtful that such minimal buffers would provide much shade or woody debris. The majority of the lake shoreline is armored. As bulkheads need replacement in the future, regulations will require consideration of softer armoring, which may lead to more natural shoreline conditions supporting a more productive food web and other functions. Existing docks and moorage facilities will require enhancement such as grating for light penetration and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. 5.2.6 Union River and Union River Reservoir The Union River watershed flows into Hood Canal; it is 24 square miles with 10 miles of mainstem and 30 miles of tributaries. The stream originates on the south and eastern sides of Gold Mountain. It flows through managed but undeveloped forest area to the City of Bremerton Union River Reservoir (the City’s major water supply). The Union River Reservoir has a surface area of about 40 acres. Shoreline reaches include the entire lake shoreline, as well as the Union River below the reservoir from McKenna Falls to the lake. The combined lake and river shoreline area is approximately 98 acres. The upper watershed and the reservoir are within the City’s protected watershed area with deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest as the predominant land cover. The Union River system supports chinook, pink, coho, fall-winter chum, summer chum, steelhead, and cutthroat. The Union River is the only basin on the Kitsap Peninsula to currently have a viable native population of summer chum salmon. The lake and river reaches within shoreline jurisdiction support resident cutthroat with the potential presence of coho and steelhead. The Kitsap Refugia report rated the instream habitat and riparian conditions for the river as a whole as generally fair to good. Riparian conditions in the lake and river reaches within shoreline jurisdiction are in good condition, with forested riparian zones on both sides of the river and around the lakeshore. The upper watershed has numerous headwater wetland complexes, providing extensive rearing habitat for salmonids. McKenna Falls is a natural barrier to fish passage upstream, and is located just downstream of the Union Reservoir dam. Water quality impairments include low dissolved oxygen and pH in the shoreline reaches downstream of the reservoir. The reservoir and river reach within shoreline jurisdiction are surrounded by the City’s 3,000- acre protected watershed area. The Public Works and Utilities Department, Forestry & Natural Resources Division manages the utility-owned forest lands for watershed protection, timber harvest, reforestation, biosolids utilization, and salmon restoration. Restoration Strategy No restoration needs have been identified in the City-owned portion of the Union River. There are numerous downstream restoration programs included in the Hood Canal Coordinating Council’s Habitat Recovery Strategy for the Hood Canal and Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca, version 09-2005. 5.2.7 Twin Lakes Twin Lakes together are approximately 21.7 acres and lie within the City’s utility area. Twin Lakes are maintained by a diversion of water from the Union River Reservoir. The lakes are Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 5-15 on the hydrologic boundary between the Union River and Gorst Creek watersheds. There is no surface drainage out of the Twin Lakes. Studies by the City indicate that approximately half of the groundwater flow out of the Twin Lakes is to the Union River watershed and half to the Gorst Creek watershed. Twin Lakes is located towards the western end of the Gorst Creek Aquifer Recharge area. In recognition of the importance of the lake to groundwater recharge, Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 20.14.430(6)(b)(8 ) prohibits use of pesticides and fertilizers above agronomic rates within 1,600 feet of Twin Lakes. The area around Twin Lakes is zoned primarily as utility lands, with some areas of low-density residential zoning immediately to the east; the industrially zoned South Kitsap Industrial Area is immediately to the south. The Twin Lakes shorelines are currently designated as “Urban Conservancy.” Restoration Strategy No restoration needs have been identified in the Twin Lakes watershed. 5.3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING, AND REVIEW To remain consistent with the restoration framework and guidance for SMP development, project implementation and monitoring will survey available funding sources, guide development of project timelines and benchmarks, and document the progress of restoration projects. 5.4 BENCHMARKS AND MONITORING Under WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)(vi), the development of a jurisdiction’s SMP must, “Provide for mechanisms or strategies to ensure that restoration projects and programs will be implemented…in meeting the overall restoration goals.” A restoration framework developed in part by Palmer et al. (2005) provides several tasks for assessing restoration actions and revising the planning process to meet restoration goals. The following actions include: Adaptively manage restoration projects; Summarize restoration progress including grant applications and funds secured; Monitor post-restoration conditions; Revise the planning process to reflect changes in objectives and policy re-evaluation; and Use monitoring and maintenance results to inform future restoration activities. To document progress toward restoration goals regionally within WRIA 15 and locally within the City, annual assessments should be performed to determine how well restoration criteria are met and how effectively the goals of this Plan are achieved. 5.5 SMP REVIEW To ensure that restoration goals are being met, it is important for the City to evaluate the effectiveness of this Plan and to adapt to changing conditions. To establish the SMP benchmark for implementation effectiveness, the State Legislature provided a timeframe for jurisdiction amendments to the SMP. This was amended in 2011 to provide an 8-year update schedule. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 5-16 February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 The 8-year period starts once the City of Bremerton amends its SMP (RCW 90.58.080 (4)(a)). While the review period is taking place, an ongoing assessment of project successes and limitations must still occur as restorations are planned and implemented within the city. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton February 2012 │ 553-1896-088 6-1 6.REFERENCES City of Bremerton. 2010. City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington. December 2010. Accessed at: http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/forms/communitydev/smp/ShorelineInventory_Analysis.pdf. Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Project Name: Project Number: December 4, 2020 City of Bremerton Devin Melville, The Watershed Company Dan Nickel, The Watershed Company City of Bremerton SMP Periodic Update 190347 Subject: City of Bremerton Shoreline Restoration Plan Addendum The purpose of this memorandum is to update the previous Shoreline Restoration Plan adopted by the City of Bremerton in 2012. The Shoreline Restoration Plan is meant to help identify restoration or enhancement projects and areas of the shoreline for improvement. Generally, uses and developments within shorelines cannot always be fully mitigated, which may result in incremental and unavoidable degradation to the baseline conditions of the shoreline. The Restoration Plan document aims to counter these incremental degradations by identifying areas and projects for enhancement and restoration which can improve degraded baseline conditions along the shoreline over time. This addendum references projects listed in the Shoreline Restoration Plan containing enhancement and restoration project proposals and updates them based on information received by the City, agencies, tribes and stakeholder organizations (Table 1). New projects which have been completed since 2012, or are planned for construction, are included in Table 2. Ta ble 1. Project updates for restoration actions Project Location / Identifier Environmental component(s) Status (2020) Proponent Notes Chico Bay (Drift Cell 90) Removed bulkhead at “Place of Salmon Park”; removed invasive species/re- established native vegetation, removed Kittyhawk Drive Culvert; conducted estuary acquisitions Complete Suquamish Tribe Project completed in 2014/2015; Suquamish Tribe acquired estuary; construction of SR 3 culvert to begin in 2021 Anna Smith Park (Drift Cell 147) Removed bulkhead; restored shoreline access Complete Kitsap County Mosher Creek (Drift Cell 137) Remove/replace culvert at Mosher Creek Crossing No change April 2021 7-1 Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Bremerton Shoreline Restoration Plan Addendum December 4, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Project Location / Identifier Environmental component(s) Status (2020) Proponent Notes Gorst Estuary (Drift Cell 34) Acquisitions/easements In- Progress Now includes restoration of estuarine wetlands and removal of fill *Retsil (Drift Cell 34) Sinclair Inlet Replace undersized culvert; restore natural shoreline processes near boat ramp No change *Beach Drive (Drift Cell 84) Sinclair Inlet Replace culvert at Sacco Lane; fix Waterman Dock and restore shoreline; evaluate Culvert Size at Waterman Point In- Progress Waterman Dock removed in 2015 Illahee (Drift Cell 56) Protect remaining salt marsh; implement Illahee regional stormwater treatment facility; replace culvert to reconnect marsh In- Progress Part of Proposed Capital Facility Plan to be implemented 2020-2025 Illahee State Park/Enetai (Drift Cell 56) Investigate soft-bank armoring alternatives No change Replace culvert on Enetai Creek Lower Chico Creek Implement LID; replace culverts; continue creating salmonid habitat; continue to monitor and remove invasive plant species; replace Erlands Point Road bridge and restore upstream floodplain; replace road crossing at Chico Way NW and restore floodplain, stream corridor, and channel migration zone; replace Northlake Way NW bridge In- Progress Kitsap Conservation District Riparian restoration and invasive species removal on private properties complete Upper Chico Creek and Wetland Protect existing functions; assess impacts of Seabeck Highway culverts and replace where needed; decommission trails in sensitive areas; remove invasive plants/replant appropriate wetland shrubs or trees; acquire headwater wetlands and wetlands utilized by beaver In- Progress Kitsap Conservation District and Suquamish Tribe Restored riparian habitat in the Chico Creek watershed; Phase 2 of the Chico Creek Instream Restoration complete; Keta Park Floodplain restoration complete Kitsap Lake and Wetland Implement LID retrofits; improve riparian vegetation; remove invasive species In- Progress City of Bremerton Stormwater treatment retrofits at 4 locations; additional projects include installing a stormwater treatment system and replacing the existing culvert April 2021 7-2 Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Bremerton Shoreline Restoration Plan Addendum December 4, 2020 Page 3 of 4 Project Location / Identifier Environmental component(s) Status (2020) Proponent Notes under Northlake Way in 2021 Union River Maintain riparian forest buffers and improve large woody debris abundance; re-establish natural cover; retrofit existing structures with permeable pavement and rain gardens; replace undersized culverts; eliminate in- stream stormwater pond In- Progress Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group Phase I completed in September of 2013 *Project site is not located within the City of Bremerton; however, it was listed in 2012 as it relates to waterbodies within or affected by Bremerton shorelines. Table 2. Completed or planned projects no t Included in the pr evious Shoreline Restoration Plan. Project Location Project Description Status (2020) Proponent Notes Evergreen Park Restore nearshore ecological functions along 600 feet of shoreline; remove bulkhead; create stormwater swale; plant native vegetation Proposed City of Bremerton The City developed a conceptual and preliminary design; anticipated start date is September 2022 Enetai Creek (R9) Replaced 3 culverts Complete Mason Conservation District Krigsman Stream Restoration Installed large woody debris; extirpated noxious weeds and planted native ground cover Complete Kitsap Conservation District Kitsap Creek Replaced undersized culvert; increased habitat complexity; installed large woody debris; removed bank armoring; dechannelized stretch of stream to increase discharge capacity and reduce overbank flooding Complete Kitsap Conservation District Dyes Inlet Removed bulkhead at two east shore properties and Mosher Creek; installed shoreline buffer and native plantings Complete Kitsap County Chico Creek Salmon Park Remove culvert under Golf Club Hill road and replace with a 140-foot span bridge In Progress Kitsap County April 2021 7-3 Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Bremerton Shoreline Restoration Plan Addendum December 4, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Project Location Project Description Status (2020) Proponent Notes Mid Chico Creek Remove private driveway near Navy Railroad trestle; replace trestle; remove floodplain fill In- Progress Suquamish Tribe Ostrich Creek Implement LID retrofits along Brentwood Drive, Kitsap Way, and Price Road; replace culverts; install 15 stormwater treatment systems; create bioretention swales Proposed City of Bremerton Project to begin in 2021 Oyster Bay Sewer relocation at Oyster Bay Beach; eliminate lateral connections to the gravity sewer main; install grinder pumps Proposed City of Bremerton Project to begin in 2021 Stephenson Creek Add stormwater treatment to the existing stormwater system improvement along Robin Avenue In- Progress City of Bremerton Gorst Creek Replace culvert under old Belfair Highway; correct rear facility property passage issues In- Progress Suquamish Tribe Upper Dickerson Creek Replaced two culverts; restored floodplain function at confluence of Dickerson and Chico Creek; improved stream and wetland conditions; restored fish passage habitat Complete Kitsap Conservation District and Kitsap County Public Works April 2021 7-4 Exhibit B to SMP Ordinance Attachment A to SMP Public Hearing To: City Council From: Garrett Jackson, Senior Planner Date: April 5, 2021 Subject: Periodic Update to Shoreline Master Program and Critical Area Ordinance OVERVIEW SUMMARY City Council shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed Shoreline Master Program (SMP) amendments. The SMP amendments capture Ecology’s comments outlined within their Initial Determination. These most-recent amendments remain consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation for City Council to adopt, as seen in the Ordinance within this public hearing packet. The SMP update also includes associated Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) amendments for consistency among codes. As they are two separate codes (SMP and the Bremerton Municipal Code), it requires two separate Public Hearings to pass each code adoption through Ordinance. Please note if the SMP Update is not passed or the hearing was continued, the CAO’s Public Hearing should be withdrawn or would also be continued. For the ease of review, this Memo will discuss both the SMP and CAO code updates as they were processed together. REASON FOR UPDATE The Shoreline Management Act requires each city and county to review, and, if necessary, revise their SMP. Per RCW 90.58.080 a periodic update must be completed regularly (every eight years) to ensure that local plans conform to State mandates, advancements in best available science (BAS), and changes in local circumstances. ATTACHMENTS Attachment to this Memo, which is identified as Attachment A to the City Council Public Hearing Packet, are the following: Attachment A-1: Planning Commission’s Finding and Conclusions Attachment A-2: Meetings from Planning Commission process Attachment A-3: Gap Analysis Attachment A-4: Comment Matrix DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Attachment A – SMP Periodic Update & CAO Update Page 2 of 6 RESOURCES The public hearing builds upon the Planning Commission public process and requirements from Department of Ecology. For City Council’s consideration, the following have been attached to the memorandum: Attachment A-1 – Planning Commission’s Finding and Conclusions Attachment A-2 – Meetings from Planning Commission process: o Workshop #1 – September 21, 2020 o Workshop #2 – October 19, 2020 o Public Hearing – November 16, 2020 The following is a summary of the Planning Commission’s process and linked materials: September 21, 2020 Workshop, Packet & Presentation At the first workshop staff relayed that the SMP & COA update was needed to ensure compliance with State regulation and current best available science. A Gap Analysis, which is attached as Attachment A-3, was developed and used through the Planning Commission process which identified areas of the code under consideration for amendments, this included some reformatting of the SMP for reader ease, adding flexibility for single family homes, and adding language addressing climate resiliency. The Planning Commission instructed staff to continue work on these topics and provide more detailed information at a later public workshop. October 19, 2020 Workshop, Packet & Presentation At the follow up workshop staff provided an updated draft of the Gap Analysis as well as full draft copies of the SMP and COA documents. Along with those draft documents, the October Staff Report provided further detail on the general topics presented to the Planning Commission at the September workshop. This included several amendments intended to ease the permitting requirements for single family homes, including changes to Vegetation Management Plans (VMPs), buffer averaging, and easing some nonconforming provisions. November 16, 2020 Public Hearing and Packet. A joint Ecology and City public hearing was held to hear public testimony on amendments to the SMP and CAO. The Planning Commission gave a recommendation that the SMP and CAO be submitted to the Department of Ecology for their Initial Determination of Consistency and to the City Council, for the adoption of amendments to the SMP and CAO. A summary of the proposed changes is included in the Watershed Company’s Gap Analysis, that can be seen at Attachment A-3. The Gap Analysis is a document created by City’s consultant The Watershed Company which provides a table summary of all proposed amendments and minor mapping changes to Shoreline Environment Designations (SEDs). Additional information is available via the City SMP Online Tool. The online tool launched October 1, 2020 and provides a more user-friendly option for the public to learn about the Shoreline Update process, specific amendments, and ways to provide comments to the City. Attachment A – SMP Periodic Update & CAO Update Page 3 of 6 SUMMARY OF SELECT AMENDMENTS As mentioned previously, a complete summary of proposed amendments are identified in the GAP Analysis, as seen in Attachment A-3. The following provides a general summary of the proposed amendment package to the City’s SMP and CAO as follows: Proposed Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Amendments i. Formatting. The SMP policy sections were reformatted for reader ease and citation. SMP policies are consolidated into Chapter 2, Goals and Policies, to improve readability and condense regulations. In addition, adding hyperlinks allows easy access between different regulatory topics. ii. Vegetation Management Plan. Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) revisions for single- family residential allowances (Section 7.020, Vegetation Conservation). VMP documentation for structure expansion outside the shoreline buffer now only requires mapping existing vegetation and recording presence of native vegetation as a Notice to Title. This replaces the original requirement, where such development would be required to enhance shoreline buffer areas; this brings the City in-line with other mitigation required by other jurisdictions. For buffer enhancement plant spacing requirements, applicants can have a lower ratio of conifers planted on-center compared to that of deciduous trees (eight (8) feet on-center compared to sixteen (16) for conifers), as they provide a higher ecological value. In addition, minor single-family development requirements may be waived by the director, including small performance bond requirements of less than $5,000 and requiring a licensed professional prepare landscape plans. iii. Buffer Reduction: Amendments to the Shoreline buffer reduction options for single-family residences (Section 7.010, Buffers and Setbacks). Proposed buffer reduction amendments include a simplified standard, taking the average setback of like structures on either side of the subject property, as shown in the example image. This buffer reduction mechanism references VMP revegetation requirement to revegetate the most waterward 25% of the shoreline buffer. Attachment A – SMP Periodic Update & CAO Update Page 4 of 6 A shoreline buffer reduction option/alternative from figure 7.010 (b) is also required for meeting no-net-loss of shoreline ecological functions. These proposed alternatives include a reduction based upon bulkhead removal, bulkhead setback, creosote pile removal, green stormwater techniques, or other approved alternative jointly agreed upon by the Director and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. This replaces the current reduction standard to compare 60% or more of like structures within the same numbered block when allowing a setback reduction. iv. Interrupted Buffer. Allowing interrupted shoreline buffers when separated by a roadway (Section 7.010(3), Interrupted buffer). When a legally established roadway separates a buffer, development may occur on the landward edge of the road, and the applicant may need to provide a report assessing impacts to shoreline ecological functions. The report requirement may be waived, depending upon the extent and permanence of the buffer interruption and the project’s impact to the shoreline. v. Nonconformities. Allowing legal nonconforming structures, uses, and lots to continue to exist (Chapter 6, Nonconforming Provisions). Modifications to nonconforming structures now include allowing repair, remodel or restoration of the structure in its current configuration. Expansions outside the shoreline buffer no longer need to provide a VMP, consistent with proposed changes within section 7.020, Vegetation Conservation. Mitigation to restore 50% of the required shoreline buffer with native vegetation remains a requirement for expansions of nonconforming structures, along with structures experiencing substantial destruction (replacing at least 75% of the structure’s assessed value). Expansion provisions will not apply to overwater homes, including floating homes and on-water residences, a prohibited use within shoreline jurisdiction. vi. Height Allowances. Capturing height changes within the new Downtown Subarea Plan (Figure 7.090 (b), Height Restrictions). Amendments to increase building height allowances in the Downtown Waterfront shoreline designation will enable the SMP to align with the Downtown Subarea Plan, so long as view corridors are not substantially impacted. A view corridor analysis is required when exercising this height increase to demonstrate no view blockage from a substantial number of upland residential properties, consistent with RCW 90.58.320. vii. Climate Resiliency. Introduce future climate resiliency goals to address sea level rise (Section 2.030(b), Conservation and Restoration Goal). Addressing the effects of future sea level rise through objective goals such as information gathering to support a future strategic plan; prioritize development and redevelopment to sea level rise from most to least favorable: avoid, retreat, protect, and accommodate; and document shoreline character to observe the rate of erosion as a way of identifying shorelines most susceptible to sea level rise. viii. Mapping. Shoreline Environment Designation Mapping updates include: Assigning the small island within Oyster Bay an Urban Conservancy Shoreline Environment Designation (SED). This island was previously undesignated. Along Wheaton Way, extend the Commercial SED south to 1917 Wheaton Way to capture the Neighborhood Business (NB) zoning designation. Along Shore Dr, extend Commercial SED an additional lot south beyond Pit Ave to match NB zoning designation. Attachment A – SMP Periodic Update & CAO Update Page 5 of 6 Add Isolated SED on the landward side of Evergreen Park, landward of Sheldon Boulevard. The Recreational SED remains for Evergreen Park. Proposed Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Amendments i. Wetland Buffers. Table changes to incorporate July 2018 Department of Ecology guidance (BMC 20.14.330(h) Wetland Buffers). This guidance results in a re- categorization of wetland habitat scores, where a habitat score of 5 now falls into the low wetland category rating, whereas before it fell into a medium category rating. The change results in slightly smaller buffers for lower functioning wetlands, so long as wetland minimization measures are met. In limited instances where a wetland habitat score is 6 or greater and an adjacent recorded conservation easement exists connecting neighboring Priority Habitats, as defined by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, a corridor of at least 100 feet must be protected by a similar legal instrument. ii. Buffer Flexibility. Adding flexibility for fish and wildlife habitat conservation area buffers (BMC 20.14.730). In addition, small single-family projects of 500 square feet or less may be exempt from having to prepare a Habitat Management Plan, though they will still need to mitigate for the impact. Further, projects that cannot accomplish fish and wildlife conservation area buffers may request for a departure from prescribed buffers, so long as the mitigation proposal is agreed to by two state or federal resource agencies or tribes and can demonstrate equal or greater critical area protection. PUBLIC COMMENTS In April of 2020 postcard notification was sent to every shoreline property owner in the City, announcing that the shoreline update process was commencing soon, requesting feedback from property owners, and provided a web address where interested persons could learn more. As mentioned previously, the online tool launched last October to provide the public with an easy web-based option to learn about the SMP process. Notices have also been posted on the City webpage, Twitter, and Facebook pages informing the public of process updates and soliciting feedback. The Ecology and City joint public comment period opened on October 23, 2020 and closed on November 23, 2020. At the recommendation of our consultant, the City has planned the comment period to run past the Planning Commission’s public hearing; as the Watershed Company has found that the public hearing can spur interest from the public leading to additional comment. Comments received include remarks from the Department of Fish & Wildlife, the Suquamish Tribe, Department of Defense of the Navy – Naval Base Kitsap, and the Department of Ecology. Further, a comment was received under the SEPA determination comment period (December 15 through 29, 2020) were from resident Susan Digby. A comment matrix is attached as Attachment A-4 Comments received resulted in changes to the general policies section of the SMP (SMP Chapter 2), the shoreline buffer reduction table (SMP 7.010(b)), stormwater facilities within SMP 8.090(p), CAO wetland mitigation ratios (BMC 20.14.340(f)(1)), and CAO stream buffer Attachment A – SMP Periodic Update & CAO Update Page 6 of 6 enhancement standards (BMC 20.14.730(d)(1)). SCHEDULE The following provides a basic timeline of key dates to the SMP & CAO update process: October 2020. An online open house was posted at the project website at https://bremertonsmpupdate.participate.online/ October 23 – November 23, 2020. Minimum 30-day City and Ecology joint comment period. Nov. 16, 2020. Planning Commission joint Public Hearing with Department of Ecology to solicit public comment. Planning Commission will provide a recommendation to City Council about amendments. This is not a typical process for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing during the open comment period, however this is a State requirement. It was discussed that if substantive public or agency comment(s) had been received that required additional review (and recommendation) by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission had the option to conduct an additional meeting to provide an updated recommendation to City Council. This was determined to not be needed. December 2020. Conduct and issue an Environmental Determination. January 2021. Submit proposed amendments to CAO and SMP, periodic review checklist, Growth Management Act (GMA) notice, SEPA products, public hearing record, and response to comments received to Ecology for Initial Determination review. February 2021. City received Ecology Initial Determination and made changes based upon Ecology’s recommended and required changes as described in Attachment B and C of the Public Hearing packet. These updates are incorporated into the proposed Ordinance’s Exhibit A. April 21, 2021. City Council Public Hearing. Please note that per State Law, this update needs to be concluded prior to July 2021. CONCLUSION As required by State Law, the City of Bremerton is processing Shoreline Master Program (SMP) amendments in the periodic update (every 8 years). City Council has conducted two separate public hearings for both the CAO and SMP, in that order, to receive testimony and consider changes to SMP regulatory document and Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 20.14. The proposed amendments are in compliance with the State regulations, City’s Code requirements for Comprehensive Plan, Subarea Plans, and Zoning Code Amendments. Therefore, the Planning Commission and Ecology suggests that City Council approve these ordinances. 1 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary: The proposal is to amend the City of Bremerton’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) through a periodic update, as required by the Washington State Department of Ecology per RCW 90.58.080(4). The City proposes amendments to bring the SMP into compliance with State Rules that have been added or changed since the City’s comprehensive SMP update in 2013. The City is also proposing updates to the critical areas regulations that are incorporated by reference into the SMP, and miscellaneous amendments intended to improve the clarity, consistency, and administration of the SMP. The City will utilize the optional joint local and state comment period as provided by WAC 173-26-104. I.FINDINGS OF FACT 1.Project Description: Proposed amendments to the City Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) BMC 20.14. 2.Procedural History: 2.1 In Spring 2020, the City mailed postcards to property owners within the Shoreline Jurisdictions to inform them that this process was going to start and how to get on the interested parties list to be kept informed. 2.2 Planning Commission Workshop: September 21, 2020 2.3 Planning Commission Workshop: October 19, 2020 2.4 Washington State Department of Commerce Notice: November 5, 2020 2.5 30-day Comment period for the SMP Amendments: October 23 to November 23, 2020. 2.6 Notice of Public Hearing: November 6, 2020 2.7 Planning Commission Public Hearing: November 16, 2020 2.8 As the comment period is open during the Public Hearing, if the Director determines that additional comments have been received that need Planning Commission’s deliberation, an additional Planning Commission public hearing will be held in the beginning of 2021, prior to the City Council Public Hearing. 3.Public and Agency Comment: 3.1 At the two workshops, no public testimony was received. 3.2 At the Planning Commission Public Hearing on November 16, 2020, the following people provided testimony: None . . . 4.SEPA Determination: The SEPA determination will be conducted after Planning Commission Public Hearing and the public comment period has been completed. This determination will happen prior to the City Council decision. 5.Consistency: Text amendments to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) shall meet Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 20.18.060. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to SMP if it complies with BMC 20.18.060. This section of the BMC outlines that these amendments to the SMP shall follow the Washington State procedures to amend the SMP as outlined in Chapter 173-26 WAC and it will require that the City Council approval be approved by Department of Ecology. Attachment A-1 2 To ensure early coordination with Department of Ecology, the City of Bremerton and the Department of Ecology have agreed to use the optional joint review process for the amendments to the SMP as authorized under WAC 173-26-104. The joint review process consolidates the local and state public comments periods, speeding up the approval process. II. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION For the current place in this process and based on the findings above, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed amendments to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), meets the requirements in BMC 20.18.060 entitled Amendments to the Shoreline Master Program, and therefore recommends the SMP be submitted to the Department of Ecology for their Initial Determination of Consistency and to the City Council, for the adoption of amendments to the SMP and CAO. Respectfully submitted by: _________________________________ _________________________________ Andrea L. Spencer, Executive Secretary Nick Wofford, Planning Commission Chair Attachment A-1 APPROVED CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF VIRTUAL MEETING September 21, 2020 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Wofford called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Staff Present Chair Wofford Vice Chair Tift Commissioner Coughlin Commissioner Mosiman Commissioner Pedersen Commissioners Excused Commissioner Rich Quorum Certified Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Allison Satter, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Garrett Jackson, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Isaac Gloor, Planner, Department of Community Development Jon Rauch, Bremerton Kitsap Access Television (BKAT) Staff Sarah Lynam, DCD Project Assistant, Department of Community Development Others Present Dan Nickel, Watershed Company Alex Capron, Watershed Company APPROVAL OF AGENDA THE AGENDA WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2020, AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH COMMISSONER PEDERSEN ABSTAINING. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Wofford asked if there were any comments from citizens. Roy Runyon, Bremerton, advised that Bremerton is a 1st Class City, which means that citizens retain the right of initiative and can create legislation if the City Council is unable or unwilling to act. He reported that he recently drafted a new initiative related to accessory dwelling units (ADUs). He recalled that the City Council did not adopt the changes recommended by the Planning Commission to make the ADU regulations less restrictive, and he doesn’t think it is appropriate to wait any longer. Attachment A-2 Page 1 of 25 He referred to the Comprehensive Plan amendments that will be the subject of the Commission’s public hearing, which talk about the availability of affordable housing and changing the density. He stressed that the changes won’t be meaningful without also amending the ADU ordinance to make it less restrictive. He outlined the items included in his proposed initiative as follows: • Eliminate all of the design criteria for ADUs. He questioned why there should be a more restrictive standard for ADUs compared to single-family residential construction. • Allow more than one ADU per lot. There should be a formula that allows people with large lots to develop multiple ADUs with a minimum square foot requirement. For example, an additional ADU could be allowed for each 4,350 square feet of property, keeping in mind the setback requirements, etc. Mr. Runyon said he will closely monitor the Planning Commission and City Council discussions and actions related to ADUs going forward, and will modify his initiative accordingly. He said he is prepared to take the proposal to the people for a vote. It is time to make the appropriate code changes to get more affordable housing in the City. Currently, there are only two new ADUs created each year in the City. With the initiative, he is hopeful there will be 20 new ADUs per year. Talking about affordable housing is only effective if appropriate code changes are made to enable private property owners to develop ADUs on their properties. Chair Wofford closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the 2020 Docket, Related to Establishing a Minimum Density Threshold Ms. Satter advised that the Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing and provide a recommendation to the City Council. She reviewed that the Commission held a workshop in January to discuss the amendments. Since that time, staff has conducted the environmental review and completed agency and public outreach. Following the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the City Council will conduct a public hearing (tentatively scheduled for October 21st) and make the final decision. Ms. Satter advised that the proposal before the Commission includes both a Comprehensive Plan amendment and an associated Zoning Code amendment to implement the Comprehensive Plan amendment. She explained that the Comprehensive Plan is a blueprint document that establishes the vision, goals and policies for how the City will grow in the next 20+ years. With the exception of subarea plans, the Comprehensive Plan can only be amended once a year. The Zoning Code implements the vision, goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan through the development standards and design guidelines in Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20. It addresses standards such as height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc. There is no limit on how often the Zoning Code can be amended. Ms. Satter reminded the Commissioners of the approval criteria that must be considered when reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments: • Is it compliant with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) and other City plans and documents? • Is it compatible with the existing and planned development patterns? • Will it not negatively affect the City’s ability to provide urban services? • Will the proposed changes bear a reasonable relationship to benefiting the public health, safety and welfare? Ms. Satter also reminded the Commissioners of the approval criteria that must be considered when reviewing Zoning Code amendments: • Is it compliant with other City, State and Federal Codes, regulations, and ordinances? • Is it consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan? If a Comprehensive Plan amendment is required, approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment must occur prior to or concurrently with the Zoning Code amendment. They must be consistent. Attachment A-2 Page 2 of 25 Ms. Satter advised that the proposed amendment would change the minimum residential density citywide from 5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) to 6 du/ac. Following the January workshop, the Commission asked staff to analyze if 7 du/ac would be appropriate. However, based on public feedback, staff is only proposing to increase the minimum to 6 du/ac. She reviewed that the Washington State Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 1923 in 2019, which encourages cities to increase opportunities for more residential capacity. The bill offered a menu of options to increase the supply of affordable housing. The City reviewed these options and agreed to consider the following three: • Establish a minimum density of 6 du/ac. (subject of September 21 public hearing) • Amend the ADU regulations. (subject of October 19 Commission public hearing) • Amend the Zoning Code to address cluster housing and cottages. (briefing scheduled for early 2021) Ms. Satter pointed out that the minimum density option requires both a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a Zoning Code amendment, whereas the other two initiatives under HB 1923 only require a Zoning Code amendment. Ms. Satter advised that the amendment would apply to new development in the Low-Density and Medium-Density Residential zones, as well as four zones in the Downtown Subarea Plan (Downtown Multifamily Residential 1 and 2 and Downtown 1 and 2 Family Residential). As proposed, the Comprehensive Plan would be amended to change the minimum density in these zones from 5 du/ac to 6 du/ac. The Zoning Code would also be amended to change the minimum density from 5 du/ac to 6 du/ac. The maximum lot area would also be changed from 7,712 to 7,260 square feet. Ms. Satter shared examples to show how a 1- acre parcel could be developed based on the current 5 du/ac per acre versus the proposed 6 du/ac. She also shared an example of a recently-approved subdivision with a density of 7 du/ac. She provided examples of existing development in the City to illustrate what development at 6 du/ac might look like: • Dibb Street between Robin Avenue and Eagle. The property was developed at 6 du/ac and the average lot size is 7,114 square feet. • 8th Street between Olympic Avenue and Rainier Avenue. The property was developed at 10 du/ac and the average lot size is 4,350 square feet. • Dockside on Osprey Circle between Cormorant and Widegon Court. The property was developed at 5 du/ac and the average lot size is 8,700 square feet. Ms. Satter shared examples of recent development in Bremerton, noting that very few plats were subdivided at the minimum density. The range was between 7 du/ac and 13 du/ac. She summarized that, as per the Buildable Lands Review, projects in Bremerton are currently subdividing at an average of 10 du/ac citywide, so this change to the minimum will not likely affect development. Ms. Satter emphasized that the amendments would not require existing lots and homes to squeeze in extra units. They would only impact future subdivisions and development. The proposal would change the minimum density, but the maximum density would remain the same, and there would be no changes to the zoning maps, either. Ms. Satter reported that two public comments were received. One expressed opposition to the amendment and the other was generally supportive of increasing residential density but had other ideas for the Commission to consider. Chair Wofford opened the hearing for public comments. Roy Runyon, Bremerton, said he supports the proposed amendment. However, he suggested that, if they want to encourage increased density, the Commission should also look at other development regulations that drive up the cost of development, such as impact fees. If the cost of development is higher in Bremerton than in unincorporated Kitsap County, then the City is losing out and is not meeting the intent of the GMA. He asked the Commission to consider what changes it can recommend to the City Council to make residential development in the City more affordable. While the proposed amendment is a step in the right direction, they also need to consider other practical changes that will make it easier for developers to increase density. Chair Wofford said the Commission seeks input from time to time about what can be done to make development easier and more feasible for contractors. Director Spencer pointed out that while there are general facility charges to hook up to the Attachment A-2 Page 3 of 25 water and sewer systems, the City of Bremerton hasn’t adopted any impact fee ordinances. On the other hand, Kitsap County, Port Orchard and Poulsbo have all adopted transportation impact fee ordinances. Kevin Walthall, Bremerton, voiced support for the proposed amendments. However, he asked if they would hold any implication for duplexes to meet the minimum requirement. He also asked if the amendments would alter the setback requirement in single-family and multi-family residential zones. If not, he could see the setback requirements becoming a stumbling block for developers. He voiced his support for allowing duplexes, which would help developers meet the minimum requirement. Ms. Satter pointed out that the maximum density requirement actually has more impact on duplex development than the minimum density requirement, since the goal is usually to fit more units on a lot. Because the amendments would only apply in the low-density and medium-density residential zones, it is likely that developers will choose to construct single- family homes rather than duplexes. She said the amendments would not reduce the setback requirement, since developers are successfully developing at 8 and more du/ac and can still meet the current setbacks. Chair Wofford closed the public portion of the hearing. Vice Chair Tift referred to the public comment, which indicated support for the proposed amendment but wanted the minimum density to be mandated. He asked if that was practical. Ms. Satter answered that, once adopted, the amendment would establish a minimum of 6 du/ac for all new subdivisions, and it would become a mandate. The only exception would be if a property owner wants to retain one larger lot where his/her home is located. While the entire property might not meet the minimum density requirement at the time of subdivision, the property where the house is located would be subdivided at a later date to meet the requirement. That provision would not change, recognizing that Bremerton has a lot of existing development and people have a desire to keep their one house and subdivide the rest of the lot they aren’t utilizing. Vice Chair Tift asked if developers have indicated support for the proposed amendment. Ms. Satter said the proposal was sent to the Kitsap Building Association and the real estate group, but they have been silent on the matter since most developers are already developing at a higher rate. COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS AND BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS INCLUDED IN ATTACHMENT D. COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Public Workshop: Discussion of Amendments for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Update Mr. Jackson introduced Dan Nickel and Alex Capron, from the Watershed Company, the consultants hired to assist the department with the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) update. He explained that this is a workshop for discussion and education purposes, and no formal decisions will be made at this time. It is anticipated that the project will be completed in mid-2021, and updates will be provided to the Commission over the next several months. Mr. Jackson explained that the SMP is a set of state-required policies and regulations that are intended to protect state shorelines, promote public access to the shorelines, and ensure that uses that need to be located on the shoreline have priority. In addition to updating the SMP, the City will also update its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) for consistency with the SMP and other limited changes. Mr. Jackson advised that the SMP applies to “Shorelines of the State,” which are waterbodies that meet certain criteria. The shoreline jurisdiction is generally areas that are located within 200 feet of a high-tide line, some larger lakes and streams and other exceptions. Examples of those in Bremerton include Lake Kitsap, portions of the Union River and Gorst Creek, and all marine waters. He shared an example of a shoreline designation map, noting that the colored lines follow waters that are regulated by the SMP. Each of the colors represents a different shoreline designation and they correspond closely with the zoning map designations. For example, the Low-Density Residential Zone has a Single-Family Residential Shoreline Designation. He explained that the shoreline designations were assigned based on an analysis in the Inventory Characterization Report. The report was done in 2013 and took a snapshot of existing development on Bremerton shorelines and identified shoreline resources they wanted keep. For example, the area located south of Gorst was designated as Urban Conservancy Attachment A-2 Page 4 of 25 because it is an environmentally-sensitive area they want to preserve, and the area around the shipyard was designated as Industrial based on existing development. Areas that are waterward of the high-tide mark were designated as Aquatic. Mr. Jackson explained that the state requires jurisdictions to update their SMPs every eight years to ensure they are compliant with current state laws and changes in local plans and regulations and to incorporate new or improved data and information. The periodic update will not re-evaluate the ecological baseline, which was established as part of the 2013 comprehensive update that is used to determine no net loss. The ecological baseline is a snapshot inventory that established what the City’s shorelines currently look like. It identified the ecological situation, the areas that were degradated, and the areas that had environmental resources. One of the main goals of the SMP is to assure no net loss of the 2013 baseline. Mr. Jackson referred to the Gap Analysis Report (Attachment A), which was prepared by the Watershed Company and points out areas that the City has to improve upon in order to be compliant with the update process. He explained that staff will propose a number of amendments as part of the proposed update, and a full draft of the proposed amendments will be presented at a future workshop. He shared examples of the anticipated amendments to both the SMP and CAO as follows: SMP Amendments • Definitions. This section will be amended to be consistent with the state. For example, an updated definition for “floating residences” will be included. In addition, some definitions that are located in the nonconforming section of the SMP will be moved to the definition section of the SMP. • Exemptions. The exemptions for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits will be updated to be consistent with what is available from the state. • Applicability. A statement will be added to clarify that the SMP doesn’t apply to federal lands. Currently, there is no statement that the shipyard is not part of the SMP. • Restoration Projects. Some of the dimensional standards for restoration projects will be updated. • Nonconforming Structures. The amendments will look at the applicability of the code as it pertains to certain structures and the proportionality of mitigation required in some of those cases. For example, is the amount of mitigation required for a small addition proportional to the expansion? • Shoreline Buffer Reduction Options. They are looking at minor revisions to this section to clarify buffer averaging provisions and to ensure that no net loss is achieved. Currently, the buffer averaging calculations are complicated, and the goal is to make them simpler. • New Sheridan/Harrison Center Subarea Plan. Amendments will align the SMP with the new subarea plan that was recently adopted. • Vegetation Management Plan Allowances. Portions of this section will be updated to provide relief for single- family property owners. The plan is required with any new shoreline development. It provides a snapshot of existing vegetation and describes how a developer will mitigate and add native vegetation to buffer areas. • Consolidation. All of the SMP policies will be consolidated into one chapter. Currently, they are scattered throughout the document, and it would read much more clearly if they were located in one section. • Climate Resiliency. Proposed language would be added for climate resiliency. As the department learns more about the ongoing effects of the global climate, it is important to ensure that the knowledge is represented in the environmental documents. • Minor Mapping Changes. Minor updates to the Shoreline Environment Designations will be made to reflect new information and improve consistency with zoning. Attachment A-2 Page 5 of 25 CAO Amendments • Wetland Buffers. The existing buffer requirements for wetlands will be clarified to be consistent with the Department of Ecology (DOE) guidelines. • Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. Other minor amendments will be made to provide flexibility within Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. Mr. Jackson announced that an online tool will be launched on October 1st to orient the public to the SMP update process. A full draft of the proposed amendments will be presented at a Planning Commission workshop on October 19th. The state has some specific requirements for the City to accomplish, one being a shared public comment period and shared public hearing. The joint public comment period will occur in November, and the joint public hearing is scheduled for November 16th. It is anticipated that the draft update will be presented to the DOE for an initial determination of compliance with DOE standards in January of 2021, and the Planning Commission review and recommendation, if necessary, will occur in February 2021. Local adoption will likely occur in Spring 2021. He emphasized that all of the dates are tentative at this time, and staff will take as much time as needed with the Commission and public to work through the process. Mr. Jackson said that the online open house that will launch on October 1st is one way to engage the public and ensure they are involved in the SMP update process. It will review background information and project timelines so the public can understand the issues that are being addressed and provide comments. It will also provide an opportunity for the public to sign up to be notified of future actions on the update. Roy Runyon, Bremerton, asked how many individual property owners/developers have been impacted by the current SMP and what their costs have been. He noted language regarding flexibility and minimizing the impact of the SMP and said he would be interested to see what that information shows. He recommended that this data be presented to the Commission, City Council and public for background. Sue Plahn, Bremerton, asked if the slide set from the staff’s presentation could be made available to the public. Ms. Satter answered that it would be sent to all of the property owners who received notification of the workshop. Vice Chair Tift asked if the Vegetation Management Plan applies in the event that the shoreline is damaged during construction. Mr. Jackson answered that the Vegetation Management Plan is intended to repopulate the buffer areas as mitigation for the development and not just those areas disturbed during construction. It identifies how much of the buffer area should be populated with native vegetation and trees. Commissioner Mosiman recognized that the presentation was intended to be just an overview. However, as they get into more detail at future meetings, he would like clarification on the following: • Attachment A, Page 6, Item e, which talks about the difference between timber harvesting and timber cutting. It would be helpful to have a map showing where timber harvesting might take place within the City. • Attachment A, Page 23, Item 9, which references a specific Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provision regarding public access requirements. It would be helpful for the Commission to see the actual WAC language to know what is being referenced. Years ago, a map was provided to show where public access was located within the City of Bremerton. If they are considering changes to public access, it would be helpful to have that map to provide some reference about what changes would take place and where. • Attachment A, Page 24, Item 12, which has to do with climate change resiliency as it relates to bulkheads. Bulkheads are important in marine environments, and they have an impact on the upland of property owners. It would be helpful to have clarification on the City’s policies relevant to sea level rise. • Attachment A, Page 24, Item 14, which has to do with the portionality and scale of development. Would a developer be required to provide an entire buffer with native plants? Are you changing the residential permitting requirements to be simpler? He supports simplicity but without losing the ability to make the kinds of changes and impacts the City wants to see for the environment. Attachment A-2 Page 6 of 25 Commissioner Mosiman asked if the tribes have been informed that the City is in the process of updating its SMP. He would be curious to know what their interest might be. Commissioner Pederson referred to Attachment A, Page 24, Item 12 and said he is also curious about the City’s policies relevant to sea level rise. Olympia’s 2019 Sea Level Rise Plan is referenced, and he is interested in learning more about what that plan entails. He asked staff to provide a link to the plan prior to the next workshop. Ms. Satter said staff is working on climate resiliency documents, and other documents related to this effort have also been prepared. Information will be sent to the Planning Commission soon about a recent Kitsap County study related to sea level rise. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Wofford acknowledged the citizens who participated in the Zoom meeting and thanked those who provided input. Director Report Director Spencer reported that staff is settling into the new normal. There have been a lot of permit applications, and remote operations are going smoothly. A fun statistic showed that more than 1,000 people were able to engage with the online materials that were made available during the Eastside Employment Center planning process, which is encouraging to note. At this time, the City will proceed with digital meetings until there is a change in the governor’s order. Old Business There was no old business. New Business There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ______________________________ ______________________________ Andrea L Spencer, AICP Nick Wofford, Chair Executive Secretary Planning Commission Attachment A-2 Page 7 of 25 APPROVED CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF VIRTUAL MEETING October 19, 2020 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Wofford called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Staff Present Chair Wofford Vice Chair Tift Commissioner Coughlin Commissioner Mosiman Commissioner Pedersen Commissioner Rich Commissioners Excused None Quorum Certified Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Allison Satter, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development Garrett Jackson, Planner, Department of Community Development Isaac Gloor, Planner, Department of Community Development Sarah Lynam, DCD Project Assistant, Department of Community Development Others Present Dan Nickel, The Watershed Company CHAIR CALL FOR MODIFICATIONS TO AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2020, AS SUBMITTED. COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda). Chair Wofford asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Hearing: Zoning Code Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units (BMC 20.46.010) Ms. Satter and Mr. Gloor provided the Staff Report. Ms. Satter briefly reviewed that the Commission discussed Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) previously at a workshop on May 18th. At that time, she explained that the Legislature (House Bill 1923) asked cities in the State (zoned under the Growth Management Act) to review their ADU provisions and look for opportunities to increase residential capacity. The Commission indicated general support for the ADU amendments presented Attachment A-2 Page 8 of 25 Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 2 of 12 by staff, but requested staff consider alternatives to design standards. Since the May 18th workshop, staff has amended the design standards, conducted environmental review and agency outreach, incorporated public feedback, and added amendments for detached nonconforming structures. Ms. Satter briefly reviewed the format for the public hearing, noting that the public would have an opportunity to comment twice. She also provided an outline for the topics that would be discussed: x Size. Currently, the code allows ADUs up to 60% of the primary residence, and House Bill (HB) 1923 encourages jurisdictions to consider allowing 1,000 square feet or 60% of the primary residence, whichever is larger. x Parking.The current code requires 2 parking spaces for the residential unit and 1 parking space for the ADU. HB1923 encourages jurisdictions to remove the requirement of one additional parking space ADUs. x Owner Occupancy.HB1923 encourages jurisdictions to remove the owner-occupancy requirement. A few options will be discussed, including modifying the owner-occupancy requirement. x Number of ADUs.The current code allows one ADU, and there has been public interest in allowing two. Some cities in the region have already adopted this provision. It is not something HB1923 requested jurisdictions do, but it is being presented for the Commission’s consideration. While the Staff Report suggests otherwise, staff supports either one or two ADUs, and the environmental review was done for both options. x Design Standards.Design standards not required by HB1923 but are common in ADU standards in other jurisdictions. There are a few options for modifying the design criteria, and the one being proposed by staff is to remove design criteria completely. x Detached Structure Conversion.This is something new that hasn’t been discussed by the Commission before. The provision would allow existing structures that do not meet certain development standards to be established as ADUs. An example is an existing garage that does not meet setback requirements. The current ADU code requires that the underlying setbacks are met, and the proposed provision would allow existing structures to be converted to ADUs. However, certain requirements would apply. As proposed: o The provision would only apply to legally constructed buildings and not to new construction. o The structures would have to meet the health and safety requirements of the building and fire code. o An ADU could be enlarged into the setback up to 20% provided it doesn’t increase the size beyond what ADUs are allowed by code. Existing structures that are greater in size would be allowed to convert to ADUs, as long as there are no modifications other than those needed to create a livable space. o Expanded areas must match or compliment the primary dwelling and contain architectural features. Director Spencer noted that this provision was added to the Staff Report late in the afternoon and was not included in the original Staff Report. The updated Staff Report is available on the City’s website for review. Ms. Satter concluded by reminding the Commissioners that they will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The Commission’s recommendation will be presented to the City Council on December 16th. She recommended that citizens send their email addresses to either her or Sarah Lyman to be added to the email list of interested parties. Ms. Satter reported that one question was received late in the day requesting clarification on the size limits for ADUs. She responded that multi-story structure ADUs would be allowed, and the size would be based on habitable space. Garage space is usually exempt from the requirement. ADUs would have to comply with the height limit in the zoning code, which is 35 feet in most residential zones. Chair Wofford opened the public hearing and invited public comment. APPROVED Attachment A-2 Page 9 of 25 APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 3 of 12 Roy Runyan, Bremerton,said he likes the flexibility that allowing detached structure conversion would provide. He also likes the idea of following the guidelines set by HB1923 regarding size (1,000 square feet or 60% the size of the principal residence), but he would prefer 80%. He supports removing the parking requirement, since ADUs are often used by people who do not need an additional parking space. He also supports removing the occupancy requirement and allowing multiple ADUs. He suggested that a formula be created whereby property owners in lower density areas could put as many ADUs on a property as technically feasible. He asked why the Commissioners are leaning towards retaining as many design standards for ADUs as possible. This would, in effect, hold ADUs to a higher standard than manufactured homes and single-family residences. Russ Shiplet, Executive Officer, Kitsap Building Association, voiced the Association’s 100% support for the proposed amendments. The staff’s presentation addressed each of their concerns. He urged the Commission to recommend approval and move it to the City Council. He said he would participate in the public hearing before the City Council, as well. Susan Plahnn, Bremerton, asked if there would be any provisions for alternative features such as composting toilets. She also asked if energy-efficiency standards would be required. Jason Vogt, Bremerton, commented that building an ADU on his property would not be feasible unless the parking requirement is changed. He has owned his home for six years and has considered creating an ADU in his large backyard. He expressed his belief that the proposed changes might make it feasible for him to move forward with an ADU in the future. Chair Wofford closed this phase of the public comment period and invited staff to respond to the public comments and continue the presentation. Director Spencer responded to Ms. Plahn’s comments by clarifying that energy codes are part of the Building Code that was adopted by Washington State and internationally, and ADU’s would have to comply, as well. She doesn’t believe that composting toilets would be allowed, as ADU’s would be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Ms. Satter referred to the draft amendments outlined in Attachment A and presented six questions for the Commissioners to consider as they prepare their recommendation to the City Council: x How many ADUs should be allowed on a single parcel?The current code (Alternative A) allows just one ADU, either attached or detached. Alternative B would allow two ADUs, one attached and one detached, and Alternative C would allow two ADUs, either attached or detached. If the Commission supports either Alternative B or Alternative C, staff is recommending that an additional parking space be required for the 2nd ADU. The recommended proposed parking revision would require two off-parking spaces for the principal unit and one parking spaces for the second ADU for a total for three units with three parking spaces. Vice Chair Tift said he supports providing maximum flexibility (Alternatives B or C), but he believes that requiring an additional parking space for the 2nd unit would be essential. Commissioner Rich noted that staff is recommending that the parking requirement be eliminated to be consistent with HB1923. She asked if the amendment would remain consistent with HB1923 if the Commission were to recommend either Alternative B or C, plus a requirement for an additional parking space for the 2nd unit. Ms. Satter answered that, as proposed, no additional parking space would be required for the 1st ADU to be compliant with HB 1923, and she believes that requiring a parking space for the 2nd ADU would also be consistent with HB1923.Commissioner Rich said she also supports maximum flexibility (Alternatives B or C). Commissioner Pedersen said he supports maximum flexibility (Alternatives B or C), but he does not support a parking requirement for the 2nd ADU. He felt that property owners should be allowed to make these decisions. Commissioner Coughlin said he supports Alternative B. He is concerned about allowing two detached ADUs. In these situations, it might be better for a property to subdivide rather than create three separate residential units on a single lot. Attachment A-2 Page 10 of 25 APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 4 of 12 Commissioner Mosiman said he supports flexibility, as well. He supports Alternative C, as long as the property can support two independently sited ADUs. He pointed out that Alternatives B and C would both result in three residential units, and he questioned why the parking requirement should be different for Alternative C.Ms. Satter clarified that staff is recommending the additional parking requirement for both Alternatives B and C.Commissioner Mosiman said he doesn’t have a strong opinion, either way, regarding the parking requirement. Chair Wofford requested clarification on the maximum size for an ADU. Ms. Satter answered that, as proposed, the maximum size would be 1,000 square feet or up to 60% of the primary residence, whichever is greater. For example, if the primary structure is 10,000 square feet, the ADU could be up to 6,000 square feet. Chair Wofford pointed out that property owners who create ADUs will need to work with the United States Postal Service to determine the appropriate addresses for the units. If the City allows existing garages to be converted to ADUs, it is important to note that many property owners obtain extra income by offering these spaces as unofficial parking for shipyard workers. Eliminating these parking spaces might result in additional parking chaos. Chair Wofford asked if Alternatives B and C would limit the number of ADUs to a maximum of two. Ms. Satter responded that either option would allow a maximum of two ADUsregardless of lot size, and ADUs would only be allowed on properties that are developed with single family homes. ADUs would not be allowed on properties that are developed as multifamily. The majority of the Commission indicated support for the most flexible option which is Alternative C, which would allow two ADUs, either attached or detached. The majority also supported requiring one additional parking space for the 2nd ADU. x What should be the maximum size limit for ADUs?The current code (Alternative A) limits the size of an ADU to 60% of the size of the primary dwelling unit. Alternative B would be consistent with HB1923, allowing 1,000 square feet or 60% of the size of the primarily dwelling, whichever is larger. Vice Chair Tift observed that, as per Alternative B, a 3,000 square foot house could have an ADU much larger than 1,000 square feet. He noted that there aren’t a lot of 5,000+ square foot houses in Bremerton. On the other hand, there are a number of homes that are around 1,000 square feet, and a 600 square foot ADU is quite small. Alternative B would allow all ADUs to be at least 1,000 square feet. He said he supports Alternative B, which is consistent with HB1923. Commissioner Mosiman said he supports the Alternative B, as well. The Commissioners indicated support for Alternative B. Director Spencer reminded the Commission that ADUs would be subject to the lot coverage requirements. Even if two detached ADUs are allowed on a parcel, their size would be limited to the lot coverage requirement, which is 60% for most residential zones. Chair Wofford asked if the lot coverage requirement is based on stormwater capacity or the desire to avoid a lot of hardscape. Ms. Satter answered that it is both. Chair Wofford asked about the average home size in Bremerton, and Ms. Satter answered that, as per a comment from Mr. Shiplet from the Kitsap Builders Association, the average size in 1,500 square feet. x What should the ADU design standards include?As per the current code (Alternative A), ADUs must have a matching or complimentary exterior and a roof of equal or greater pitch as the primary unit. The eaves must be at least 12 inches, and the design must incorporate at least four architectural features from the list. Lastly, there must be an entrance on a different façade than the primary dwelling. Alternative B would modify the design standards to require a matching or complimentary exterior, an entrance that is visually distinct from the primary dwelling, and at least four architectural features from the list. Alternative C would completely remove the design standards. Ms. Satter advised that the City received one public comment suggesting that the term “appearance of a duplex” can have different meanings. If the Commission recommends Alternative B, the words “appearance of a duplex” would be deleted. Attachment A-2 Page 11 of 25 APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 5 of 12 Commissioner Coughlin said he supports Alternative B, including the modification described above. The provision that the roof and exterior could either match the existing house or fit in with the general neighborhood represents a bare minimum without being too onerous. Commissioner Rich agreed, but said she is interested in hearing more about the alternatives through public testimony at this hearing. Commissioner Pedersen said he was having a hard time deciding between Alternatives B and C. He is anxious to provide flexibility for ADUs, but most people in Bremerton would likely prefer some design standards. At their previous workshop discussion, he recommended lowering the number of design standards. Commissioner Mosiman said he is also divided between Alternatives B and C. By nature, he believes in having some level of design standards. Eliminating the design standards could result in unattractive development. On the other hand, he questioned the fairness of requiring design standards for ADUs when there are none for the primary residence. He likes the idea of a design standard that requires the ADU to be reflective of the primary residence so there is visual cohesiveness. Chair Wofford asked when the ADU design standards were adopted. Director Spencer answered that design standards were proposed to make ADUs more palatable without the owner-occupancy requirement. Chair Wofford asked when the City’s general design standards were adopted. Director Spencer answered that there are no general design standards, but there are design standards that apply to the Downtown Subarea. Ms. Satter added that, when the ADU code was adopted in the early 2000, it was based on a state model that included design criteria for roof pitch, eaves, and matching the primary residence. Alternative B would eliminate the roof pitch and eave requirements. Roof pitches vary throughout the City. Also, because of the City’s topographyand existing housing design, it is difficult for ADUs to meet the height requirement and roof pitch. Chair Wofford asked when design standards were established for single-family residences, and Director Spencer answered that there are none. Currently, the City’s only design standards are for ADUs and for projects in the downtown that are over a certain scale and require design review. Again, she said the ADU design standards were added a few years ago when the Commission recommended that the owner-occupancy requirement be eliminated. What was actually adopted made ADU development more difficult, as the owner-occupancy requirement was retained and design standards were added. Vice Chair Tift said he supports Alternative B, as he believes it is important to have some design standards in place. Director Spencer noted comments in the chat box from Mr. Runyan, suggesting that having design standards for ADUs makes affordable housing much more difficult. Ms. Satter said another comment was received, asking about the design criteria for manufactured homes. She explained that, currently, manufactured homes are allowed as ADUs provided they comply with the design criteria for manufactured homes, excluding the criteria for size and roof pitch. If Alternative B is adopted, it would apply to manufactured homes, as well. The majority of the Commissionvoiced support for Alternative B, including removing the words “appearance of a duplex.” x What should the parking requirements be for ADUs?The current code (Alternative A) requires one additional parking space per ADU. If two ADUs are allowed, a total of four parking spaces may be required for most typical single-family lots. Consistent with HB1923, Alternative B would eliminate the parking requirement for the 1st ADU. If the Commission recommends allowing two ADUs, one parking space would be required for the 2nd one. Director Spencer clarified that, as per Alternative B, the 1st ADU would not be required to provide parking, but the 2nd would be required to have one. If the current code is retained, one parking space would be required for each of the units. Commissioner Mosiman asked if staff has an idea of the likely impact of any of the options. For example, eliminating the parking requirement for ADUs could result in more on-street parking, which would impact the surrounding neighborhood. Director Spencer answered that no study has been done, and the impact would likely depend on the location of the ADU. For example, it would be very easy for the large lots in East Bremerton to accommodate additional units, but the impact could be greater in other areas of the City where there is already limited on-street parking. Ms. Satter Attachment A-2 Page 12 of 25 Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 6 of 12 reminded the Commissioners that eliminating the parking requirement for the 1st ADU was a request from the State and would be consistent with HB1923. The Commissioners indicated general support for Alternative B. x Should owners be required to live on site?As per the current code (Alternative A), the owner must live on site year- round. Alternatives B and C would eliminate the owner-occupancy requirement, consistent with HB1923. Alternative B would provide clarity and code citations for property maintenance, and Alternative C would not. However, it is important to emphasize that, in the absence of the code citations, a property owner would still have to qualify for property maintenance. Alternative D would require the property owner to live on site for at least six months after issuance of occupancy for an ADU. Commissioner Coughlin said he prefers Alternative B, which would eliminate the owner-occupancy requirement and provide clarity and code citations for property maintenance. This option would ensure that properties are maintained in accordance with the code.Commissioner Rich said she also supports Alternative B, and she appreciates the clarity it offers regarding property maintenance requirements. Although Alternative C would carry the same maintenance requirements, she felt it was better to make it very clear. Commissioners Pedersen and Tift also indicated support for Alternative B. x Should detached, nonconforming structures be permitted as ADUs?The current code (Alternative A) does not allow detached, nonconforming structures to be converted to ADUs. Alternative B would allow detached structures that do not conform to some development standards to be converted to ADUs. Commissioner Mosiman said he was not initially in support of this provision until he considered how it could be implemented in his own neighborhood. Someone on his street turned a garage into an ADU. The structure was far too close to the street and did not meet the setback requirement, but it was well done and attractive. He has changed his mind and now supports Alternative B. Vice Chair Tift said he had a similar concern and Commissioner Mosiman’s comment provide him with reassurance that it is possible to properly convert nonconforming structures into ADUs. He now supports Alternative B, as well. Commissioner Coughlin indicated support for Alternative B, too. The Commission voiced general support for Alternative B. Ms. Satter said a comment in the chat box asked if the public would have an opportunity to comment when an ADU project comes forward. She answered no. Currently, ADUs require a Type I Building Permit, which does not include any public outreach. Staff is not proposing to change the process to include a public comment period in the permit review process. Ms. Satter provided a brief summary of the Commission’s discussion and Chair Wofford invited final public comments. Susan Plahn, Bremerton, said she is curious how eliminating the parking requirement for ADUs would impact the downtown area where residential properties are small and very close together with little or no off-street parking. As proposed, these property owners could add ADUs in their backyards without providing any parking. The residents of both the primary unit, as well as the ADU unit would have to park on the street. She would be opposed to that. Roy Runyan, Bremerton, said he appreciates and supports the changes being discussed by the Commission, but feels they fall short of where the City needs to be. He is an advocate for removing all design standards. If this is done, he anticipates there will be an explosion in the number of ADUs being built. If the purpose is to increase the amount of affordable housing available in the City, additional changes will be needed in the future. However, the proposed changes represent a good first step. He acknowledged that the City Council could make additional changes, including removing all of the design standard requirements. If they fail to do that, he is considering running an initiative that would build on the work of the Planning Commission. If the design standard requirement is removed entirely, the proposal would be almost perfect from his point of view. Jason Vogt, Bremerton, said he supports eliminating the parking requirement for the 1st ADU. As he considered doing an ADU, he didn’t have enough land to provide an additional parking space beyond the two that he already has for his primary residence. These changes are important given the current housing situation. APPROVED Attachment A-2 Page 13 of 25 Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 7 of 12 There were no other public comments, and Chair Wofford closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mosiman said he is still struggling with the design standard provision. If an ADU is built to reflect the single- family home on the same lot, he is not sure why additional design standards would be needed. Design standards could actually result in an ADU looking different than the original structure. He asked staff to provide more information about why the design standards were adopted in the first place. Ms. Satter compared the current code (Alternative A) with the proposed language (Alternative B). She reviewed that the current code (Alternative A) requires that ADUs be designed so the appearance of the building remains that of a single-family home that blends architecturally into the existing neighborhood. It also requires exterior finishes and roof pitch similar to the primary structure, eaves that project at least 12 inches, and the entrance cannot be on the same façade of the structure as the principal unit. In addition, it requires at least four architectural features from a provided list. Alternative B would modify the design standards to require a matching or complimentary exterior, an entrance that is visually distinct from the primary dwelling, and at least four architectural features from the list. Alternative C would completely remove the design standards. She summarized that Commissioner Mosiman appears to be suggesting that Alternative B be modified to remove the ala carte list of architectural features and require a matching and complimentary exterior and a visually distinct entrance. She summarized that Alternative B would eliminate the design standards related to roof pitch and eaves and add a new section regarding the placement of the entrance. It would also require at least four of the architectural features on the ala carte list. Commissioner Mosiman said that, although he agrees with the ala carte architectural features in general, he doesn’t believe they are necessary in this particular application. Requiring them could result in an ADU that looks quite different than the primary residence. He isn’t sure that is the intent of the design standards. Vice Chair Tift pointed out that, as written, both Alternatives A and B would require an ADU to have a brick finish if the primary residence has a brick finish. Under the criteria in either alternative, a manufactured home could not be placed next to a brick home with a pitched roof. Ms. Satter agreed that the manufactured home would need to have a brick façade. However, Alternative B would eliminate the requirements of a pitched roof and 12-inch eaves. Vice Chair Tift voiced concern that removing all of the design criteria could open the door to undesirable situations. There must be some oversight. Chair Wofford commented that the design standards may not be necessary for ADUs that aren’t visible from the street. Ms. Satter clarified that, as per Alternative B, the entrance criteria would only apply when visible from the right-of-way, but all of the other design criteria would apply regardless of the ADUs location. Chair Wofford generally questioned why the design standards need to be applied to ADUs that are not visible from the street. Commissioner Coughlin clarified that Alternative B would require the exterior finish on an ADU to match the color, material and appearance of the primary dwelling unit and/or the characteristics of the neighborhood. If the primary residence is brick but there are wood structures nearby, the ADU could have wood siding. Ms. Satter agreed that the applicant could make the argument that wood siding matches better with the overall character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Coughlin agreed that some minimum design standards are needed, but they could remove the ala carte menu of detailed design features. Instead, the design standards could simply require that an ADU match the exterior of the primary dwelling unit and/or the characteristics of the neighborhood. He felt this would be sufficient to address the concerns related to appearance. Commissioner Rich agreed that the ala carte menu could be eliminated. Requiring that an ADU match the general character of the neighborhood could assuage some of the concerns people might have about ADUs. Commissioner Pedersen agreed that some kind of design standard is appropriate, but the ala carte menu could be eliminated. The Commissioners indicated support for modifying Alternative B by eliminating the ala carte menu of detailed architectural design features (Item f.3). Ms. Satter referred to the new design standard regarding ADU entrance placement (Item f.2). As proposed, there are four different ways an applicant can differentiate the ADU entrance from that of the principal dwelling unit. Vice Chair Tift said he would prefer to retain the design standard related to entrance placement. Commissioner Coughlin agreed and noted that it would not be an onerous requirement. Commissioner Pedersen agreed, as well. Commissioner Rich said she wants to make APPROVED Attachment A-2 Page 14 of 25 Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 8 of 12 things as easy as possible, but she also understands the concern that produced the provision. She said she doesn’t feel strongly enough about the provision, based on the information available, to support it, and she is leaning towards removing it. Commissioner Mosiman said he has lived in a number of midwestern cities around the country. In those areas that have been around longer, a number of homes constructed between 1910 and 1940 were built as upper/lower flats. They are beautiful homes of extraordinary quality. Most often, both doors are located on the front porch, which wouldn’t be allowed as currently proposed. However, these types of structures are not present in the City’s current housing stock. While he doesn’t see a need for the entrance standard, he also wouldn’t have a problem if it was retained. Chair Wofford pointed out that some of the original townhomes in Bay Vista have adjacent doors. Vice Chair Tift pointed out that these units have architectural features that differentiate the two residents. He felt that some level of differentiate is important. The majority of the Commission indicated a desire to eliminate the entrance standard (Item f.2), but they agreed that a minority report should be presented to the City Council along with their recommendation. The minority report of the Commission was for a proposed amendment to the code for ADU façade design, and the Commission was opposed 4-2. Ms. Satter summarized that, consistent with the Commission’s discussion, Alternative B would be modified to read: f) “Unless the ADU is limited to only interior remodeling of an existing single-family dwelling, a proposed ADU shall meet the following design standards: 1) Exterior Finish. The exterior of an ADU shall have siding and roofing which in color, material and appearance are comparable to the predominant materials of the primary dwelling unit and/or characteristics of the neighborhood.” Ms. Satter summarized the Commission’s discussion as follows: x Maximum Size for ADUs. The Commission indicated support for Alternative B, which is consistent with HB1923 and allows ADUs up to 1,000 square feet or 60% of the size of the primarily dwelling, whichever is larger. x Parking Requirement for ADUs. The Commission indicated support for Alternative B, which is consistent with HB1923 and eliminates the parking requirement for the 1st ADU. One parking space would be required for the 2nd ADU. x Number of ADUs Allowed. The Commission indicated support for Alternative C, which would allow two ADUs, either attached or detached. Parking would be required for the 2nd ADU. x Design Standards for ADUs.The majority of the Commission indicated support for Alternative B, as modified to eliminate the standards in Items f.2 and f.3. x Owner-Occupancy Requirement for ADUs. The Commission indicated support for Alternative B, which eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement and provides clarity and code citations for property maintenance. x Detached, nonconforming structures be permitted as ADUs?The Commission indicated support for Alternative B, which would allow detached structures that do not conform to some development standards to be converted to ADUs. COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT TEXT AMENDMENTS TO BMC 20L.46.010 FOR ADUs, AS DIRECTED IN THE MEETING, BASED ON THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, STAFF’S PRESENTATION, AND FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT. COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Commission took a 5-minutes break at 7:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. Public Workshop: Discussion of Amendments for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Update Mr. Jackson introduced Dan Nickel, of The Watershed Company, the consultant who is assisting the City in its SMP Periodic Update. He reminded the Commissioners that this would not be a major update. Instead, the changes are meant to reflect updates in state and local regulations and to address portions of the code that staff has identified for improvement. Areas of improvement include adding more flexibility and proportionality to the code. Staff has run into a number of scenarios where the amount of mitigation required by the code, particularly for single-family development, is out of sync with the amount of development proposed. He advised that the update would be a joint process with the Department of Ecology (DOE). A joint public hearing is tentatively scheduled for November 16th, and notices will go out later in the week. He advised that the 30- APPROVED Attachment A-2 Page 15 of 25 APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 9 of 12 day public comment period would extend beyond the public hearing. Staff will advise the Commission of any comments of substance that haven’t already been addressed. Mr. Jackson reviewed that the online public engagement tool was launched on October 1st. The tool is meant to keep the public involved in the SMP update process, answer their questions, lay out the proposed amendments, and notify the public of important dates throughout the process. Mr. Jackson recalled that the Commission raised questions at their last meeting regarding the Gap Analysis (Attachment A), and staff has updated the analysis to reflect the comments that were provided. He reviewed that the Gap Analysis was created by the consultant to point out areas of the SMP and CAO that could be improved to be in compliance with state regulations and local code changes. Mr. Jackson reviewed the proposed amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) as follows: x Wetland Buffer Requirements. o Re-categorize Habitat Scores, resulting in reduced buffers.The Wetland Form categorizes and scores wetlands based on size, vegetation, connectivity to other wetlands, etc. The state has updated the regulations associated with the habitat scores, and the City is proposing amendments to reflect those changes. o Adjust the minimization measures to allow for reduced buffer options. Minimization measures are steps that need to be considered if a property owner is seeking to reduce a wetland buffer. It includes such things as directing lights away from a wetland, stormwater requirements and habitat corridors. The criteria will be updated to be consistent with the state regulations. o Clarify that habitat corridor requirements are only for higher-functioning wetlands. A specific site may be a portion of a larger system, and they need to consider how that larger system can be preserved. x Fish and Wildlife Habitat o Encourage conifer over deciduous plantings. The consultant has found that conifers provide a higher ecological benefit than deciduous trees so they aren’t necessarily needed in the same density numbers that are otherwise required by the current code. They have run into situations where too many trees are required for mitigation, making property improvements prohibitive. o Allow a one-time exemption from the Habitat Management Plan for single-family homes that impact 500 square feet of mitigation. This revision recognizes that existing homes may need a bit of flexibility over time. Property owners should be allowed to do small expansions, install driveways, add small water-enjoyment features, etc. without providing a complete buffer enhancement. o Allow departures from buffer standards with state and federal mitigation approval. The regulations to not quite fit in all instances. Staff would review these cases with the state and federal environmental stakeholders to determine whether the ecological functions would still be served by an alternative plan that doesn’t quite meet the letter of the code. The current code does not allow this flexibility. x Shoreline Environment Designations. These changes will either alter or add a shoreline designation to select properties in the City. The shoreline designations primarily coincide with the City’s zoning map. o Add a shoreline designation of “Urban Conservancy” to a small island at the northern portion of Oyster Bay. This is a small uninhabited island in its natural state. There are no utilities or other improvements. An Urban Conservancy Designation is most appropriate in this situation. o Extend the Commercial Shoreline designation by one parcel in two locations. There are two instances where existing commercial buildings are not located within the Commercial Shoreline designation. The map change would expand the Commercial Shoreline Designation to include these two properties. One of the properties is a brick building on Shore Drive within the Manette Neighborhood Center. The other is located on Wheaton Way and within the new Eastside Village Subarea. Attachment A-2 Page 16 of 25 Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 10 of 12 o Add a shoreline designation of “Isolated” to the area surrounding Evergreen Park. Currently, Sheldon Boulevard separates Evergreen Park and the shoreline from the properties landward. The Isolated Shoreline Designation is intended for properties like these that are essentially divorced from the shoreline by physical barriers. o No longer being considered. The Staff Report identified an area for a possible change to a commercial designation that is no longer being considered by staff. This is an existing law office. Changing the designation to “Commercial” would have been out of character, as well as a one-property shoreline designation. The property can continue on in its current commercial use. Next, Mr. Jackson reviewed the proposed changes to the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) as follows: x Vegetation Management Plan Allowances. Vegetation Management Plans (VMPs) are planting plans that are required for all new development. The plans require that the entire buffer area be replanted with native vegetation. Theyare created by qualified biologists and recorded as a notice to title. o Exempt development that avoids the buffer. In instances where proposed development is not located in the protected shoreline buffer, mitigation for replanting the buffer would not be required. This amendment brings the City more in line with other jurisdictions and was recommended by the DOE. o Clarify that a VMP would still be required. In stances where proposed development is located outside of the buffer, a VMP would still be required to document existing vegetation along the shoreline and within the buffer to ensure it is preserved. The plan would be recorded as a notice to title. o Waive bonding for small projects. It can be very hard for small-dollar projects to secure bonds. Banks are often not willing to provide the small bonds, and this extra step is onerous for small development on the shoreline. x Shoreline Buffer Reduction Options. o Buffer averaging. Currently, averaging is based on all the structures located within a numbered block. Staff found that the number of homes within a numbered block varies widely. In some instances, a direct neighbor may not be in the same numbered block. Staff is proposing a replacement system here the average is based on neighboring structures located on either side of a property. The goal is not to get structures closer to the water than the current code allows. However, there will be situations where structures can be closer or further away, depending on which system is used. The revision is intended to make the process simpler and more commonsense. o Buffer reduction menu. This menu provides a list of options (improvements or ecological enhancements) that could be made in order to qualify for a buffer reduction. An open-ended criterion was added, as well. If the Department of Fish and Wildlife agrees with an alternative mitigation proposal, a buffer reduction could be allowed in that instance, as well. x Interrupted Buffer. This provision is intended to clarify what is meant by an “isolated” designation, which is for properties that are separated from the shoreline by physical barrier. However, a property can qualify as an isolated property without being mapped. The existing code includes criteria for properties that are not mapped as isolated but meet the same criteria as “isolated” in the code. To provide clarification, the proposed amendment would retain the definition for “isolated” and add a definition for “interrupted buffer” to address properties that are not mapped as isolated but still meet the criteria. x Nonconforming Structures. Currently, the code requires that if a property owner invests 75% of a structure’s value or more into improvements, the structure must be brought up to all code requirements. This includes planting the entire buffer area and potentially moving the home out of the buffer entirely. A lot of existing homes were built in the 1940s, and the value of improvements can quickly add up to greater than 75% of the value of a structure. To recognize these situations, staff is proposing a provision that would allow improvements to a structure, up to replacing it, in its current footprint and location. The provision would not apply to overwater homes, and some mitigation would still be required, as outlined in the code. x Eastside Village Subarea Plan. The amendment proposes to make sure compliance with the recently updated Eastside Village Subarea Plan. Specifically this inlcudes an increase in height to meet zoning allowances through view impact demonstration. A current code provision allows developers to build higher than 35 feet via a Shoreline Conditional Use APPROVED Attachment A-2 Page 17 of 25 Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 11 of 12 Permit. Rather than requiring this permit, staff is proposing that a greater height be allowed if an applicant can demonstrate that the views from neighboring properties would not be negatively impacted. This provision would only apply in commercial zones, as the height in single-family residential zones is capped at 35 feet. x Climate Resiliency. Additional provisions were added to consider sea level rise impacts with new development and redevelopment. Mr. Jackson reviewed the remaining timeline for the SMP and CAO update. The 30-day joint DOE/City public comment period will start in late October, and a joint DOE/City public hearing is tentatively scheduled for November 16th. Staff will submit an initial determination to the DOE in December, and the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to review and recommend changes as necessary in early 2021. It is anticipated that the SMP update will be adopted by the City Council in the spring of 2021. He emphasized that all of the dates are tentative and will be adjusted as necessary. Vice Chair Tift asked if the proposed amendments would allow a property owner to increase the footprint of a nonconforming building that is repaired, restored, expanded or replaced without requiring any mitigation. Mr. Jackson clarified that mitigation may be required if square footage is added, and other code requirements could apply, as well. Vice Chair Tift asked if the small island in Oyster Bay that is proposed for an Urban Conservancy Designation is privately owned. Mr. Jackson answered affirmatively. He explained that, currently, the island has no land use designation. The proposed amendment would provide this missing designation. Vice Chair Tift asked if the proposed designation would limit the property owner’s options. Mr. Jackson answered affirmatively. He explained that the proposed land use designation reflects that the property is currently undeveloped. He questioned the feasibility of adding utilities and developing the island. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Wofford encouraged everyone to vote. Director Report Director Spencer announced that the City Council adopted the Eastside Village Subarea Plan, and the area is now ready for revitalization. Director Spencer referred to the Planning Commission By-Laws that were sent out prior to the meeting. She asked them to review the document and be prepared to discuss potential changes at their November meeting. The Commission will also elect new officers at their November meeting. She announced that on November 4th, the City Council will re-appoint Commissioners Tift and Mosiman to serve another term on the Commission, and Faye Flemister will be appointed to fill the vacant position. Old Business There was no old business. New Business There was no new business. APPROVED Attachment A-2 Page 18 of 25 APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 12 of 12 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ____________________________________________________________ Andrea L Spencer, AICP Nick Wofford, Chair Executive Secretary Planning Commission Attachment A-2 Page 19 of 25 APPROVED CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF VIRTUAL MEETING November 16, 2020 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Wofford called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Staff Present Chair Wofford Vice Chair Tift Commissioner Coughlin Commissioner Mosiman Commissioner Rich Commissioner Flemister Commissioners Absent Commissioner Pedersen Quorum Certified Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Allison Satter, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development Garrett Jackson, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Justin Rowland, Planner, Department of Community Development Sarah Lynam, DCD Project Assistant, Department of Community Development Others Present Dan Nickel, The Watershed Company Alex Capron, The Watershed Company Maria Sandercock, Department of Ecology ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2021 COMMISSIONER TIFT MOVED TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER WOFFORD TO SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION IN 2021. COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN MOVED TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER TIFT TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION IN 2021. COMMISSIONER WOFFORD SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CHAIR CALL FOR MODIFICATIONS TO AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 2020, AS SUBMITTED. VICE CHAIR TIFT SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Attachment A-2 Page 20 of 25 PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Wofford invited comments from citizens. There were none, and the public portion of the meeting was closed Public Hearing: Amendments for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Update Mr. Jackson advised that this is a joint public hearing with the Department of Ecology on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update. The hearing was preceded by public workshops held in September and October. He introduced Dan Nic kel and Alex Capron, from The Watershed Company, consultants who helped staff through the process. He also introduced Maria Sandercock from the Department of Ecology. Maria Sandercock, Department of Ecology, explained that the SMP is a cooperative program between the City and the State. Previously, when cities made amendments to their SMPs, the Department of Ecology (DOE) has held its own state comment period, but there is a new process that allows the state and cities to join the comment periods together. She advised that, following the joint comment period, which ends on November 23 rd, the City will submit the proposed amendments to the DOE for an Initial Determination of Consistency with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The DOE will then provide the City with a memorandum, and if applicable, any changes that may be necessary to ensur e the amendments are consistent with the SMA. The City will have time to review the memorandum and the proposed changes and submit the amendment s one more time to the DOE for final approval. Mr. Jackson explained that, following the hearing, the Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council for the amendments to both the SMP and the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). He noted that a more complete list of potential outcomes was provided in the Staff Report. He advised that an updat ed packet was sent out just prior to the meeting that included two changes to the version the Commissioners previously received. The first change was an updated version of Attachment A, which includes maps for the proposed mapping changes. The second is a public comment matrix, which includes all comments received thus far during the public comment period (October 23 rd through November 23rd). He reported that, to date, the only comments have come from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. He reminded them that this is not a major update of the SMP, and the proposed amendments are intended to both add flexibility and provide clarity. Mr. Jackson reviewed that the public outreach process started in April, when an informational postcard was sent to every Shoreline property owner. The postcard provided the SMP update web address and requested comments from the public. Notices were also published on the City’s E-news webpage, the City’s Facebook page, Twitter, and The Kitsap Sun. In addition, notices and regular updates were also sent to interested parties and effected agencies. The public outreach effort also incl uded an education online tool that was developed by the consultant, Enviro Issues, in partnership with The Watershed Company. The tool provides background information for the SMP update process, breaks down specific amendments into more manageable sentences for people to consume, and lets people know when the official public comment period started. To date, 145 people have used the online tool; 27% were from the City of Seattle and 27% were from the City of Bremerton. Mr. Jackson reported that the City received preliminary comments from the DOE . Primarily, these were points of clarification for stronger language, and the comments have been incorporated into the updated SMP that is before the Commission for review. Mr. Jackson advised that the only formal comments received to date came from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Attachment D). They requested that the City coordinate with Kitsap County to align the SMP with the Gorst Subarea Plan. As currently proposed, there would be a menu of options a property owner can use to get a reduced shoreline buffer, an d they requested that over-water structures be removed as an additional shoreline buffer option. Lastly, they requested that they add “avoidance and minimization from aquatic vegetation, forage fish and shellfish beds as something that should be considered when reviewing utility outfall impacts. Mr. Jackson explained that the Gap Analysis, created by The Watershed Company, provided an analysis of changes that were needed to ensure the SMP and CAO are compatible with State Legislative amendments, changes to local plans and Best Available Science (BSA). The analysis is available online via a link in the Staff Report. Attachment A-2 Page 21 of 25 Mr. Jackson reviewed the proposed amendments to the CAO and SMP. Proposed Amendments to the CAO Mr. Jackson explained that the proposed amendments to the CAO are intended to clarify the existing wetland buffer requirements consistent with the most recent guidance from the DOE. They include: • Re-categorizing the habitat scores to result in reduced buffers. The Wetland Rating Form includes a habitat score, and the higher the habitat score the larger the buffer that is required. The re-categorization is in line with the DOE’s guidance for buffer reductions. • Requiring minimization measures when reduced buffers are considered. Minimization measures include such things as pointing lights and placing noisy operations as far from the wetland as possible, as well as revegetating wetland buffers. • Applying the habitat corridor requirement to higher-functioning wetlands only. In some instances, the DOE will require projects to provide a habitat corridor. The proposed language would make it clear that this requirement is only for higher-functioning wetlands. Lower-functioning wetlands won’t be required to provide a habitat corridor. • Encouraging coniferous over deciduous plantings in Wildlife Habitat Areas. The consultant has determined that coniferous trees have higher environmental impact values than deciduous trees. Therefore, the coniferous trees could be spaced out further than the current code allows and still get the same impact to the environment. As amended, the total number of trees planted would be less, but you would get the same amount of habitat value. • Allowing a one-time exemption from the Habitat Management Plan requirement for single-family homes that have an impact of 500 square feet or less. Mitigation would still be required. A Habitat Management Plan is a more aggressive tool than may be necessary for a 500-square-foot structure, especially if mitigation is required. • Allowing departures from the required buffer standards with approval from State and Federal agencies. Sometimes, it isn’t possible for a property to meet all of the buffer requirements. Flexibility would be allowed if the City, State and Federal agencies all agree that the departure would be in the best interest of environmental factors and the property. Proposed Map Amendments Mr. Jackson reviewed the maps that were prepared to illustrate the proposed mapping changes that were previously presented to the Commission. They include: • Map A. An Urban Conservancy designation would be added to an existing island located in Oyster Bay. The island doesn’t currently have a shoreline designation. This is an isolated instance, and Urban Conservancy is proposed because it is located in a very environmentally-sensitive area. • Map B. At 1917 Wheaton Way, just past Sea Glass Village going north, there are some commercial building s. Staff is recommending moving the Commercial designation over by one property to capture an existing commercial building. • Map D. There is an existing apartment building on Shore Drive, and staff is recommending extending the Commercial designation to capture this property, as well. • Map E. Staff is proposing to add an Isolated designation at Evergreen Park. This designation is for properties that are separated from the shoreline by some large physical barrier. In this case, a public road (Sheldon Boulevard) separates the park from the landward properties, and it doesn’t seem appropriate to require the landward properties to meet the shoreline code. Proposed Amendments to the SMP Mr. Jackson advised that the proposed amendments to the SMP include: • Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) Allowances. A VMP is required for all new development or redevelopment, and is essentially a landscaping plan. It is prepared by a biologist and is meant to mitigate for any new development or redevelopment. Staff is proposing the following amendments : Attachment A-2 Page 22 of 25 o Enhancement would not be triggered when buffer impacts are avoided. Currently, the code requires mitigation even for development outside of the shoreline buffer. Based on comments from the DOE and examples from other jurisdictions, staff is proposing that no mitigation be required for development outside of the shoreline buffer. o Document shoreline vegetation with Notice to Title. A VMP is required to be a notice to title in all instances. The proposed amendment would make it clear that a VNP is required even if developing outside of the buffer. However, if you are developing outside of the buffer, the VMP would be limited to documenting existing conditions. o Waive small-dollar bonding requirements for single-family development. Currently, the code requires bonding even for smaller projects. It is an onerous step for property owners to secu re a bond for a few thousand dollars of vegetation and irrigation. Property owners have complained that banks don’t want to provide bonds for such low numbers. • Shoreline Buffer Reduction Options. o Buffer Averaging – Evaluate structures on neighboring lots. Currently, the buffer averaging system is based off of neighboring properties in a numbered block. If someone feels a buffer is too large compared to a neighbor, he/she can provide the department with an analysis that shows the distances from structures to shoreline for other single-family homes on the same numbered block. Staff has found this to be more cumbersome than necessary, and sometimes an adjacent property is on a different numbered blo ck. Staff is proposing that the buffer averaging system be based off the properties that are directly adjacent. The amendment is not intended to get homes either further or closer to the water. In the end, it is likely that the two processes will result in winners and losers in both cases, but the proposed system will be easier for property owners to manage. o Buffer Reduction Menu. A menu of options was added to the SMP. A property owner requesting a buffer reduction would be required to pick something from the menu of options to offset the reduced buffer. The options include removing over-water structures or bulkheads, stepping back a bulkhead, etc. The idea is that, if a buffer is reduced, it won’t provide as much of an environmental benefit. • Interrupted Buffer. Currently, the code has a designation of “Isolated” that covers both mapping, as well as instances of an interrupted buffer. In both cases, there is a physical barrier that separates a property from the shoreline. The only difference is that the Isolated designation would be drawn out on a map and Interrupted Buffer is a term the City will use to describe on-the-ground circumstances. • Nonconforming Structures. As proposed, the amendment would allow nonconforming structures to be repaire d and/or restored. It would also allow for limited expansion, but it would not apply to floating homes. There are a number of older structures along the shoreline now, and many property owners would like to make improvements. However, they are currently only allowed to make changes based on a percentage of the structure’s market value without bringing the entire structure up to code. That would mean potentially moving the building further away from the water in order to meet the SMP. Staff is proposing that property owners should be allowed to repair buildings, even up to replacing them in the existing footprint, rather than having homes become substandard. • Eastside Village Subarea Plan. Currently, the maximum height in the SMP is different than the maximum height in the zoning code. This is because properties on the shoreline are required to provide some sort of allowance for view impacts to ensure that the citizens of the State of Washington can continue to enjoy views of the shoreline. Staff is proposing height increases to meet the zoning allowance in the Eastside Village Subarea Plan and other multifamily commercial properties if a property owner can demonstrate that view impacts would be mitigated. • Climate Resiliency. New language was added to consider sea level rise impacts with new development and redevelopment. Mr. Jackson provided an overview of the timeline for the amendments. He reviewed that the Commission held workshops in September and October, and the online tool was launched on October 1 st. The joint public comment period is currently in Attachment A-2 Page 23 of 25 progress and will conclude on November 23 rd. Following this joint hearing, the Planning Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council. The documents will be submitted to the DOE in December for an Initial Determination of Consistency. Any substantive comments from the DOE will be presented to the Planning Com mission for more feedback before the document is presented to the City Council in the spring of 2021 for final adoption. Mr. Jackson provided his contact information and invited members of the Commission and the public to forward their comments to him before the public comment period ends on November 23rd. Chair Wofford opened the hearing for public comments. There were none. The chair closed the public portion of the hearing. Vice Chair Tift asked staff to explain what happens if a piece of shoreline is identified as Single -Family Residential but the zoning is later changed. Dan Nickle, The Watershed Company, responded that while the periodic update happens every eight years, the City can also make amendments to the SMP at other times. Consistency is important. Vice Chair Tift referred to Map E and noted that there is a large parcel to the left of the Warren Avenue Bridge that is designated Single-Family Residential. The Olympic College property is also located to the left of the bridge. He expressed his belief that it is unlikely these large pieces of land will remain as single-family residential. He is concerned about how hard it would be to change a shoreline designation once it has been declared. Mr. Nickle said no designation change has been proposed for this area. If the underlying land use is changed, it would have to be consistent with the underlying zoning, as well. The SMP environmental designations are intended to be consistent with the underlying zoning, but that isn’t always the case. He emphasized that the shoreline designation only applies to the first 200 feet of property from the water’s edge. Mr. Jackson added that, if the college indicates an interest in updating the plan, the City would entertain a proposal for change. Vice Chair Tift pointed out that there are likely a number of other parcels in the City that could fall into a similar situation. COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE SMP AND CAO AMENDMENTS AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENTS A AND B, AND BASED UPON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT C. COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0, WITH COMMISSIONER FLEMISTER ABSTAINING. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Wofford didn’t have any items to report. Director Report Director Spencer welcomed Commissioner Flemister as a new member of the Planning Commission. Director Spencer announced that the Commission’s December meeting was cancelled. Their next meeting will be a special meeting on January 25th. The Commission’s regular meeting falls on January 18th, which is Martin Luther King Day. When meetings fall on a holiday, they shift to the next Monday. Old Business There was no old business. New Business Chair Wofford referred to the two changes that have been proposed for the Commission Bylaws. Director Spencer explained that there are two changes. One amendment would allow the Chair or his/her designee to represent to the Commission’s position before the City Council. The other would simply rename the title of the section outlining the Director’s duties and responsibilities. She said the changes would be presented as Old Business at the January 25 th special meeting. Attachment A-2 Page 24 of 25 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:18 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ______________________________ ______________________________ Andrea L Spencer, AICP Nick Wofford, Chair Executive Secretary Planning Commission Attachment A-2 Page 25 of 25 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis Report Prepared on behalf of: City of Bremerton Department of Community Development 345 6th Street, Suite 600 Bremerton, WA 98337 Prepared by: March 2021 The Watershed Company Reference Number: 190347 Attachment A-3 1 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2 2. Consistency with State Laws ................................................................................................... 3 3. Consistency with Critical Areas Regulations ......................................................................... 14 4. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan & Other Development Regulations ........................ 19 5. Other Issues to Consider ....................................................................................................... 19 6. References ............................................................................................................................ 27 List of Tables Table 1-1. Abbreviations used in this document. ..................................................................... 3 Table 2-1. Summary of consistency with amendments to state laws and potential revisions. 3 Table 3-1. Summary of consistency with the SMP and Critical Areas Ordinance and potential revisions. ................................................................................................................ 14 Table 3-2. Current standard wetland buffer table per BMC 20.14.330.h.1 ........................... 16 Table 3-3. Standard wetland buffer widths table per July 2018 updated Ecology guidance (when minimization measures and a wildlife corridor are NOT provided) ........... 17 Table 3-4. Reduced wetland buffer widths when minimization measures and corridor are provided ................................................................................................................ 18 Table 5-1. Other issues that could be addressed to produce a more effective SMP. ............ 19 Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 2 1. Introduction In accordance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, local jurisdictions with “Shorelines of the State” are required to conduct a periodic review of their Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-26-090). The periodic review is intended to keep SMPs current with amendments to state laws, changes to local plans and regulations, changes in local circumstances, and new or improved data and information. The Shorelines of the State in the City of Bremerton (City) include all marine shoreline, the lower portion of Gorst Creek (approximately one mile), Lake Kitsap, Lake Union Reservoir and Union River between McKenna Falls and the reservoir, and Twin Lakes. The City most recently updated its SMP with a limited amendment adopted fall 2017 in conjunction with the Major Comprehensive Plan update. A more substantial, comprehensive SMP update took place in 2012. City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (BSMP), is a separate document from the Comprehensive Plan and Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), outlining goals and policies for the shorelines of the City and establishes regulations for development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction. Several regulatory requirements of the BSMP are codified or cross-referenced under the BMC and herein are incorporated as the applicable development regulations the City's shoreline jurisdiction. The City’s current SMP incorporates by reference the 2016 city-wide critical areas regulation update which are codified under BMC 20.14, with certain exceptions. As a first step in the periodic review process, the City’s current SMP was reviewed by City staff and consultants. The purpose of this Gap Analysis Report is to provide a summary of the review and inform updates to the SMP. This report is organized into the following sections: • Section 2 identifies gaps the SMP has in consistency with state laws. This analysis is based on a list of amendments between 2007 and 2019 as summarized by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Periodic Review Checklist. • Section 3 identifies gaps in consistency with the City’s critical areas regulations (BMC 20.14) have with current guidance. Critical area regulations are incorporated by reference into the current SMP. • Section 4 identifies gaps in consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and with implementing sections of the City’s development regulations other than the critical areas regulations. • Section 5 identifies other issues to consider as part of the periodic update process to produce a more effective SMP, including those issues identified by staff during the implementation of the last SMP update. This report includes several tables that identify potential revision actions. Where potential revision actions are identified, they are classified as follows: Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 3 • “Mandatory” indicates revisions that are required for consistency with state laws. • “Recommended” indicates revisions that would improve consistency with state laws but are not strictly required. • “Optional” indicates legislative amendments or updated Ecology guidance can be adopted at the City’s preference but are not required. • “No action necessary” indicates the current SMP meets the intent of or already contains listed legislative updates, changes to critical areas, comprehensive plan or zoning code. This document attempts to minimize the use of abbreviations; however, a select few are used to keep the document concise. These abbreviations are found below in Table 1-1. Table 1-1. Abbreviations used in this document. Abbreviation Meaning BAS Best Available Science CAO Critical Areas Ordinance City City of Bremerton Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology BMC Bremerton Municipal Code RCW Revised Code of Washington BSMP Bremerton Shoreline Master Program SED Shoreline Designations SDP Shoreline Substantial Development Permit WAC Washington Administrative Code 2. Consistency with State Laws Table 2-1 summarizes potential revisions to the City’s SMP based on a review of consistency with amendments to state laws identified in the Periodic Review Checklist provided by Ecology. Topics are organized chronologically by year. Table 2-1. Summary of consistency with amendments to state laws and potential revisions. Row Summary of change Review Action 2019 a. Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) adjusted the cost In addition to the general Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP) cost threshold (see item 2017a Mandatory: The City will update the cost threshold dollar figure for when a SDP is triggered on single-family Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 4 Row Summary of change Review Action threshold for building freshwater docks below), the SMA includes a separate dollar threshold for when construction of a freshwater dock triggers an SDP. BSMP 5.010(h)(8), Exemptions, references the out of date dollar figure of $10,000. freshwater dock replacement projects as follows:5.010(h)(8) (ii) In fresh waters the fair market value of the dock does not exceed: (A) twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($22,500) for docks that are constructed to replace existing docks, are of equal or lesser square footage than the existing dock being replaced; or (B) Eleven thousand two hundred ($11,200) dollars for all other docks constructed in fresh waters. However, if subsequent construction occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, and the combined fair market value of the subsequent and prior construction exceeds the amount specified above, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development for the purpose of this chapter. b. The Legislature removed the requirement for a shoreline permit for disposal of dredged materials at Dredged Material Management Program sites (applies to 9 jurisdictions) There is not a Dredged Material Management Program site within the City’s Shoreline Jurisdiction. Therefore, this legislative amendment does not apply. No action necessary. c. The Legislature added restoring native kelp, eelgrass beds and native oysters as fish habitat enhancement projects. Habitat enhancement project exemptions are discussed under BSMP 5.010(h)(16) (pg. 51) and reference to RCW 77.55.181 for fish habitat enhancement projects is included under (iv). This No action necessary. Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 5 Row Summary of change Review Action reference captures the legislative update. 2017 a. OFM adjusted the cost threshold for substantial development to $7,047. Page 47, BSMP 5.010(h)(1), Exemptions, references an out of date dollar figure, but does provide an indication that the dollar threshold changes with inflation. The definition of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit on Page 19 also references the out of date dollar figure. Mandatory: The City will reference the updated dollar figure in 5.010(h)(1), in addition to leaving the reference that cost thresholds are periodically amended. The definitions section should also be updated. In addition, the BSMP will refer directly to the RCW and eliminate reference to a specific cost threshold in both sections for greater flexibility with future threshold changes. b. Ecology permit rules clarified the definition of “development” does not include dismantling or removing structures. BSMP contains definitions in Chapter 3. The definition of development on page 13 does not specifically exclude dismantling or removing structures. Recommended: The City will add the definition of development to be consistent with Ecology’s recommended language: “Development” does not include dismantling or removing structures if there is no other associated development or re-development. c. Ecology adopted rules clarifying exceptions to local review under the SMA. There is not a section dedicated to exceptions in the BSMP. Recommended: The City will update BSMP Chapter 5, Permit Administration, to include a section that refers directly to the exceptions in WAC 173-27-044, and -045, regarding projects that are not subject to review under the SMA. d. Ecology amended rules clarifying permit filing procedures consistent with a 2011 statute. BSMP 5.040(a)(3) refers to WAC 173-27-130 for filling procedures for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits. BSMP 5.060(a) and (b) appropriately reference filing No action necessary. Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 6 Row Summary of change Review Action procedures regarding the 21- day appeal period. e. Ecology amended forestry use regulations to clarify that forest practices that only involves timber cutting are not SMA “developments” and do not require SDPs. BSMP 8.040, Forest Practices, regulation (b) states that forest practices for the sole purpose of timber harvesting are prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction. However, other types of forest practices may be allowed. Recommended: The City will add a Ecology’s recommended language to 8.040 as follows: 8.040 Forest Practices: Forest practices within the City along shorelines would occur as a conversion of forested areas to a certain level of urban development (Class IV – General per the Forest Practices Act, RCW 76.09). A forest practice that only involves timber harvesting is not a development under the act and does not require a shoreline substantial development permit or a shoreline exemption. A forest practice that includes activities other than timber cutting may be a development under the act and may require a substantial development permit, as required by WAC 222-50-020. f. Ecology clarified the SMA does not apply to lands under exclusive federal jurisdiction BSMP does not discuss the applicability of the SMA to federal land. Recommended: As the City does have some shoreline under exclusive federal jurisdiction, the City will add clarification of the applicability of the SMP to those areas. Sub-section (I) can be added to SMP 5.010 Applicability, to address this recommendation: Lands Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction. Areas and uses in those areas that are under exclusive Federal jurisdiction as established through federal or state statutes are not subject to Chapter 90.58 RCW. This means that in Bremerton, the SMA, and therefore the BSMP, does not apply to Federal Owned Lands including, but not limited to the Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton, Naval Hospital and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility. Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 7 Row Summary of change Review Action g. Ecology clarified “default” provisions for nonconforming uses and development. SMP Chapter 6 already provides provisions for nonconforming uses and development. “Nonconforming development” is also defined and additional definitions for nonconforming lot, use and structure are provided in BSMP 6.040. Recommended: The City will re-locate the additional nonconforming definitions in BSMP 6.040 in the main definitions section for clarity. h. Ecology adopted rule amendments to clarify the scope and process for conducting periodic reviews. This is optional and the current SMP does not address the periodic review provision. No action necessary. i. Ecology adopted a new rule creating an optional SMP amendment process that allows for a shared local/state public comment period. The SMP does not currently address the amendment process, nor is it required to. No action necessary. The City complies with the State process. j. Submittal to Ecology of proposed SMP amendments. The SMP does not currently address the amendment process, nor is it required to. No action necessary. The City complies with the State process. 2016 a. The Legislature created a new shoreline permit exemption for retrofitting existing structures to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). BSMP Section 5.010, Applicability includes this exemption. Recommended: “Propvode” should be changed to “provide”. b. Ecology updated wetlands critical areas guidance including implementation guidance for the 2014 wetlands rating system. The City updated their critical areas ordinance (CAO) in 2016 and updated the SMP at the same time to incorporate the new CAO by reference. No action necessary. The 2016 CAO adopts the 2014 wetland rating system. Note, Ecology has additional updated guidance on wetland buffer widths which the City may consider incorporating into their CAO and SMP. See discussion in Section 3 below. Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 8 Row Summary of change Review Action 2015 a. The Legislature adopted a 90-day target for local review of Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) projects. The SMP does not address the review of WSDOT projects. While this is optional, the WSDOT presence is significant with the ferry terminal and several state highways within shoreline jurisdiction. Recommended: The City will add a section on special procedures for WSDOT projects to Chapter 5: Permit Administration. Language from Ecology is available. 2014 a. The Legislature created a new definition and policy for floating on- water residences legally established before 7/1/2014. SMP Section 8.080, Residential Regulation (d) prohibits over- water residences and floating homes. However, “floating on- water residences” are not defined or addressed. Recommended: The City will add a definition for “floating on-water residence” to Chapter 3- Definitions, to reduce ambiguity while prohibiting this use. Floating on-water residence: Means any floating structure other than a floating home, as defined by this chapter: (a) that is designed or used primarily as a residence on the water and has detachable utilities; and (b) whose owner or primary occupant has held an ownership interest in space in a marina, or has held a lease or sublease to use space in a marina, since a date prior to July 1, 2014. Additionally, Page 97, regulation (d) will be amended to acknowledge how existing, legally established floating on- water residences are treated: (d) Over-Water Homes: Over-water residences and floating homes are not a preferred use and are prohibited. (i) Existing floating on-water residences legally established and moored within a marina within the City prior to July 1, 2014 are considered a conforming use and should be accommodated through reasonable permit conditions, or mitigation that will not effectively preclude Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 9 Row Summary of change Review Action maintenance, repair, replacement, and remodeling of existing floating on-water residences and their moorages by rendering these actions impracticable. (ii) A floating home permitted or legally established prior to January 1, 2011 is considered a conforming preferred use. "Conforming preferred use" means that applicable development and shoreline master program regulations may only impose reasonable conditions and mitigation that will not effectively preclude maintenance, repair, replacement, and remodeling of existing floating homes and floating home moorages by rendering these actions impracticable. Floating homes should be accommodated to allow improvements associated with life safety matters and property rights to be addressed provided that any expansion of existing communities is the minimum necessary to assure consistency with constitutional and other legal limitations that protect private property. 2012 a. The Legislature amended the SMA to clarify SMP appeal procedures. The current SMP does not address appeal procedures, nor is it required to. No action necessary. The City will continue cross-reference State regulations. 2011 a. Ecology adopted a rule requiring that wetlands be delineated in accordance with the The City incorporates by reference the 2017 city-wide critical areas regulations by ordinance which are codified No action necessary. However, as discussed in further detail in Section 3 below, the critical areas Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 10 Row Summary of change Review Action approved federal wetland delineation manual. under BMC 20.14 and include the requirement for delineation in accordance with the federal wetland delineation manual. The BSMP “wetlands” Chapter 3 definition includes reference to the approved federal manual. definitions in Chapter 3 BSMP should be reviewed for consistency with the definitions in 20.14.200. Only definitions specific to shoreline jurisdiction need to be included in the SMP. b. Ecology adopted rules for new commercial geoduck aquaculture. BSMP Section 8.020 discusses policies and development regulations for all types of aquaculture. Chapter 3, Definitions, defines aquaculture and includes the clarification that it does not include wild geoduck harvest. BSMP 8.020.n requires a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit for all new commercial aquaculture. It does not ensure that planting, growing, and harvesting of farm-raised geoducks also require a Substantial Development Permit if a specific project or practice causes substantial interference with normal public use of the surface waters, in accordance with Attorney General Opinion 2007 No. 1 and WAC 173-26- 241(3)(b)(ii-iv). Recommended: The City will revise BSMP 8.020 to ensure an SDP is required if a project causes substantial interference with public access or passage. The City may reference the review provisions under WAC 173-26- 241(3)(b) (ii-iv) directly to ensure all aspects of the new rules are noted in the SMP. c. The Legislature created a new definition and policy for floating homes permitted or legally established prior to January 1, 2011. BSMP Section 8.080, Residential Regulation (d) prohibits over-water residences and floating homes. However, neither term is defined in the SMP. Recommended: The City does not have any floating homes to-date. However, a definition may be added to improve administration of the code. The definition can be added to Chapter 3, consistent with the State statute as follows: "Floating home" means a single-family dwelling unit constructed on a float, that is moored, anchored, or otherwise secured in waters, and is not a vessel, even though it may be capable of being towed. Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 11 Row Summary of change Review Action d. The Legislature authorized a new option to classify existing residential structures as conforming. BSMP Chapter 6, Nonconforming Provisions, establishes criteria for when and how nonconforming structures can be continued, expanded, maintained or repaired. The legislative option to allow existing legally established non-conforming residential structures to be treated as conforming if not included. This legislative action does not impact future development; it merely treats existing legally permitted nonconforming development as conforming. No action necessary. This law is optional. The City considered this option prior to the 2013 adoption and chose not to change the legal classification of nonconforming residential structures. Rather, SMP Chapter 6 clarifies the existing rights and allowances for nonconforming use and development without changing the legal status. 2010 a. The Legislature adopted Growth Management Act – Shoreline Management Act clarifications. BSMP 5.010, Applicability, already contains reference to WAC 173-26, which therein references Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines. City-wide critical areas regulations are adopted by reference in BSMP 5.010.c.2 with exclusions noted where GMA requirements are not compatible with SMA requirements. No action necessary. 2009 a. The Legislature created new “relief” procedures for instances in which a shoreline restoration project within a UGA creates a shift in BSMP 5.090, Restoration Project Relocation of Ordinary High Water Mark, includes most of the language in Ecology’s rule intended to implement this relief provision. However, not all of Required: The City will amend 5.090 to add the additional criteria and provisions of WAC 173-21-215 which are not currently included. Recommended: Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 12 Row Summary of change Review Action Ordinary High Water Mark. the criteria and provisions of WAC 173-27-215 are included for example: (4) A substantial development permit is not required on land within urban growth areas as defined in RCW 36.70A.030 that is brought under shoreline jurisdiction due to a shoreline restoration project creating a landward shift in the ordinary high-water mark. (5) The definitions in this subsection apply throughout this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise. (6) "Shoreline restoration project" means a project designed to restore impaired ecological function of a shoreline. The City will adopt the by simple reference under BSMP 5.090. b. Ecology adopted a rule for certifying wetland mitigation banks. BMC 20.14, adopted by reference into the SMP, allows the use of certified wetland mitigation banks under BMC 20.14.340.d.3(ii), Mitigation Requirements - Wetlands. No action necessary. c. The Legislature added moratoria authority and procedures to the SMA. Moratoria procedures are not included in the current SMP, nor are they required to be. BSMP already refers to WAC 173-27 under BSMP 5.010, Applicability, capturing WAC 173-27-085. No action necessary. 2007 a. The Legislature clarified options for defining "floodway" as either the area that has been established in FEMA maps, or the floodway criteria set in the SMA. Floodway is defined in Chapter 3, Definitions and covers both Ecology- prescribed options and includes reference to the law (RCW 90.58.030) No action necessary. Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 13 Row Summary of change Review Action b. Ecology amended rules to clarify that comprehensively updated SMPs shall include a list and map of streams and lakes that are in shoreline jurisdiction. No new shoreline waterbodies have been identified since the comprehensive update. The areas of shoreline jurisdiction are shown on the maps in BSMP Section 4.020, but not provided as a list. Recommended: To increase usability, provide a list of shoreline waterbodies preceding the maps which identify specific designations. This could be added as a separate subsection under BSMP Chapter 4- Shoreline Maps and Designations. c. Ecology’s rule listing statutory exemptions from the requirement for an SDP was amended to include fish habitat enhancement projects that conform to the provisions of RCW 77.55.181. SMP 5.010.h, Exemptions, includes reference to fish habitat enhancement projects under RCW 77.55.181 and includes the list of the specific types of projects which qualify. However, the list of types of projects which qualify under RCW 77.55.181 was recently expanded (2019) by the legislature to include “restoration of native kelp and eelgrass beds and restoring native oysters” (RCW 77.55.181.(1)(a)(iv) which is not included in the current SMP. Recommended: Update the language in BSMP 5.010.h.16.iv.A.I to include restoration of native kelp and eelgrass beds and restoring native oysters, for consistency with the revised criteria of RCW 77.55.181. Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 14 3. Consistency with Critical Areas Regulations Bremerton’s critical areas ordinance (CAO) was updated in 2016, at the time of the Major Comprehensive Plan update, and are codified in BMC Chapter 20.14. The BSMP was updated at the same time, through a limited amendment; adopting BMC Chapter 20.14 by reference. Therefore, the BSMP critical area regulations are mainly up to date and consistent with Ecology’s guidance. Table 3-1 below summarizes the issues identified above which should be resolved in order to properly incorporate the latest Ecology critical areas guidance and reference the City’s critical areas regulations into the updated SMP. The table is organized by critical areas regulations subject area. Table 3-1. Summary of consistency with the SMP and Critical Areas Ordinance and potential revisions. # Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action 1 July 2018 Ecology Wetland Buffer Guidance Update Location: BMC 20.14.330(h) Review: Ecology updated their wetland rating guidance in July 2018. Changes include modified habitat score ranges in wetland buffer tables. Chapter 5 BSMP adopts the wetland buffer table in BMC 20.14. Updating this table to reflect Ecology’s 2018 guidance would result in a decrease in buffer widths for lower rated wetlands. A discussion is provided below. Action Recommended: Revise BMC 20.14.330.h to reflect the latest Ecology guidance and if required incorporate the updated BMC 20.14 by reference into the updated BSMP. 2 Reducing wetland buffer widths with minimization measures Location: BMC 20.14.330(h)(3); SMP Section 7.010(a) Review: BMC 20.14 allows a 25% reduction of the standard buffer widths if certain minimization measures are applied. This is generally consistent with Ecology guidance and the buffer tables presented in Ecology’s Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates except that the requirement for protection of wildlife corridor is not fully consistent with Ecology’s guidance. The SMP excludes incorporation of this regulation from BMC 20.14. Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 15 # Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action Action Recommended: Revise BMC 20.14.330.h.3 to incorporate all Ecology guidance on protection of a wildlife corridor for wetlands with a habitat score greater than 6. If this is done, this section will be consistent with BAS and will no longer need to be excluded from the BSMP. 3 Critical Area Regulations excluded from BSMP Location: SMP 5.010(c)(2); SMP 7.010.a Review: Critical area exclusion lists do not match. Further, there are two lists found under SMP 5.010(c)(2) and 7.010 that are not complete. Action: Revise code, removing SMP 5.010(c)(2) and add the following exclusions: BMC 20.14.130 Administration and Procedures, BMC 20.14.140 Appeals, BMC 20.14.160 Nonconforming uses/structures. BMC 20.14.145(f) Exemptions for activities within improved Right of Way can be removed from this exclusion list.. 4 Definitions Location: SMP Chapter 3; BMC 20.14.200 ‘Definitions’ Review: The definitions for the following are inconsistent between the Chapter 3 BSMP and BMC 20.14.200 ‘Definitions’: • Restore, Restoration, or ecological restoration • Repair or maintenance (CAO) vs. Normal repair and maintenance (BSMP) • Qualified Professional Action Recommended: The City will use the most up- to-date definition available that is consistent with State law and the City’s use of the term in any other relevant regulations. 5 Definitions Location: BSMP Chapter 3; BMC 20.14.200 ‘Definitions’ Action: Remove redundant definitions. Critical area definitions defined by BMC 20.14.200 to be removed from Chapter 3. Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 16 # Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action 6 Wetland delineations valid for five (5) years: regulation in definition Location: BMC 20.14.200 Review: Wetland delineation expiry is in an awkward code location for readers. Action: Recommended: Relocate wetland delineation expiry to administrative code within wetland delineation section (BMC 20.14.310). 7 Replacement Trees SMP 7.020, BMC 20.14.190 Review/Action To encourage the use of conifer species within shoreline jurisdiction for tree planting requirements, include different tree replacement ratios under SMP 7.020. For tree removal requirements in critical areas and their buffers, removal of trees greater than six inches in diameter at four ft height now have a 1:3 replacement ratio. 1 This column attempts to capture the primary relevant location(s) of content related to the item described in the Summary of Change column; however, due to length of the SMP, all relevant locations may not be listed. Ecology Wetland Buffer Guidance In July 2018, Ecology updated its guidance for wetland ratings. The change represents best available science (BAS) and includes modified habitat score ranges used in wetland buffer tables. The change in guidance is the result of Ecology’s continued evaluation of the 2014 wetland rating system as it relates to the 2004 wetland rating system. Ecology’s continued evaluation resulted in revised buffer guidance that is more in line with rating system reference wetland data. The recommendation assigns wetlands with a habitat score of 5 as “low” function along instead of a separate “low/medium” grouping. This reduces the buffer for wetlands with a habitat score of 5 when compared to the City’s current buffer table (see Tables 3-2 and 3-3 below). It also reduces the recommended buffer for “medium” habitat functions (scores of 6 and 7). We propose the City modify its wetland regulations to follow Ecology’s new guidance, although not required by Ecology at this time. Table 3-1 shows the existing buffer widths under BMC Chapter 20.14 and Table 3-2 shows Ecology’s most recent 2018 guidance. Table 3-2. Current standard wetland buffer table per BMC 20.14.330.h.1 Wetland Category and Type Buffer Width (in feet) Based on Habitat Score 3-4 (Low) 5 (Medium) 6-7 (Medium) 8-9 (High) I: Estuarine wetlands 200 I: All others 100 140 220 300 Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 17 Wetland Category and Type Buffer Width (in feet) Based on Habitat Score 3-4 (Low) 5 (Medium) 6-7 (Medium) 8-9 (High) II: Estuarine wetlands 150 II: All 100 140 220 300 III: All 80 140 220 300 IV: All 50 Table 3-3. Standard wetland buffer widths table per July 2018 updated Ecology guidance (when minimization measures and a wildlife corridor are NOT provided) Wetland Category and Type Buffer Width (in feet) Based on Habitat Score 3-5 (Low) 6-7 (Medium) 8-9 (High) I: Estuarine wetlands 200 I: All others 100 150 300 II: Estuarine wetlands 150 II: All 100 150 300 III: All 80 150 300 IV: All 50 Note that BMC Chapter 20.14 utilizes the un-reduced standard buffers presented in Ecology’s Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates for when minimization measures are not implemented (BMC 20.14.330.h.1). BMC Chapter 20.14 allows a 25 percent reduction in wetland buffer widths if impact minimization measures are applied (BMC 20.14.330.h.3). To be consistent with Ecology’s guidance, the use of minimization measures must also require protection of a wildlife corridor, when appropriate. A corridor requirement is currently included in the City’s minimization measures table, but the table does not include all current Ecology requirements. To better align with BAS, a wildlife corridor protection requirement is recommended for wetlands with a habitat score of 6 or more to use the reduced standard buffers of BMC 20.14.330.h.3. The wildlife corridor is only required, and may apply the city in areas owned by the county, if an existing, relatively undisturbed corridor at least 100 feet in width exists between the subject wetland and another Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitat, and the off-site portion of the corridor is already protected by a legal mechanism. (Legal mechanisms may include, conservation easements, public dedications or tracts etc. established in perpetuity). If so, the applicant must extend the wildlife corridor protection onto the subject parcel to connect it to the wetland. If such a wildlife corridor exists but the protection is not provided, the standard buffers must be used. If no wildlife corridor is present, the reduced standard buffers may be used with application of the minimization measures alone. Ecology’s recommended buffer widths when minimization measures are implemented, and a wildlife corridor is provided are presented in Table 3-3 below. These correspond to the reduced buffer widths allowed by BMC 20.14.330.h.3. Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 18 Table 3-4. Reduced wetland buffer widths when minimization measures and corridor are provided Wetland Category and Type Buffer Width (in feet) Based on Habitat Score 3-5 (Low) 6-7 (Medium) 8-9 (High) I: Estuarine wetlands 150 I: All others 75 110 225 II: Estuarine wetlands 110 II: All 75 110 225 III: All 60 110 225 IV: All 40 Critical Areas Applicability in Shoreline Jurisdiction BMC Chapter 20.14 includes some regulations that are inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act. The inconsistent regulations have been identified and excluded from incorporation into the SMP in SMP Section 7.010, Regulation (a) and include some exemptions, reasonable use exceptions and stream buffer reductions. Included in the list of exclusions is BMC 20.14.330(h)(3) Reducing Wetland Buffer Widths. While it is true that the SMA would not allow wetland buffer reductions beyond the minimum supported by the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available, the widths offered by BMC 20.14.330(h)(3) and shown above in Table 3-4 are supported by Ecology as BAS, if the minimization measures and wildlife corridor are provided when applicable. Therefore, the City could consider including this section in the SMP if the suggested changes to the wildlife corridor provision are incorporated. The list of critical area sections ((BMC 20.14) excluded from the BSMP is repeated in section BSMP 5.010(c)(2). The Chapter 5 list differs slightly from the Chapter 7 list (BSMP 7.010.a). These two lists should be revised to be the same. BSMP section 5.010 excludes BMC 20.14.730(d)(8), while section 7.010 does not. Secondly, the wetland sections excluded are listed together and given the incorrect name, “standard wetland buffers widths” in 5.010 (the standard wetland buffer widths section is not listed, and it is assumed it is not actually intended to be excluded.) BMC 20.14.730 (d)(8) Habitat Conservation Area Buffers, is not inconsistent with the SMA and it is not clear why it would be excluded. The City should consider including this section in the SMP. Overall it is recommended that the list in BSMP Section 7.010 be used with the possible removal of BMC 20.14.330(h)(3) if the wildlife corridor revisions are made as discussed above. Finally, the BMC 20.14.200, Definitions, contains several definitions which are inconsistent with the definitions in the BSMP Chapter 3. These two definitions sections should be reviewed and reconciled, however BSMP Chapter 3, Page 11 states: Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 19 ‘Where these definitions conflict with other definitions in the Bremerton Municipal Code, these definitions shall prevail for projects within the shoreline jurisdiction’. In general, definitions not specific to shoreline jurisdiction do not need to be defined in the BSMP. Therefore, critical areas definitions which are appropriately defined in BMC 20.14.200 could be removed from BSMP Chapter 3. 4. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan & Other Development Regulations Based on a review of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and BMC Title 20 ‘Land Use’, there are no major inconsistencies observed within the City’s SMP. There are potential amendments, including discretionary staff requests, which are included in Section 5 of this document. 5. Other Issues to Consider In addition to the issues discussed in the previous sections of this report, several other issues in the current SMP could be addressed as part of the periodic update process to produce a more effective SMP per City staff comments on the administration of the BSMP. These other issues are described in Table 5-1 below. Table 5-1. Other issues that could be addressed to produce a more effective SMP. # Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action Permit Administration 1 Shoreline Permit Expiration BSMP Section 5.060, Time Periods Review: The two-year time period to complete work and one-year extension is insufficient. RCW 90.58.143 allows five years for substantial development permits with authorization for a single extension not to exceed one year. If no substantive changes, the city may ‘authorize different time limits as part of action on a permit’ ((Ecology, 2019, p. 10-1). Action: Revise the BSMP to cross-reference RCW 90.58.143 or as amended, with an Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 20 opportunity for an extension up to one-year extension under reasonable factors. 2 Shoreline permit Ecology Filing BSMP 5.040(a)(3) Review: Shoreline CUP, shoreline variance permits and SDPs must be filed with ecology. Permits and shoreline exemptions requiring environmental checklist are submitted to DOE SEPA registry per SEPA rules/WAC 197-11. Action: Revise the BSMP cross-reference WAC 173- 27-130. Nonconforming Provisions 3 Conditional use Permit required for Nonconforming Use BSMP 6.080 Review: This section creates administration issues for staff and is not necessary. Action: Remove section and conditional use permit requirement. 4 Re-use of vacant structures BSMP Chapter 6, Nonconforming Provisions Review: Any use allowed in the zone may occupy a vacant structure, until such time a preferred shoreline use becomes available, if no exterior alterations to the site are proposed. Restaurants to be permitted in multifamily shoreline designation if a legal non- conforming use. Action: The Citywill consider establishing a maximum time period of 12 consecutive months or a total of 12 months in a two-year period for re-occupying existing vacant structures, subject to zoning and building code requirements. General Standards and Regulations 5 Fence construction in the shoreline buffer area BSMP, Chapter 7.010.6 Review: Staff request the opportunity to modify fence allowances in buffer areas with provision for ADA requirements, health, life and safety. Action: Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 21 Recommended: Revise BSMP 7.010.6, to permit some fencing configurations in certain shoreline buffer areas. 6 Streamline buffer averaging requests - Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas BSMP Section 7.010.5 Review: Regulations require that applicants analyze ‘60% or more of like structures along the shoreline within the same numbered block as the subject property [which] are less than the required buffer/setback required by the SMP.’ The average is permitted for the current proposal. For staff and applicants this is difficult and cumbersome to implement. There are best practices with regulations that may be easier to implement. Action: Recommended: Review best practices of other cities and revise BSMP Section 7.010.5 to establish an improved buffer averaging process. Add a general provision for a critical area building setback line of 5-ft. from the edge of a buffer. Recommended: Replace the traditional rear yard setback with a string-line setback regulations. 7 Height Restrictions BSMP Section 7.090 Review: Explore opportunities to allow for height exceptions for certain types of structures (i.e. bridges). Regulations did not anticipate regulating public bridges that transverse a body of water. Action: Recommended: Codify Director’s Interpretation 18-001-SMP in BSMP Section 8.090 ‘Roads, Railways, and Utilities.’ ‘Height restrictions and light penetration standards do not apply to public bridges. Compliance with all other code provisions shall apply’ 8 Isolated SED- Implementation BSMP 4.030.f, 7.090.5 Chapter 7; SED mapping Review: Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 22 An ‘Isolated’ designation exists and BSMP provisions exempt fish and wildlife buffer on these parcels within the shoreline. These isolated parcels are separated from the shoreline jurisdiction by another parcel, bisected by a road or improvements, etc. Action: Add allowances to be less restrictive on other parcels which are not designated as Isolated yet are separated by a road or other significant improvement. SED map amendments include adding an Isolated designation on the landward side of Evergreen Park. 9 Public Access BSMP Section 7.040(b)(2) Regulations and throughout SMP Review: Consider alternatives that add flexibility for applicants and staff while still meeting WAC public access requirements Action: • Consider alternatives that add flexibility to current public access requirements (e.g. in-lieu, collective off-site locations, nearby access). Including, adding director discretion to remove public access requirement (7.040(h)(9)) as appropriate. • Clarify acceptable trail materials and size along with requirements for no net loss. 10 Mitigation Performance and Monitoring Bonding 7.020 Regulations (a)(7) Review Current bonding requirements do not always contribute to overall success of mitigation. Action: Consider incremental release of bonds if the plants are installed and meeting survival retention rates. Remove bonding requirement for small residential projects. 11 Advance mitigation planning TBD Review: Public Works could benefit from use of an advanced mitigation bank to improve project implementation timeline. Action: Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 23 Consider establishing a process in the SMP/CAO for mitigation banking sites in the City for city projects only. 12 Climate Change Resiliency TBD Review: The City is interested in reviewing how other jurisdictions have incorporated best practices regarding sea level rise and adaptation. The City expects to receive more requests to repair or modify bulkheads as sea levels begin to rise. Action: Where appropriate, incorporate relevant policies into City’s SMP (e.g. Olympia’s 2019 Sea Level Rise Plan). Shoreline Use and Modification Regulations 13 Light penetration for public bridges BSMP Section 9.030 Regulations (b) Review: Regulations did not anticipate regulating public bridges that transverse a body of water for conformance to light penetration standards. (see response to height restrictions above) Action: Recommended: Codify Director’s Interpretation 18-001-SMP in BSMP Section 8.090 ‘Roads, Railways, and Utilities.’ ‘Height restrictions and light penetration standards do not apply to public bridges. Compliance with all other code provisions shall apply’ 14 Vegetation Management Plan Requirements BSMP Section 9.080.i, BSMP Section 7.020 Review: Explore opportunities to reduce unnecessary restrictions, while maintaining no net loss. Add prescriptive standards or those instances where projects are exempt from VMP or enhancement; proportional to the impact proposed; particularly when development located outside of buffer. Action: Review and revise issues identified by City staff, including adding a waiver for bonding requirements of less than $5,000 for implementing a vegetation management plan, adding a less stringent on-center Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 24 planting requirement to encourage the planting of conifers, and adding flexibility to waive the requirement for a qualified professional to prepare plans for minor single-family development. 15 Tender Docks 9.030.i Regulations; BSMP Ch. 3 Definitions Review: No dimensional standards are currently included for a tender dock. Action: Add ‘tender dock’ definition or ‘to tender’ versus ‘to dock’. Consider adding dimensional criteria for a tender dock, as appropriate. Shoreline Environment Designation Mapping 16 SED Designation: Commercial Designation – Extension to lots with existing commercial buildings along shore drive. BSMP Section 4.020, Map D Review: The City may consider expanding the ‘Commercial’ shoreline designation to the south on ‘Multi-Family Residential’ parcels along Wheaton Way. BSMP Section 6.070 states ‘substantial destruction’ removes all legal nonconforming use and development status. Therefore, legal non-conforming commercial uses who wish to upgrade buildings, demolish structure and remodel for economic development in the commercial node are strictly prohibited under the current land use designation. Commercial and multi-family development represent similar permitted uses in the BSMP in terms of their potential impact on the shoreline environment. Expanding commercial areas would increase permitted uses including hotels, general retail, restaurants, and public parking capacity. Further, the expansion to the commercial does not impact public access nor reduce the types of ‘Recreation and Public Access’ use permitted. Action: The City will change identified ‘Multi- Family Residential’ lots to the ‘Commercial’ designation. Staff knowledge, historical Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 25 aerials, assessor data and subarea plans may determine appropriate parcels. The City may choose to include other shoreline designation amendments at their discretion. DOE will require a ‘no net loss’ analysis if such map designation changes are proposed. 17 SED Designations #2: “Commercial” and “Downtown Waterfront” Designations BSMP Section 4.020 – SMP Official Maps A-J Review: ‘Commercial’ and ‘Downtown Waterfront’ are difficult to differentiate due to their similarity in color. Action: Recommended: Change the SED ‘Commercial’ and ‘’Downtown Waterfront’ designation colors to clearly delineate. 18 Other SED map revisions Official Shoreline Environment Designation Maps A-M; Appendix III Designation Boundary & Resource Table Review • SED Map D, mapping error- commercial designation to extend to 1912 Wheaton Way. • Honor Bar/Evergreen Park re-designate to Isolated SED • Oyster Bay requires SED assignment • Commercial SED to be expanded one lot beyond Pitt Avenue to the South. Action Revise maps. Administrative Amendments 19 Industrial Development Throughout BSMP Review General evaluation of the SMP to ensure consistency with industrial development. Action Explore opportunities to ensure consistency with the need for industrial development in certain locations. 20 Reformat/Fix SMP Errors Throughout BSMP Review: Revise text and sections for improved clarity and flow, address miscellaneous typos and formatting errors. The following are known issues. Others to be addressed during review process. Action: Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 26 Amend the following SMP items • 7.040 Regulations(b)(7) should be (b)(5) • 7.040 Regulations(f) should be (c) • 8.040 Regulations(a) & 7.040 • 7.090(b) Regulations scriveners’ error • 7.010 (c)(g) Regulations • Correct public access requirement for lot threshold • Figure 7.090(b)(a)(1), revise order • 9.060 Regulations(a), fix typo • BSMP 7.010.6, ‘Buffers & Setbacks’ - The code reference for fencing is incorrect. Update reference in BSMP from BMC 20.44.020 to BMC 20.46.020 21 Employment Center Planned Action NA Review Land use considerations are on-going for this area and future ordinance may impact city plans for shoreline development. SMP update to be mindful and consistent with area policies. Action: Implement the recommendations from the Eastside Center Subarea Plan. 22 Forestry activities BSMP Section 8.040 Review Forestry activities for the sole purpose of timber harvesting are currently prohibited within shoreline jurisdiction. Certain City properties may benefit from timber harvesting as a way to manage the forest, or for utility maintenance. Action Amend Forest Practices section 8.040(c) to allow the City Watershed and utility lands to utilize forest practices. 23 “May” definition SMP Chapter 3 – definitions Review: The “May” definition includes an erroneous WAC reference that does not exist. Action: Remove the WAC reference from this definition. 23 “Shoreline Jurisdiction” definition SMP Chapter 3 – definitions Review: There are duplicate definitions of ‘Shoreline Jurisdiction’. Action: Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 27 6. References Bremerton (City of Bremerton). September 2017. Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. City of Bremerton, Bremerton, WA. Accessed January 2020. https://www.bremertonwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1966/Shoreline-Master-Program- PDF?bidId= Bremerton (City of Bremerton). May 2016. Bremerton 2035: City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. Accessed February 2020. https://www.bremertonwa.gov/185/Comprehensive-Plan Remove the definition that does not list out shoreline jurisdictional areas. 1 This column attempts to capture the primary relevant location(s) of content related to the item described in the Summary of Change column; however, due to length of the BSMP, all relevant locations may not be listed. Attachment A-3 The Watershed Company Bremerton SMP Gap Analysis Report March 2021 28 Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). September 2019. Periodic Review Checklist Guidance. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review. Accessed December 2019. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ezshare/sea/ShorelinePlannerToolbox/2019/PeriodicReview_ Checklist_Guidance_9-19_rev.pdf Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). November 2019. Shoreline Permitting Manual: Guidance for Local Governments. Ecology Publication No. 17-06-029. Accessed February 2020. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1706029.pdf Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). July 2018. July 2018 Modifications for Habitat Score Ranges. Modified from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version. Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001. Accessed November 2018. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/parts/1606001part1.pdf Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). June 2016. Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version. Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Washington Administrative Code. 2018. Washington State Legislature. Available online: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx. Attachment A-3 1 City of Bremerton SMP: Comment Response Matrix SMP Joint Public Comment Period, October 23 – November 23, 2020 SEPA Comment Period, December 15 – December 29 Comment Number Commenter Comment Topic and Section Number (Citation) Comment Local Government Response and Rationale 1 WDFW SMP: 2.040(b)(2) WDFW suggests adding "and the City should support Kitsap County land use activities that align with the Gorst Creek Subarea Plan prior to annexation." The City agrees with this addition to subsection 2.040(b)(2) within the General Policies Section of the SMP. 2 WDFW SMP: 7.010(b) WDFW suggests adding a list item for removal of overwater structures. The City agrees with this addition to Figure 7.010(b), Shoreline Buffer Reduction Mitigation Options table. This addition gives the applicant another option to ensure a no-net loss of shoreline ecological function when paired with a reduced buffer for a proposed single-family structure. 3 WDFW SMP 8.080(j) WDFW recommends requiring that residential subdivision not reduce lot depth in such a way that buffer setbacks would be reduced. (Considering that setback width is a percentage of lot depth). Shoreline buffers must only be reduced through options prescribed within 7.010(6), Setback and Buffer Reduction and Figure 7.010 (b): Shoreline Buffer Reduction Mitigation Options. The original lot depth (prior to a subdivision) prevails and cannot be reduced by subdivision alone. No change is proposed. 4 WDFW SMP: 8.090(p) WDFW recommends adding that outfalls must be located to avoid and minimize impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation, forage fish spawning beds, and shellfish beds. Sewer outfalls can damage submerged aquatic vegetation through nutrient loading, can cause contamination of shellfish beds, Stormwater facilities are typically determined by gravity and ground contours. Sometimes there is not an option where they can be placed. However, avoidance and minimization to impacts to site sensitive areas listed within this comment will be added. This comment will be addressed with the following addition to this provision: Attachment A-4 2 Comment Number Commenter Comment Topic and Section Number (Citation) Comment Local Government Response and Rationale and can damage forage fish spawning beds through scour and pollution. Outfalls must be located to avoid and minimize impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation, forage fish spawning beds, and shellfish beds. If this provision cannot be met, the applicant will demonstrate that alternatives with less to no impact on aquatic vegetation and shellfish beds are not feasible due to design constraints. 5 WDFW BMC 20.14.330 (h)(1) Are these changes based on Ecology buffer guidance? The standard wetland buffer table (Table 20.14.330(h)(1)) is based on Ecology’s buffer guidance provided in 2018. To meet the intent of the City’s code commensurate to level of wetland buffer impact, the requirement to either replant the standard buffer or enlarge the standard buffer has been removed. Many wetlands within City limits are urbanized in nature, leading to a presence of invasive species. As a result, enacting larger standard buffers or requiring the applicant to clear and replant the buffer, when the development avoids buffer impacts altogether, is more burdensome on the applicant compared to a 25% buffer reduction (without buffer re- vegetation) so long as wetland minimization measures are met. If larger buffers are utilized without impact or buffer averaging, equivalent wetlands protection is met in-terms of greater buffer conservation when compared to a combination of reduced buffers and wetland minimization measures, as prescribed under Table 20.14.330(h)(3). No change is proposed. 6 WDFW BMC 20.14.730 (d)(1) Suggest replace "plantings" with "vegetation." The City agrees with this comment. The term “plantings” will be replaced with “vegetation.” Attachment A-4 3 Comment Number Commenter Comment Topic and Section Number (Citation) Comment Local Government Response and Rationale 7 WDFW BMC 20.14.730 (d)(1) Enhancement should be at a higher ratio to account for temporal loss of vegetation function during the time it takes to mature. We do not have exact guidance on appropriate ratios but the applicant should demonstrate that the proposed ratio will compensate for temporal loss as well. In response to this comment, the City will increase the mitigation enhancement ratio to 1.5:1 when stream buffers are directly impacted or reduced. This increase will capture the temporal loss of impacted vegetative cover. As an alternative, the City may consider allowing an applicant to opt for a more dense plant spacing requirement to ensure long-term success of the mitigation plantings. The alternative approach is as follows: In a case-by-case basis, the Director may consider a smaller enhancement ratio, no less than 1:1, where the applicant provides a greater density of on-center plant spacing that required. 8 WDFW BMC 20.14.330 (d)(1) Is this based in science? It seems deciduous trees like big leaf maple may need greater spacing than coniferous trees... Or recommend using a straight 10 ft OC recommendation for all trees. The City’s intent is to incentivize the planting of conifers by allowing lower density spacing requirements along shoreline areas as conifer may provide higher habitat benefit than deciduous tree species. The City recognizes this incentive may only be applicable to marine and lake shoreline areas rather than riparian corridors. Thus, the amendment will be pulled from BMC 20.14.330(d)(1) and instead placed within the SMP, specifically within 7.020(a)(5) Vegetation Conservation. 9 Suquamish Tribe BMC 20.14.330 (h)(2) The Suquamish Tribe does not support buffers less than 50’. Smaller buffers may be protective for some functions but not water quality. The City’s proposed amendment is consistent with the Department of Ecology’s July 2018 wetland technical guidance. (https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/parts/1606001part1.pdf) 10 Suquamish Tribe 2.030(d)(1) Delete “historically supported by” and replace with “of cultural significance to” The Historical, Cultural, and Educational Goal (2.030(d)(1)) currently includes protecting shoreline areas with cultural and/or historical importance prior to the suggested change. As we Attachment A-4 4 Comment Number Commenter Comment Topic and Section Number (Citation) Comment Local Government Response and Rationale are already making amendments to this section, we will incorporate the suggested change. 11 Suquamish Tribe 2.090 Construction of new in water structures should not result in a downgrade of commercial shellfish harvest areas. The review of this section of the SMP falls outside the scope established in this periodic update, as identified in the Gap Analysis Report. The Gap Analysis identifies the scope of the periodic update, which includes updates based upon legislative amendments, minor critical area revisions and procedural changes meant to add flexibility to the code and make more user- friendly. As such, no changes were made to this section of the SMP. Consideration of such comments may be undertaken during the City’s next comprehensive SMP update. No change is proposed. 12 Suquamish Tribe 2.095 New dredging should be prohibited. Dredging regulations located under 9.040 prohibit new dredging activities except where absolutely necessary. The SMP narrowly construes dredging allowances for new activities in instances of navigation, environmental remediation, or habitat restoration projects. Further, dredging for water- dependent activities is permitted at the state level via WAC 173-26-231(3)(f) so long as material disposal avoids or minimizes significant ecological impacts. No change is proposed. 13 Suquamish Tribe 2.095(b) Add Suquamish Tribe for agency concurrence otherwise this could negatively affect Tribal The City will continue to notify the Suquamish Tribe as outlined in the existing SMP, CAO, and SEPA noticing requirements. Attachment A-4 5 Comment Number Commenter Comment Topic and Section Number (Citation) Comment Local Government Response and Rationale Treaty resources or access (and for consistency with 9.040). No change is proposed. 14 Suquamish Tribe 5.040 Seeding of shellfish should be considered an exempt activity if seeding native species. The City agrees with this comment. This also aligns with the State Legislative Amendment 2019c, Kelp, eelgrass, and native oyster restoration, in addition to 2011b Geoduck aquaculture, as discussed in the City’s SMP Periodic Update Gap Analysis, Table 2- 1. The legislative amendment 2011b is already captured under the existing SMP whereby the definition of aquaculture does not include the harvest of wild geoduck. No change is proposed. 15 Suquamish Tribe 5.040(j)(3) New shoreline stabilization should not be exempt. Per WAC 173-27-040, referenced under SMP section 5.010(j), this is a state-mandated regulatory framework originally adopted by the City, as required, for instances where an applicant may be granted an exemption from the substantial development permit process. Constructing “normal protective” bulkheads can only be utilized with a shoreline exemption when protecting an existing single-family residence and appurtenant structure from loss or damage by erosion and cannot create dry land. No change is proposed. 16 Suquamish Tribe 5.040(j)(8) New overwater structures should not be exempt. Exemptions, located under SMP section 5.010(j)(8), are pursuant to WAC 173-27-040, a statewide requirement within shoreline jurisdiction and are identical to this state provision. Further, residential dock construction under a very small cost threshold ($22,500 for saltwater, $11,200 for freshwater), in addition to Attachment A-4 6 Comment Number Commenter Comment Topic and Section Number (Citation) Comment Local Government Response and Rationale overwater structure replacement as a method of repairing overwater structures with like structures, as this principle meets no-net-loss of shoreline ecological function at the time of the City’s SMP Inventory and Characterization Report. No change is proposed. 17 Suquamish Tribe 5.040(j)(13) Removal of noxious weeds should be an exempt activity (not just if it is recommended in an EIS). This requirement, located under SMP section 5.010(j)(13), is a direct copy of WAC 173-27- 040(2)(n) which discusses the threshold criteria for utilizing herbicides for aquatic noxious weed removal with a shoreline exemption over a shoreline substantial development permit. Department of Ecology oversees and licenses application of herbicides for such activities. As a result, certain herbicides can only be used under EIS recommendation. No change is proposed. 18 Suquamish Tribe 7.010(b)(v) Should also include Suquamish Tribe concurrence (as a co-manager of the States’ resources). We will notify as outlined in the SMP, CAO and SEPA requirements. No change is proposed. 19 Suquamish Tribe Figure 7.090(a) Urban Conservancy is intended to protect and restore ecological functions. Permitted uses should not include over water structures, stabilization, or dredging. Urban Conservancy’s current policies and standards do require that this designation protect and restore ecological functions of lands within the shoreline, consistent with WAC 173-26- 211(5)(e). Though over-water structures, stabilization, and dredging are permitted uses in Urban Conservancy, the City would not approve a proposal contrary to the policies and standards in this designation, or other regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. Chapter 8 and 9 of the Attachment A-4 7 Comment Number Commenter Comment Topic and Section Number (Citation) Comment Local Government Response and Rationale City’s SMP regulates over-water structures, stabilization, and/or dredging activities to ensure these activities are happening per code. No change is proposed. 20 Suquamish Tribe 8.050(l) Offshore log storage should be prohibited. The State has put a lot of resources into cleanup of wood waste. Off-shore log storage is only allowed in the Industrial Shoreline designated areas which, for the City of Bremerton, includes Naval Base Kitsap and the area by Penn Plaza. Per Federal Law, the City does not regulate the Naval Base, so this provision would only potentially be feasible within a small area of Bremerton. The area by Penn Plaza is already developed with upland uses and a marina. As such, the marina would likely conflict with off-shore log storage. Even in the unlikely event the marina were to be removed, a new proposal for log storage at Penn Plaza would need to demonstrate no-net-loss of shoreline ecological function in order to be considered for approval. No change is proposed. 21 Suquamish Tribe 8.060(e) Add “will not result in a commercial shellfish harvest area downgrade”. If a development proposal resulted in a commercial shellfish harvest downgrade, the proposal must also meet No Net Loss (NNL) of shoreline ecological function, per SMP 2.030, General Goals, SMP 2.040, General Policies, and the corresponding NNL definition found in SMP Chapter 3, Definitions. The City would not approve a proposal that does not meet the NNL requirement (including those proposals that impact shellfish harvest). As such, no additional change is proposed to this SMP provision. Attachment A-4 8 Comment Number Commenter Comment Topic and Section Number (Citation) Comment Local Government Response and Rationale 22 Suquamish Tribe 8.060(k)(7) What is the basis of the 40 slip threshold for a pump out? All marinas should have pump out facilities. Marinas under the 40 slip threshold consist of privately owned residential communities where upland residents store their boats in-water. Generally, these boats are predominantly day-use and do not have a waste holding tank. This contrasts with the three public marinas within City limits exceeding the 40-slip threshold; these marinas contain pump out facilities. In addition, this existing regulation doesn’t impact existing development prior to the original comprehensive SMP update. Further, the City does not anticipate future public marina projects to be placed along City shoreline areas that would be above or below the slip threshold. Per WAC 173-26-241(3)(c), Boating facilities must meet health, safety, and welfare requirements, including water quality standards, as required by the Clean Water Act and NPDES Phase II permit requirements (adopted by the City in July 1, 2019). As such, the City believes there are adequate mechanisms in-place to prevent illicit discharges of this nature, or authority to fine violators of these provisions. In conclusion, no change to this slip threshold for requiring a new pump out facility will be made at this time. 23 Suquamish Tribe 9.070(b) Unless another project is selected and agreed upon by the city, Tribe and resource agencies. The City does not anticipate conflicts with restoration activities being proposed. The Restoration Plan objectives (i.e. goals) are consistent with other City and resource agency goals. No change is proposed. Attachment A-4 9 Comment Number Commenter Comment Topic and Section Number (Citation) Comment Local Government Response and Rationale 24 Suquamish Tribe 9.070(f) Add “primary”….structures…. Both legal primary and appurtenant single family residential structures are given equal weight when permitted under a shoreline exemption per WAC 173-27-040(2)(g). Further, single family residential development is the predominant use along City shorelines of the state and is recognized by state law (WAC 173-26-241(3)(j)(i)) as a, “…priority use when developed in a manner consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment…” As such, no differentiation is warranted to place greater emphasis on preserving primary structures over appurtenant structures when designing restoration projects. No change is proposed. 25 Suquamish Tribe 9.080 Add language specifying that bulkheads, jetties, weirs and groins disrupt shoreline processes and alter habitat and will require mitigation. Proposals to construct, modify, and repair bulkheads, jetties, weirs, and groins must adhere to 9.080(i) Vegetation Management, where vegetation shall be planted and maintained on shoreline modification structures to minimize visible impact and restore and enhance all disturbed areas effected by an approved structural measure using native plant material with similar diversity and structure to the native climax community. No change is proposed. 26 Suquamish Tribe 9.080(1) Add “immediate”….danger (meaning within a year or two) This reference is presumed to be to regulation (b)(1). The SMP regulatory provision currently matches state law under WAC 173-26-231(2)(a), General principles applicable to all shoreline modifications. No change is proposed. Attachment A-4 10 Comment Number Commenter Comment Topic and Section Number (Citation) Comment Local Government Response and Rationale 27 Suquamish Tribe 9.080(f)(4) Enhancement material added to a beach must be appropriately sized material as per WDFW (sizing for stability will result in armored beaches and material that is too large). This provision currently requires beach enhancement material be, “…generally similar to that of the natural beach sediment.” As prescribed, enhancement material similar to natural beach sediment is unlikely to result in armored beaches. No change is proposed. 28 Suquamish Tribe BMC 20.14.340(f)(1) Add additional language regarding Category I bogs and heritage sites. The Department of Ecology has said that creation or re- establishment of Category I wetlands, specifically bogs and heritage sites, is not possible. There are so few of these wetlands that impacts should be avoided and/or prohibited and rehabilitation and enhancement are on a case-by-case basis only. The Category I ratios provided in the table are suitable for other Category I wetlands that are not bogs or heritage sites. The City agrees with this comment and will add language regarding Category I bogs and heritage sites to BMC 20.14.340(f)(1). 29 DOD Department of the Navy Naval Base Kitsap 5.010(h) The Navy is not aware of a use or area under federal exclusive jurisdiction that is established through state statute. Recommend deleting “or state” from the first sentence. Recommend adding Jackson Park Housing Complex and Camp McKean to the list of federal lands identified in the second sentence of 5.010(h). Per WAC 173-22-070 and discussed within the Gap Analysis Table 2-1, 2017f, Lands under exclusive federal jurisdiction are not subject to the jurisdiction of the SMP. State statute RCW 37.08.180 refers to acquisition of land by the U.S. government for permanent military installations, for example. As such, this language will remain unchanged. Regarding the federal lands list, the City understands this is may not be a comprehensive list of federal facilities. However, Jackson Park Attachment A-4 11 Comment Number Commenter Comment Topic and Section Number (Citation) Comment Local Government Response and Rationale Housing Complex and Camp McKean will be added to the list of federal lands under SMP 5.010(h). 30 DOD Department of the Navy Naval Base Kitsap SMP Maps All maps included in the Shoreline Master Program need to be updated to show that federal lands are not included within the shoreline jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program. As examples, Figure 3-4a, Figure F-16 (Map 16), and Map 4c all incorrectly show Naval Base Kitsap Bremerton and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard within the shoreline jurisdiction of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. Although these maps depict Naval Base Kitsap as an Urban Shoreline Environment Designation, as characterized in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, this is merely for illustrative purposes. Section 5.010(h) affirms that all lands under exclusive federal jurisdiction are not subject to the City Shoreline Master Program and Chapter 90.58 RCW – Shoreline Management Act of 1971. No change is proposed. SEPA Public Comments Received 31 Susan Digby Stormwater SMP 7.010(6) There is one further issue related to surface water runoff from shoreline properties. I think that going forward we need to mandate permeable surfaces such as coarse gravel, permeable concrete or permeable pavers for driveways that are in close proximity to the water as opposed to asphalt or concrete surfaces. New science has shown that we need to ensure that surface water carrying pollutants is absorbed into the ground where it has some chance of being naturally filtered and diluted before reaching the Sound. In addition to pollutants such as oil and engine products that we already knew were harmful, recent work shows that chemicals in tires are highly toxic to salmon and result in significant mortality. Salmon on their way to spawn in Proposed edits to the SMP, including SMP 7.010(6), Setback and Buffer Reduction, encourage mitigation options such as biofiltration/infiltration systems, required for an applicant to reduce their buffer to accommodate new development. These green stormwater strategies promote better filtration of contaminants with performance requirements built in, including retaining 70% of the site’s annual stormwater runoff for poor infiltrating soils and 99% for sites containing well-drained soils. As such, no change is proposed. Attachment A-4 12 Comment Number Commenter Comment Topic and Section Number (Citation) Comment Local Government Response and Rationale Chico Creek, Clear Creek and Barker pass through waters surrounded by the City of Bremerton. It is imperative that we prevent situations where water carrying highly toxic surface pollutants drain directly into the Sound. 32 Susan Digby CSO Overflow SMP 8.090 My most major concern relating to shoreline is that of storm water runoff and sewage overflows from shoreline sites. In heavy rains storm water runoff and sewage are currently directed into the various parts of Puget Sound that the City of Bremerton abuts. I am particularly concerned that these overflow events will grow in severity as the population of the City of Bremerton increases and as the climate changes. With climate changes we can expect more severe rain events in addition to more rain. Currently we have an antiquated sewer pipe system and a waste water treatment plant that appears to be smaller than needed. What plans are there to provide overflow solutions that avoid direct sewer outfall from shoreline installations into the Sound? The City Public Works Department Capital Facilities Plan strives to prevent CSO overflows in the Puget Sound, as evidenced by a $50 million dollar effort committed in 2009 to replace antiquated sewer and storm pipe systems in a systematic way. According to the City of Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities Combined Sewer Overflow Annual Report for 2019 (https://www.bremertonwa.gov/Document Center/View/8435/Combined-Sewer-Overflow- Annual-Report-2019-PDF), the City has reduced overflow volume by 99%, as well as frequency of events by 99% compared to the baseline established in 1999. The scope of this SMP periodic update does not include addressing CSO facilities and sewage overflows specifically. However, provisions have been added to SMP 8.090(p), Storm Drainage/Sewer Outfalls, to improve permitting timelines associated with CSO facilities by allowing for administrative approval of a shoreline substantial development permit versus a shoreline variance when the City is able to successfully mitigate for, as well as demonstrate no Attachment A-4 13 Comment Number Commenter Comment Topic and Section Number (Citation) Comment Local Government Response and Rationale alternatives with less to no impact on aquatic vegetation and shellfish beds are not feasible due to design constraints of such utility infrastructure. No further changes to the SMP are proposed. 33 Susan Digby SMP Maps Has there been any consideration to designate lands at the southern end of Mud Bay as urban conservancy? There appears to be land that is generally above high tides that is not owned property. The underlying zoning at the southern end of Mud Bay, near the OHWM, is exclusively zoned R-10, and is correspondingly designated Shoreline Residential, per its consistency with the purpose statement defined at the state level (WAC 173-26- 211(5)(f)). The small section of “white” you may be referring to, found in City Zoning Map 3 (https://www.bremertonwa.gov/DocumentCenter / View/819/Map-3-PDF?bidId=, screenshot below) is a map visualization approximating OHWM location. Attachment A-4 14 Comment Number Commenter Comment Topic and Section Number (Citation) Comment Local Government Response and Rationale However, the entire parcel is still subject to R-10 zoning, shoreline residential and aquatic designations. A development proposal to expand closer to the OHWM on these lots would first need a qualified professional, as defined within SMP Chapter 3, to delineate the OHWM. An OHWM delineation will establish where the shoreline residential and aquatic designations are for one of these southern properties you note within Mud Bay. In summary, the shoreline residential designation best matches the underlying zoning. No change is proposed. 34 Susan Digby Sea Level Rise What is the rate of sea level rise used by the City of Bremerton for purposes of planning? This SMP periodic update does not establish a sea level rise vertical-foot increase for planning Attachment A-4 15 Comment Number Commenter Comment Topic and Section Number (Citation) Comment Local Government Response and Rationale SMP 2.030 purposes. Rather, the policy edit under SMP section 2.030(b)(7), Conservation and Restoration Goal, sets the stage for future information gathering to support a Climate Strategic Plan, appropriately planning for and supporting regulations that account for sea level rise. No further SMP edits outside of this sea level rise policy amendment are proposed. 35 Susan Digby SMP Maps And just to let you know that I don’t gripe all the time I want to convey to you that I am very happy to see the Urban Conservancy designation of the small island in Oyster Bay. (Locally known as Pig Island as apparently someone used to keep pigs on it) Thank you for your comment. Attachment A-4 TO: Garrett Jackson, Senior Planner, City of Bremerton CC: Jackie Chandler, Shoreline Administrator, WA Department of Ecology FROM: Maria Sandercock, Shoreline Planner, WA Department of Ecology Date: February 26, 2021 Subject: Initial Determination of Consistency Sent via email to: Garrett.Jackson@ci.bremerton.wa.us Use of this Document Ecology’s Determination of Initial Concurrence provides Ecology’s review of the proposed amendment to the City of Bremerton (City) Shoreline Master Program (SMP). This document is divided into two sections: Findings of Fact, which provides findings related to the City’s proposed amendment, amendment history, and the review process and Initial Determination of the proposed amendment with next steps. Attachment 1 itemizes issues that must be addressed for Ecology’s final approval of the proposed amendment. Brief Description of Proposed Amendment The City has submitted Shoreline Master Program (SMP) amendments to Ecology for initial determination of concurrence to comply with periodic review requirements. Ecology is required under WAC 173-26-104(3)(b) to make an initial determination of consistency with applicable laws and rules. FINDINGS OF FACT Need for amendment The City’s comprehensive update to their SMP went into effect in 2013. The City made a limited amendment to incorporate updated critical areas regulations; this amendment was approved by Ecology in 2017. Now, the proposed amendment is needed to comply with the statutory deadline for a periodic review of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program pursuant to RCW 90.58.080(4). SMP provisions to be changed by the amendment as proposed The City prepared a checklist and an analysis that documents proposed amendments. The amendments bring the SMP into compliance with requirements of the act or state rules that have been added or changed since the last SMP amendment, ensure the SMP remains consistent with amended comprehensive plans and regulations, and incorporate amendments deemed necessary to reflect changed circumstances, new information, or improved data. The City has proposed the following amendments: 1.An updated critical area ordinance is incorporated by reference into the SMP. Revisions to critical area regulations include: i.Revisions to requirements for tree replacement ratios and sizes (20.14.190) ii.Amendments to wetland regulations (20.14.320, 330 & 340). Standard wetland buffers are revised, resulting in smaller required buffers for wetlands with a medium habitat Attachment B to SMP Public Hearing Department of Ecology Approval Letter Page 1 of 6 score. Wetlands with a habitat score of 5 will be considered “low habitat.” Clarifications on reducing the standard wetland are added. iii. Addition of clarifications on stream buffer enhancements and an allowance to reduce enhancement requirements on a case-by-case basis. 2. Goals and policies are updated as follows: a. Add “address climate change adaptation/resiliency” to Master Goal of SMP (2.020) b. Add policies for addressing climate change to the Conservation and Restoration Goal (2.030(b)). A new policy to avoid, retreat, protect, and accommodate in that order is added. New policies to establish a climate change strategic plan, to consider changes to shorelines in future SMP updates, and to consider sea level rise impacts as the City plans for new development are also added. c. The statement “and meet current ADA requirements” is added to the Public Access Goal (2.030(e)) d. General policies as well as policies for uses, shoreline modifications, and development are relocated and consolidated into Chapter 2. e. The following policy is added to the Vegetation Conservation Policies: “The City should implement the Environmental Standards within the Gorst Creek Subarea Plan, include the Gorst Creek Overlay, upon future annexation.” (2.040(b)(2)). f. Recognition that forest practices within the City Watershed and City Utility Lands may include timber harvest is added to Forest Practices Policies (2.055). 3. Definitions (Chapter 3) are updated as follows: a. Definitions are added for the following terms: covered moorage, floating on-water residence, must, nonconforming lot, nonconforming structure, nonconforming use, reach, sea level rise, tender dock. b. Definitions for the following terms are revised: development, floating home, may, mooring buoy, ordinary high water mark, qualified professional, setback, shoreline jurisdiction, shoreline substantial development. c. Definitions for the following terms are deleted: nonconforming development, wetlands. 4. The shoreline maps (Chapter 4) are amended as follows: a. A small island in Oyster Bay that was undesignated will be designated as Urban Conservancy b. Redesignate a parcel at 1917 Wheaton Way from Multi-Family Residential to Commercial. c. Redesignate a parcel along Shore Drive from Shoreline Residential to Commercial. d. Add a designation of Isolated to parcels on the landward side of Evergreen Park. Attachment B to SMP Public Hearing Page 2 of 6 5. Permit Administration (Chapter 5) is amended as follows: a. Local review exceptions are added [5.010(g)]. b. A statement of applicability to areas under exclusive federal jurisdiction is added [5.010(h)]. c. Cost thresholds are updated [5.010(j)]. d. Specifics on some shoreline exemptions are removed, and references to WAC 173-27-040 are added [5.010(j)]. e. Clarification that the shoreline exemptions are not filed with Ecology is added [5.040(a)(3)] f. Minor clarifications to conditional use permit requirements [5.040(b)]. g. The time requirements for permits is revised [5.060(c)]. h. Special procedures for WSDOT projects are added [5.100]. 6. Nonconforming Provisions (Chapter 6) are amended as follows: a. A statement is added that lawfully existing uses, lots, and structures that are rendered nonconforming by the SMP may continue and be repaired [6.020(c)]. b. Definitions are moved to Chapter 3 [6.040]. c. Minor, non-substantive revisions to provisions for discontinuation of nonconforming uses [6.060(d)]. d. Revisions to provisions for expansion of nonconforming structures [6.070(b)]. e. Revisions to provisions for repair and maintenance of nonconforming structures [6.070(c)]. f. A section on Unsuitable Structures for Uses is deleted. 7. General Standards and Regulations (Chapter 7) are amended as follows: a. The incorporation of the critical area ordinance is updated to incorporate the 2021 CAO [7.010(a)]. b. Revisions to the Shoreline Buffers and Setbacks table are incorporated to provide clarity of implementation, and a provision for interrupted buffers is added [7.010(b)]. c. Requirements for Habitat Management Plans are revised [7.010(b)(5)] d. Allowances for shoreline buffer reductions are revised. A table of mitigation options to allow buffer reductions is added [7.010(b)(6)]. e. Allowances for fences are revised [7.010(b)(7)]. f. An allowance is added for up to 50 square feet of water enjoyment structures in the buffer. g. Requirements for a Vegetation Management Plan are revised. Development entirely outside of shoreline buffers will no longer be required to provide a Vegetation Management Plan [7.020]. h. A clarification is added that proposals that are entirely addressed by specific, objective standards of the SMP are not required to demonstrate mitigation sequencing [7.030]. i. Provisions for the requirement of public access are revised [7.040]. j. Clarifications to the Height Restrictions table are added [7.090(b)]. k. A requirement to obtain a shoreline conditional use permit in order to increase building heights to the maximum allowed by the zoning code is removed [7.090(b)]. l. Exceptions to the height restrictions are added [7.090(b)(3)]. 8. Shoreline Use Regulations (Chapter 8) are amended as follows: a. Requirements for water-dependent commercials uses are revised. (8.030) b. An allowance for Forest practices for the sole purposed of timber harvesting is added for shorelands in the City Watershed and the City Utility Lands. (8.040) Attachment B to SMP Public Hearing Page 3 of 6 c. Requirements for public access are revised to include an exception for areas designated by the EPA as a Superfund site. An allowance to use shoreline armoring to prevent chemicals from leaching into a waterbody is added. (8.050) d. Clarification that floating on-water residences established and moored within a marine prior to July 1, 2014 are consider conforming uses is added. (8.080) e. Requirements for residential subdivision are added. (8.080) f. Clarification that height restrictions do not apply to bridges is added. (8.090). g. Storm drainage/sewer outfall requirements are revised (8.090). 9. Shoreline Modifications (Chapter 9) provisions are amended as follows: a. Work window requirements for clearing, filling and grading are revised [9.020]. b. A requirement that light penetration be incorporated into private bridges is added [9.030]. c. A provision for public pier and dock size limitations is added [9.030(k)]. Amendment History, Review Process The City prepared a public participation program in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(a) to inform, involve and encourage participation of interested persons and private entities, tribes, and applicable agencies having interests and responsibilities relating to shorelines. The City used Ecology’s checklist of legislative and rule amendments to review amendments to chapter 90.58 RCW and department guidelines that have occurred since the master program was last amended, and determine if local amendments were needed to maintain compliance in accordance with WAC 173- 26-090(3)(b)(i). The City also reviewed changes to the comprehensive plan and development regulations to determine if the shoreline master program policies and regulations remain consistent with them in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(ii). The City considered whether to incorporate any amendments needed to reflect changed circumstances, new information or improved data in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(iii). The City consulted with Ecology and solicited comments throughout the review process. The City held a joint local/state comment period on the proposed amendments following procedures outlined in WAC 173-26-104. The comment period began on October 23, 2020 and continued through November 23, 2020. A virtual public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on November 16, 2020. The City provided notice to local parties, including a statement that the hearings were intended to address the periodic review in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(c)(ii). Ecology distributed notice of the joint comment period to state interested parties on October 20, 2020. The City received four (4) comment letters on the proposed amendments. The City identified 35 individual comments in these letters, as outlined in the Comment Response Matrix. The City made several changes to the SMP amendment in response to comments. In response to comments from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the City added a policy related to the Gorst Creek sub-area plan, added a shoreline buffer mitigation option, added requirements for avoidance and minimization when siting stormwater outfalls, replaced “plantings” with “vegetation” in the stream regulations, increased the mitigation ratio for stream buffer vegetation replacement to 1.5:1, and relocated tree planting requirements from the CAO to the vegetation conservation section of the SMP. Attachment B to SMP Public Hearing Page 4 of 6 In response to comments received from the Suquamish Tribe, the City updated the Historical, Cultural, and Educational Goal and added language to replacement ratio requirements for Category I wetlands that bogs and heritage wetlands cannot be created. In response to comments received from the Department of the Navy – Naval Base Kitsap, the City added “Jackson Park Housing Complex and Camp McKean to the list of federal lands. The proposed SMP amendments were received by Ecology on January 27, 2021 for initial state review and verified as complete on January 28, 2021. Summary of Issues Identified by Ecology as Relevant to Its Decision Ecology is required to review all SMPs to ensure consistency with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and implementing rules including WAC 173-26, State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines. WAC 173-26-186(11) specifies that Ecology “shall insure that the state’s interest in shorelines is protected, including compliance with the policy and provisions of RCW 90.58.020.” Based on review of the proposed amendments to the SMP for consistency with applicable SMP Guidelines requirements and the Shoreline Management Act, and consideration of supporting materials in the record submitted by the City, the following issues remain relevant to Ecology’s final decision on the proposed amendments to the City’s SMP, with Findings specific to each issue identifying amendments needed for compliance with the SMA and applicable guidelines: Definitions The SMP appears to contain two definitions for “shoreline jurisdiction.” The City proposes to remove one of these definitions. Finding. Ecology finds that the City proposes to strike a definition for “shoreline jurisdiction” that is consistent with RCW 90.58.030 and retain a definition that is not consistent. Ecology has identified a change that is necessary for consistency with RCW 90.58.030 [Attachment 1, Req-1]. Critical Area Incorporation The SMP contains a duplicate incorporation of the CAO – one at Chapter 5.010(c) and one at 7.010(a). The Chapter 5 incorporation refers to the 2017 CAO and so is internally inconsistent with the Chapter 7 incorporation. It appears that the City intends to incorporate the 2021 CAO, not the 2017 CAO. A change will be necessary to ensure internal consistency; Ecology recommends removing the Chapter 5 incorporation to address this issue. Finding. Ecology finds that the City incorporates the 2021 critical areas ordinance in Chapter 7.010(a) and the 2017 critical areas ordinance in Chapter 5.010(c). Ecology finds that these two CAO incorporations are internally inconsistent. Ecology has identified a change necessary for internal consistency between these two sections [Attachment 1, Item Req-2]. The incorporation of the 2021 CAO in Chapter 7.010(a) includes the administrative and permitting procedures of the CAO. These procedures are inconsistent with RCW 90.58.610 and RCW 36.70A.480, which govern the relationship between SMPs and CAOs, and with WAC 173-27, which provides SMA permitting procedures. Within shoreline jurisdiction, critical areas are protected solely by the SMA and the SMP, and are not subject to the procedural requirements of CAOs. Development and uses in Attachment B to SMP Public Hearing Page 5 of 6 shoreline jurisdiction that may involve shoreline critical areas should follow the administrative and permitting provisions of the SMA and SMP instead. Finding. Ecology finds that the incorporation of the 2021 CAO in Chapter 7.010(a) includes administrative and permitting procedures that are inconsistent with RCW 90.58.610 and WAC 173-27. Ecology has identified a change necessary for consistency with RCW 90.58.610 and WAC 173-27 (Attachment 1, Req- 4). Permit Administration – Time Requirements The proposal amends the time requirements for shoreline permits in Chapter 5.060(c). RCW 90.58.143 establishes time requirements for shoreline permits that apply regardless of local provisions: work authorized by a shoreline permit must begin within two (2) years of the effective date of the permit, and must be completed within five (5) years of the effective date. RCW 90.58.143(2) authorizes local governments to grant one 1-year extension to the time frame for commencing a project and RCW 90.58.143(3) authorizes local governments to grant one 1-year extension to the time frame for completing the project. Finding. Ecology finds the proposed amendments to 5.060(c) are inconsistent with RCW 90.58.143. Ecology has identified a change necessary for consistency with RCW 90.58.143 [Attachment 1, Req-3]. INITIAL DETERMINATION After review by Ecology of the complete record submitted and all comments received, Ecology has determined that the City proposed amendments, subject to and including Ecology’s required changes (itemized in Attachment 1), are consistent with the policy and standards of RCW 90.58.020 and RCW 90.58.090 and the applicable SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through 251 and .020 definitions). Next Steps Consider the changes Ecology has identified in Attachment 1 to resolve the issues identified above. Please let me know if you would like to discuss alternative language or different approaches for resolving these issues. If these issues are resolved prior to local adoption, we anticipate being able to approve your SMP Periodic Review amendment promptly after formal submittal is provided consistent with WAC 173-26-110. Attachment B to SMP Public Hearing Page 6 of 6 February 26, 2021 Attachment 1: City of Bremerton - Ecology Required and Recommended Changes The changes in red are required for consistency with the SMA (RCW 90.58) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III). Changes in blue are recommended and consistent with SMA (RCW 90.58) policy and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III) ITEM SMP Submittal PROVISION BILL FORMAT CHANGES (underline = additions; strikethrough = deletions) RATIONALE Rec-1 Chapter 3 Definitions May: The action is acceptable provided it conforms to the provisions of the Program. Denotes the use of discretion by the Director in making a decision, provided the action conforms to the provisions of the Program and the policies of the SMA WAC. (WAC 173-26-03(21)) Recommended change: Remove erroneous WAC reference WAC 173-26-03(21) does not refer to an actual section of the WAC. It’s not clear what section the reference is intended to be to. Ecology recommends removing this reference. Ecology also recommends that for discretionary decisions, the Director consider the policies of the SMA. Req-1 Chapter 3 Definitions Shorelands or Shoreland Areas: Those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the Ordinary High Water Mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feed from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this chapter; the same to be designated as to location by the Department of Ecology. Shoreline jurisdiction: All shorelines of the state and shorelands as defined in RCW 90.58.030; in Bremerton this includes shorelands and water bodies waterward of OHWM out to the middle of Sinclair Inlet and Port Orchard Bay, all of Port Washington Narrows, Ostrich Bay, Oyster Bay, Phinney Bay and Mud Bay, the portion of Kitsap Lake within the Bremerton City limits, Union Reservoir, Twin Lakes, one mile of Gorst Creek and one mile of Union River. Shoreline Environment Designations: The categories of shorelines established by the City’s Master Program in order to provide a uniform basis for applying policies and use regulations within physically distinct shoreline areas. The City’s Shoreline Master Program classifies shorelines into the following environment designations: Aquatic, aquatic conservancy, commercial, downtown waterfront, industrial, isolated, multi-family residential, recreation, single family residential and urban conservancy. Shoreline Jurisdiction: Those lands extending landward for 200’ in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the OHWM; floodways and 100 year floodplains; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, tidal waters and all other areas as defined by RCW 90.58.030. Required change: Retain the first definition of shoreline jurisdiction and delete the second definition. The City proposes to delete one of the duplicative definitions of shoreline jurisdiction. However, the deleted definition appears to be consistent with RCW 90.58.030 and the retained definition is not. A change is necessary for consistency with RCW 90.58.030. Shoreline jurisdiction, or the area subject to the SMA, includes shorelines of the state and their associated shorelands. The first definition of shoreline jurisdiction is more consistent with RCW 90.58.030 than the second definition, which appears to actually be the definition for “shorelands.” Attachment C to SMP Public Hearing Page 1 of 3 February 26, 2021 Req-2 Chapter 5 Permit Administration 5.010 Applicability (c) Development Permit Compliance: (1) For all development within shoreline jurisdiction, the responsible official shall not issue a development or construction permit or an exemption for such development until compliance with the Shoreline Master Program has been documented. If a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required, no permit shall be issued until all comment and appeal periods have expired. Any development permit for work within the shoreline jurisdiction (200’ from the OHWM) shall be subject to the same terms and conditions that apply to the shoreline permit. (2) Critical Areas in the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the Critical Areas Regulations, (Ord. 5327____ (exh B) (part), 2017: Ord. 4965 Section 7 (part) 2006)), codified under BMC 20.14 which is herein incorporated into this SMP however, the following sections of the Critical Area Ordinance do not apply: (i) BMC 20.14.145(d) Exemptions for Forest Practices; (ii) BMC 20.14.145(f) Exemptions for activities within improved Right- of-Way; (iii) BMC 20.14.155 Reasonable Use Exception; (iv) BMC 20.14.330(f) & (g) Standard Wetland Buffers Widths; (v) BMC 20.14.730(d)(5) Buffer Reduction; (ix) BMC 20.14.730 (d)(8) Habitat Conservation Area Buffers; Required Change: Correct or remove this second incorporation of the critical area ordinance. A change to Chapter 5.010(c)(2) is necessary for internal consistency with 7.010(a), which contains an incorporation of the most recent, 2021 critical area ordinance. 5.010(c)(2) incorporates the 2017 CAO, which is inconsistent with the newest CAO. While 5.010(c)(2) could be revised to match the incorporation at 7.010(a), this section is duplicative and increases the chance for inconsistencies. Ecology’s recommendation for addressing this required change is to strike this sub-section because it is not necessary and may create confusion. Req-3 Rec-2 Chapter 5 Permit Administration 5.060 Time periods (c) Expiration: Unless a different time period is specified in the shoreline permit as authorized by RCW 90.58.143, construction activities, or a use or activity for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this Master Program, must be commenced within two (2) and completed within five (5) years of the effective date of a shoreline permit, or the shoreline permit shall terminate and a new permit shall be necessary, except for projects also requesting a shoreline variance. The Director may authorize a single extension for commencing activity and a single extension for completing the activity, not neither to exceed one year based on reasonable factors if an extension request is filed with the City within thirty days of the permit expiry. A notice of the proposed extension shall be forwarded to parties of record and Ecology. (d) Extensions: A permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of no more than five (5) years from commencement of construction activities to project completion after the effective date of a shoreline permit, unless a longer period has been specified pursuant to RCW 90.58.143, or as authorized above. If an applicant files a request for an extension prior to expiration of the shoreline permit, the Director shall review the permit and upon a showing of good cause may authorize a single extension of the shoreline permit for a period of up to one year. Otherwise said permit shall terminate. Notice of the proposed permit extension shall be given to parties of record and Ecology. To maintain the validity of a shoreline permit, it is the applicant’s responsibility to maintain valid construction permits in accordance with adopted Building Codes. Required Change: Add correct time requirements for shoreline permits. A change is necessary for consistency with RCW 90.58.143, which sets default time requirements for shoreline permits. RCW 90.58.143 (2) requires that construction activities or the use shall be commenced within two years of the effective date of the permit and RCW 90.58.143 (3) requires that construction activities shall be completed within five years of the effective date. Recommended change: Clarify that there are two opportunities for time extensions RCW 90.58.143 (2) authorizes local governments to grant one 1-year extension to the time frame for commencing a project and RCW 90.58.143 (3) authorizes local governments to grant one 1-year extension to the time frame for completing the project. Attachment C to SMP Public Hearing Page 2 of 3 February 26, 2021 Req-4 Chapter 7 General Standards and Regulations 7.010 Buffers and Setbacks (a) Critical Area Ordinance Applicability: Critical Areas that are within the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the Critical Areas Regulations, (Ord. XXXX Section X (Exh X) (part), 2020), codified under BMC 20.14 which is herein incorporated into this SMP however, the following sections of the Critical Area Ordinance do not apply: BMC 20.14.130 Administration and Procedures; BMC 140 Appeals; BMC 20.14.145(d) Exemptions for Forest Practices; BMC 20.14.145(f) Exemptions for activities within improved Right-of-Way; BMC 20.14.150 Public Agency Exception; BMC 20.14.155 Reasonable Use Exception; BMC 20.14.160 Nonconforming uses/structures; BMC 20.14.330(f) Category III and IV Wetlands; MC 20.14.330(g) Category IV Wetlands; and BMC 20.14.730(d)(5) Buffer Reductions Required Change: Do not incorporate administrative and permitting procedures into the SMP. A change is necessary for consistency with RCW 90.58.610 and RCW 36.70A.480, which govern the relationship between SMPs and CAOs. Within shoreline jurisdiction, critical areas are protected solely by the SMA and the SMP, and are not subject to the procedural requirements of CAOs. Development and uses in shoreline jurisdiction that may involve shoreline critical areas should follow the administrative and permitting provisions of the SMP instead. Ecology has identified administrative and permitting sections of the CAO and added them to this list of exclusions. Attachment C to SMP Public Hearing Page 3 of 3 Shoreline Master Program Periodic Update SMP (BMC 20.16) Agenda Item # 7 & CAO (BMC 20.14) Agenda # 8 City Council Public Hearing| April 21, 2021 Orders of the Day This City Council study session will discuss code amendments to the SMP and Critical Areas Ordinance. This update is a joint process that has been conducted with the Department of Ecology. Key Takeaways •This is not a major update •Amendments add flexibility •Clarity is provided for when mitigation is required 1 Public Outreach •Informational Postcard April 2020 •Online open house October 2020 •Planning Commission Two workshops & hearing •Social Media •Department of Ecology 2 Gap Analysis Report Purpose (Attachment A-3) Documents consistency with State legislative amendments and provides summary of all proposed changes. Photo Credit: Google Earth © 2018 3 Proposed Amendments SMP, Development Regulations Agenda Item #7 •Consistency with State regulations •Formatting •Provide added flexibility for single family home owners •Minor mapping changes 4 Proposed Amendments COA, Development Regulations Agenda Item #8 Wetlands & Fish/Wildlife Conservation Areas •Consistency with State regulations •Provide added flexibility for single family home owners 5 Timeline •April 2020 Postcard •PC workshop–September 21, 2020 •Online Tool Launch –October 1, 2020 •PC workshop to review full amendment draft –October 19 •Joint Ecology\City public comment period –late October 23 November 23 2020 •Joint Ecology\City public hearing –November 16, 2020 •SEPA Determination –December 15 -29 •Submittal to Ecology for Initial Determination –January •Receive Ecology’s Initial Determination -February •Final review of the SMP and CAO –April 2021 6 Thanks for listening Questions? Additional information Project website: www.BremertonWA.gov/SMPUpdate o Staff contact is Garrett Jackson, Senior Planner o (360) 473-5289 o Garrett.Jackson@ci.Bremerton.wa.us 7 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: April 14, 2021 Public Hearing and Ordinance No. 5418 to amend Chapter 20.14 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Critical Areas” to be consistent with the Shoreline Master Program Update COUNCIL MEETING Date: April 21, 2021 Department: DCD Presenter: Garrett Jackson Phone: (360) 473-5289 SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance amends Chapter 20.14 of the BMC entitled Critical Areas to be consistent with the Shoreline Master Program Update (that was passed in a separate public hearing and Ordinance). The update topics and following sections are summarized below: i. Wetland Buffers. Table changes to incorporate July 2018 Department of Ecology guidance (BMC 20.14.330(h) Wetland Buffers). The change results in slightly smaller buffers for lower functioning wetlands, so long as wetland minimization measures are met. ii. Buffer Flexibility. Adding flexibility for fish and wildlife habitat conservation area buffers (BMC 20.14.730). Small single-family projects of 500 square feet or less may be exempt from having to prepare a Habitat Management Plan, though they will still need to mitigate for the impact. Further, projects that cannot accomplish fish and wildlife conservation area buffers may request for a departure from prescribed buffers, so long as the mitigation proposal is agreed to by two state or federal resource agencies or tribes and can demonstrate equal or greater critical area protection. Please note that this effort to update the Critical Area regulations are based off the Shoreline Master Program update. Much the effort (including the Planning Commission process) and further analysis is described in the SMP Public Hearing Ordinance, which is not repeated here. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance No. 5418 amending Chapter 20.14 BMC; and 2) Power Point Presentation FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ Limited Presentation ☒ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☒ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. 5418 amending Chapter 20.14 BMC entitled “Critical Areas” to be consistent with the Shoreline Master Program Update COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 5B 1 CAO Amendments ORDINANCE NO. 5418 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington amending Chapter 20.14 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, entitled Critical Areas, relating to the Shoreline Master Program. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was updated per Ordinance No. 5417, and associated Critical Area codes are hereby updated to be consistent with the SMP update; and WHEREAS, the proposed code updates are consistent with the Washington Department of Ecology published wetland buffer guidance in July of 2018 as Best Available Science into the City’s wetland buffer regulations; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council held a Joint Public Hearing on November 16, 2020 to collect comments and testimony concerning the Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP) document. The joint review process, per WAC 173-26-104, consolidates the local and State of Washington Department of Ecology’s SMP public comment periods, speeding up the approval process; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 43.21C RCW and WAC 197-11, a Determination of Non-Significance (“DNS”) with a comment period which expired on December 29, 2020, and an appeal period which expired on January 19, 2021. No appeals were filed; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2020, amendments to the critical area regulations were circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite 60-day review and comment period; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission held a Joint Public Hearing on November 16, 2020 to considered staff’s recommendations, received testimony, and formulated a recommendation for SMP update, including the critical area regulations to the City Council for consideration at a duly advertised public hearing. The joint review process, per WAC 173-26- 104, consolidates the local and State of Washington Department of Ecology’s SMP public comment periods, speeding up the approval process; and WHEREAS, Department of Ecology reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendation and provided required and recommended changes to the SMP and critical area regulations for City Council’s consideration; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2021 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 CAO 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 critical area code update on April 21, 2021; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated as if set forth herein in full. SECTION 2. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.14.190, entitled “Tree Removal” is hereby amended to: 20.14.190 TREE REMOVAL. Trees and other vegetation are important elements of the physical environment, especially those located within or near critical areas. This section addresses removing trees within critical areas or their associated buffers. Removal of trees within geological hazardous area shall also comply with BMC 20.14.630(e) and (f). (a) Elimination of Danger Trees. Removal of danger trees within the critical area or associated buffers may be allowed only if such activity is approved by the Department, provided a certified arborist in the State of Washington makes a written determination that the trees proposed for elimination present a legitimate safety hazard. (b) Tree Replacement. Trees removed from the critical area or associated buffers, including danger trees, must comply with the following provisions: (1) Removal of trees greater than six (6) inches in diameter at four (4) feet in height shall be replaced at a ratio of three to one (3:1) with native species and shall be a minimum of six feet in height at the time of planting for both evergreen and deciduous trees. Replacements shall be located reestablished within an onsite any required critical area buffer on the project site. Replacement trees shall be spaced appropriately for the species type or as specified in a critical area report. In the case of a danger tree being removed, the danger tree may be removed and replaced with a 3:1 ratio of a native tree that is known to enhance the critical area in which it is located without a critical area report. The Director or his or her designee may grant some or all replacement locations outside a critical area buffer at a nearby location, where no feasible alternative exists. (2) Shoreline Jurisdiction. Properties located within the City’s shoreline jurisdiction are subject to additional tree removal and replacement standards if the tree(s) to be removed are located within the required shoreline buffer. See Shoreline Master Program Section 7.020 for additional standards. SECTION 3. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.14.200, entitled “Definitions” is hereby amended to: 3 CAO Amendments 20.14.200 DEFINITIONS. Words not defined in this title shall be as defined in the Bremerton Municipal Code, the Washington Administrative Code, or the Revised Code of Washington. Words not found in either code shall be as defined in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, latest edition. "Active fault" means a fault that is considered likely to undergo renewed movement within a period of concern to humans. Faults are commonly considered to be active if the fault has moved one (1) or more times in the last ten thousand (10,000) years, but faults may also be considered active in some cases if movement has occurred in the last five hundred thousand (500,000) years. "Adaptive management" relies on scientific methods to evaluate how well regulatory and nonregulatory actions protect the critical area. An adaptive management program is a formal and deliberate scientific approach to taking action and obtaining information in the face of uncertainty. "Adjacent," for the purposes of this chapter, means immediately adjoining (in contact with the boundary of the influence area) or within a distance that is less than that needed to separate activities from critical areas to ensure protection of the functions and values of the critical areas. "Adjacent" shall mean any activity or development located: A. On a site immediately adjoining a critical area; B. A distance equal to or less than the required critical area buffer width and building setback; C. A distance equal to or less than three hundred (300) feet upland from a stream, wetland, or water body; D. Bordering or within the floodway, floodplain, or channel migration zone; or E. A distance equal to or less than two hundred (200) feet from a critical aquifer recharge area. "Advance mitigation" means mitigation of an anticipated critical area impact or hazard completed according to an approved critical area report and prior to site development. "Agricultural land" means land primarily devoted to the commercial production of horticultural, viticultural, floricultural, dairy, apiary, or animal products or of berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, seed, Christmas trees not subject to the excise tax imposed by RCW 84.33.100 through 84.33.140, or livestock, and/or that has been designated as long-term commercial significance for agricultural production. "Alluvial fan flooding" means flooding occurring on the surface of an alluvial fan or similar landform which originates at the apex and is characterized by high-velocity flows; active processes of erosion, sediment transport, and deposition; and unpredictable flow paths. "Alteration" means any human-induced change in an existing condition of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to, clearing, grubbing, grading, filling, channelizing, dredging, clearing (vegetation), construction, compaction, excavation, or any other activity that changes the character of the critical area. "Anadromous fish" means fish that spawn and rear in freshwater and mature in the marine environment. While Pacific salmon die after their first spawning, adult char (bull trout) can live for many years, moving in and out of saltwater and spawning each year. The life history of Pacific salmon and char contains critical periods of time when these fish are more susceptible to environmental and physical damage than at other times. The life history of salmon, for example, contains the following stages: upstream migration of adults, spawning, inter-gravel 4 CAO Amendments incubation, rearing, smoltification (the time period needed for juveniles to adjust their body functions to live in the marine environment), downstream migration, and ocean rearing to adults. "Applicant" means a person who files an application for permit under this title and who is either the owner of the land on which that proposed activity would be located, a contract purchaser, or the authorized agent of such a person. "Aquifer" means a geological formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that is capable of yielding a significant amount of water to a well or spring. "Aquifer, confined" means an aquifer bounded above and below by beds of distinctly lower permeability than that of the aquifer itself and that contains groundwater under sufficient pressure for the water to rise above the top of the aquifer. "Aquifer recharge areas" means areas that, due to the presence of certain soils, geology, and surface water, act to recharge groundwater by percolation. "Aquifer, sole source" means an area designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Section 1424(e). The aquifer(s) must supply fifty (50) percent or more of the drinking water for an area without a sufficient replacement available. "Aquifer susceptibility" means the ease with which contaminants can move from the land surface to the aquifer based solely on the types of surface and subsurface materials in the area. Susceptibility usually defines the rate at which a contaminant will reach an aquifer unimpeded by chemical interactions with the vadose zone media. "Aquifer, unconfined" means an aquifer not bounded above by a bed of distinctly lower permeability than that of the aquifer itself and containing groundwater under pressure approximately equal to that of the atmosphere. This term is synonymous with the term "water table aquifer." "Area of shallow flooding" means an area designated AO or AH Zone on the flood insurance map(s). The base flood depths range from one (1) to three (3) feet; a clearly defined channel does not exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate; and velocity flow may be evident. AO is characterized as sheet flow and AH indicates ponding. "Associated wetlands" means those wetlands which are in proximity to and either influence or are influenced by tidal waters or a lake or stream subject to the Shoreline Management Act. "Base flood" means a flood event having a one (1) percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, also referred to as the one hundred (100) year flood. Designations of base flood areas on flood insurance map(s) always include the letters A or V. "Basement" means any area of the building having its floor below ground level on all sides. "Best available science" means current scientific information used in the process to designate, protect, or restore critical areas, which is derived from a valid scientific process as defined by WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925. Sources of the best available science are included in "Citations of Recommended Sources of Best Available Science for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas" published by the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. "Best management practices (BMPs)" means conservation practices or systems of practices and management measures that: A. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by high concentrations of nutrients, animal waste, toxics, and sediment; 5 CAO Amendments B. Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater flow and circulation patterns and to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of wetlands; C. Protect trees and vegetation designated to be retained during and following site construction and use native plant species appropriate to the site for revegetation of disturbed areas; and D. Provide standards for proper use of chemical herbicides within critical areas. The City shall monitor the application of best management practices to ensure that the standards and policies of this title are adhered to. "Biodiversity" means the variety of animal and plant life and its ecological processes and interconnections represented by the richness of ecological systems and the life that depends on them, including human life and economies. "Breakaway wall" means a wall that is not part of the structural support of the building and is intended through its design and construction to collapse under specific lateral loading forces without causing damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system. "Buffer" or "buffer zone" means an area that is contiguous to and protects a critical area which is required for the continued maintenance, functioning, and/or structural stability of a critical area. "Channel migration zone (CMZ)" means the lateral extent of likely movement along a stream or river during the next one hundred (100) years as determined by evidence of active stream channel movement over the past one hundred (100) years. Evidence of active movement over the one hundred (100) year time frame can be inferred from aerial photos or from specific channel and valley bottom characteristics. The time span typically represents the time it takes to grow mature trees that can provide functional large woody debris to streams. A CMZ is not typically present if the valley width is generally less than two (2) bankfull widths, if the stream or river is confined by terraces, no current or historical aerial photographic evidence exists of significant channel movement, and there is no field evidence of secondary channels with recent scour from stream flow or progressive bank erosion at meander bends. Areas separated from the active channel by legally existing artificial channel constraints that limit bank erosion and channel avulsion without hydraulic connections shall not be considered within the CMZ. "Clearing" means the removal of noninvasive surface vegetation including, but not limited to, brush, shrubs, natural grasses, and trees. Removal of surface vegetation in quantities greater than the minimum necessary to maintain a well functioning natural habitat constitutes clearing. For the purposes of this chapter, activities described in BMC 20.14.630(f), Vegetation Thinning, constitute clearing. "Coastal high hazard area" means an area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources. The area is designated on the flood insurance map(s) as Zone V1-30, VE, or V. "Compensation project" means actions necessary to replace project-induced critical area and buffer losses, including land acquisition, planning, construction plans, monitoring, and contingency actions. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project-induced losses or impacts to a critical area, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: 6 CAO Amendments A. "Creation" means actions performed to intentionally establish a critical area such as a wetland at a site where it did not formerly exist. B. "Enhancement" means actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded critical areas such as a wetland so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. C. "Preservation" means actions taken to ensure the permanent protection of existing, high-quality critical areas such as wetlands. D. "Restoration" means actions performed to reestablish critical areas functional characteristics and processes that have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area that no longer meets the definition of a wetland. "Conservation easement" means a legal agreement that the property owner enters into to restrict uses of the land. Such restrictions can include, but are not limited to, passive recreation uses such as trails or scientific uses and fences or other barriers to protect habitat. The easement is recorded on a property deed, runs with the land, and is legally binding on all present and future owners of the property, therefore providing permanent or long-term protection. "Critical aquifer recharge area" means areas determined to have a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water as classified per BMC 20.14.420. "Critical areas" include any of the following areas or ecosystems: aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and wetlands, as defined in Chapter 36.70A RCW and this title. "Critical area tract" means land held in private ownership and retained in an open condition in perpetuity for the protection of critical areas. Lands within this type of dedication may include, but are not limited to, portions and combinations of forest habitats, grasslands, shrub steppes, on-site watersheds, one hundred (100) year floodplains, shorelines or shorelines of statewide significance, riparian areas, and wetlands. "Critical facility" means a facility for which even a slight chance of flooding, inundation, or impact from a hazard event might be too great. Critical facilities include, but are not limited to, schools, nursing homes, hospitals, police, fire and emergency response installations, and installations that produce, use, or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste. "Critical species" means all animal and plant species listed by the state or federal government as threatened or endangered. "Cumulative impacts or effects" means the combined, incremental effects of human activity on ecological or critical areas functions and values. Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or interact with other effects in a particular place and within a particular time. It is the combination of these effects, and any resulting environmental degradation, that should be the focus of cumulative impact analysis and changes to policies and permitting decisions. "Danger tree" means a tree that is dead, or is so affected by a significant structural defect or disease that falling or failure appears imminent, or a tree that impedes safe vision or traffic flow, or that otherwise currently poses a threat to life or property. Department. Unless otherwise noted, "Department" is defined as the City of Bremerton Department of Community Development. "Developable area" means a site or portion of a site that may be utilized as the location of development, in accordance with the rules of this title. "Development" means any activity upon the land consisting of construction or alteration of structures, earth movement, dredging, dumping, grading, filling, mining, removal of any sand, 7 CAO Amendments gravel, or minerals, driving of piles, drilling operations, bulkheading, clearing of vegetation, or other land disturbance. Development includes the storage or use of equipment or materials inconsistent with the existing use. Development also includes approvals issued by the City that bind land to specific patterns of use including, but not limited to, subdivisions, short subdivisions, zone changes, conditional use permits, and binding site plans. Development activity does not include the following activities: A. Interior building improvements. B. Exterior structure maintenance activities, including painting and roofing. C. Routine landscape maintenance of established, ornamental landscaping, such as lawn mowing, pruning, and weeding. D. Maintenance of the following existing facilities that does not expand the affected area: septic tanks (routine cleaning); wells; individual utility service connections; and individual cemetery plots in established and approved cemeteries. "Development permit" means any permit issued by the City, or other authorized agency, for construction, land use, or the alteration of land. "Director" means the Director of the Bremerton Department of Community Development or other responsible official, or other City staff granted the authority to act on behalf of the Director. "Elevated building" means a building that has no basement and its lowest elevated floor is raised aboveground level by foundation walls, shear walls, posts, piers, pilings, or columns. "Emergent wetland" means a wetland with at least thirty (30) percent of the surface area covered by erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation extending above the water surface as the uppermost vegetative strata. "Erosion" means the process whereby wind, rain, water, and other natural agents mobilize and transport particles. "Exotic" means any species of plants or animals which are foreign to the planning area. "Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas" means areas necessary for maintaining species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that the habitat available is sufficient to support viable populations over the long term, and isolated subpopulations are not created as designated by WAC 365-190-130. These areas include: A. Areas with which state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; B. Priority habitat species and species of local importance including, but not limited to, areas designated as priority habitat by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; C. Streams and watercourses used by juvenile salmonids, and habitat of species essential to the juvenile salmonid diet; D. Commercial and recreational shellfish areas; E. Kelp, eelgrass beds, herring, smelt, sandlance and other forage fish spawning habitat; F. Naturally occurring ponds under twenty (20) acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat, including those artificial ponds intentionally created from dry areas in order to mitigate impacts to ponds; G. Waters of the state, including lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the State of Washington; 8 CAO Amendments H. Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity; I. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas; and J. Land essential for preserving connections between habitat blocks and open spaces. "Fish habitat" means habitat that is used by fish at any life stage at any time of the year, including potential habitat likely to be used by fish that could be recovered by restoration or management and includes off-channel habitat. "Flood" or "flooding" means a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from the overflow of inland waters and/or the unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source. "Flood insurance map" means the official map on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated the areas of special flood hazards and includes the risk premium zones applicable to the community. Also known as "flood insurance rate map" or "FIRM." "Flood insurance study" means the official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration that includes flood profiles, the Flood Boundary-Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood. "Floodplain" means the total land area adjoining a river, stream, watercourse, or lake subject to inundation by the base flood. "Flood protection elevation" means the elevation that is one (1) foot above the base flood elevation. "Flood-resistant material" means materials designed to be resistant to the impacts associated with flooding and defined and described in detail in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Technical Bulletin No. 2-93, 1993, and FEMA publication FEMA-348, Protecting Building Utilities from Flood Damage. "Floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land area that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the surface water elevation more than one (1) foot. Also known as the "zero rise floodway." "Forested wetland" means a wetland with at least thirty (30) percent of the surface area covered by woody vegetation greater than twenty (20) feet in height that is at least partially rooted within the wetland. "Formation" means an assemblage of earth materials grouped together into a unit that is convenient for description or mapping. "Formation, confining" means the relatively impermeable formation immediately overlying a confined aquifer. "Frequently flooded areas" means lands in the floodplain subject to a one (1) percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year and those lands that provide important flood storage, conveyance, and attenuation functions, as determined by the Director in accordance with WAC 365-190-080(3). Frequently flooded areas perform important hydrologic functions and may present a risk to persons and property. Classifications of frequently flooded areas include, at a minimum, the one hundred (100) year floodplain designations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Flood Insurance Program. "Functions and values" means the beneficial roles served by critical areas including, but not limited to, water quality protection and enhancement; fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; flood storage, conveyance and attenuation; groundwater recharge and discharge; erosion control; wave attenuation; protection from hazards; historical, archaeological, and aesthetic value 9 CAO Amendments protection; educational opportunities; and recreation. These beneficial roles are not listed in order of priority. Critical area functions can be used to help set targets (species composition, structure, etc.) for managed areas, including mitigation sites. "Geologically hazardous areas" means areas that may not be suited to development consistent with public health, safety, or environmental standards, because of their steep slopes, susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquakes, or other geological events. For the purposes of this code, "geologically hazardous areas" are those areas receiving high or moderate geologically hazardous classifications per BMC 20.14.600 through 20.14.660. "Groundwater" means water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the surface of land or a surface water body. "Groundwater management area" means a specific geographic area or subarea designated pursuant to Chapter 173-100 WAC for which a groundwater management program is required. "Groundwater management program" means a comprehensive program designed to protect groundwater quality, to ensure groundwater quantity, and to provide for efficient management of water resources while recognizing existing groundwater rights and meeting future needs consistent with local and state objectives, policies, and authorities within a designated groundwater management area or subarea and developed pursuant to Chapter 173- 100 WAC. "Groundwater, perched" means groundwater in a saturated zone, separated from the underlying main body of groundwater by an unsaturated rock zone. "Grading" means excavating, filling or embanking of earth materials in quantities equal to or greater than fifty (50) cubic yards, as specified per the Bremerton Municipal Code grading permit requirement. "Grubbing" means the removal of vegetative matter from underground, such as sod, stumps, roots, buried logs or other debris, and shall include the incidental removal of topsoil and earth in quantities lesser than fifty (50) cubic yards. "Habitat conservation areas" means areas designated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. "Habitat management plan (HMP)" means a report prepared by a professional wildlife biologist or fisheries biologist which discusses and evaluates critical fish and wildlife habitat functions and evaluates the measures necessary to maintain, enhance and improve habitat conservation on a proposed development site. "Habitats of Local Importance." These areas include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long-term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alterations such as cliffs, taluses, and wetlands. (WAC 365-190-030). "Hazard areas" means areas designated as frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas due to potential for erosion, landslide, seismic activity, mine collapse, or other geological condition. "Hazardous substances" means any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits any of the physical, chemical, or biological properties described in WAC 173-303-090 or 173-303-100. "High-intensity land use" means land uses which are associated with high levels of human disturbance or substantial habitat impacts including, but not limited to, medium- and 10 CAO Amendments high-density residential (more than one (1) home per five (5) acres), multifamily residential, some agricultural practices, and commercial and industrial land uses. "High quality wetlands" means those wetlands that meet the following criteria: A. No, or isolated, human alteration of the wetland topography; B. No human-caused alteration of the hydrology or the wetland appears to have recovered from the alteration; C. Low cover and frequency of exotic plant species; D. Relatively little human-related disturbance of the native vegetation, or recovery from past disturbance; E. If the wetland system is degraded, it still contains a viable and high quality example of a native wetland community; and F. No known major water quality problems. "Historic condition" means a condition of the land, including flora, fauna, soil, topography, and hydrology that existed before the area and vicinity were developed or altered by human activity. "Hydraulic project approval (HPA)" means a permit issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for modifications to waters of the state in accordance with Chapter 75.20 RCW. "Hydric soil" means a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. The presence of hydric soil shall be determined following the methods described in the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. "Hydrologic soil groups" means soils grouped according to their runoff-producing characteristics under similar storm and cover conditions. Properties that influence runoff potential are depth to seasonally high water table, intake rate and permeability after prolonged wetting, and depth to a low permeable layer. Hydrologic soil groups are normally used in equations that estimate runoff from rainfall, but can be used to estimate a rate of water transmission in soil. There are four (4) hydrologic soil groups: A. Low runoff potential and a high rate of infiltration potential; B. Moderate infiltration potential and a moderate rate of runoff potential; C. Slow infiltration potential and a moderate-to-high rate of runoff potential; and D. High runoff potential and very slow infiltration and water transmission rates. "Hydrophytic vegetation" means macrophytic plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. The presence of hydrophytic vegetation shall be determined following the methods described in the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. "Hyporheic zone" means the saturated zone located beneath and adjacent to streams that contains some portion of surface waters, serves as a filter for nutrients, and maintains water quality. "Impervious surface" means any material which reduces or prevents absorption of stormwater into previously undeveloped land. Permeable paving technologies shall not be classified as impervious surfaces. (See also "Paved surface" in BMC 20.42.040 for a discussion of impervious pavements.) 11 CAO Amendments "In-kind compensation" means to replace critical areas with substitute areas whose characteristics and functions closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity. It does not mean replacement "in category." "Infiltration" means the downward entry of water into the immediate surface of soil. "Injection well(s)" means: A. Class I. A well used to inject industrial, commercial, or municipal waste fluids beneath the lowermost formation containing, within one-quarter (1/4) mile of the well bore, an underground source of drinking water. B. Class II. A well used to inject fluids: 1. Brought to the surface in connection with conventional oil or natural gas exploration or production and may be commingled with wastewaters from gas plants that are an integral part of production operations, unless those waters are classified as dangerous wastes at the time of injection; 2. For enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas; or 3. For storage of hydrocarbons that are liquid at standard temperature and pressure. C. Class III. A well used for extraction of minerals, including but not limited to the injection of fluids for: 1. In-situ production of uranium or other metals that have not been conventionally mined; 2. Mining of sulfur by Frasch process; or 3. Solution mining of salts or potash. D. Class IV. A well used to inject dangerous or radioactive waste fluids. E. Class V. All injection wells not included in Classes I, II, III, or IV. "Invasive" means a vegetative or animal species not native to a region, and marked by a tendency to spread, especially with proclivity to replace healthy native species. "Isolated wetlands" means those wetlands that are outside of and not contiguous to any one hundred (100) year floodplain of a lake, river, or stream and have no contiguous hydric soil or hydrophytic vegetation between the wetland and any surface water. "Joint aquatic resource permits application" means a single application form that may be used to apply for hydraulic project approvals, shoreline management permits, approvals of exceedance of water quality standards, water quality certifications, Coast Guard bridge permits, Washington State Department of Natural Resources use authorization, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits. Land Use, High-Intensity. See "High-intensity land use." Land Use, Low-Intensity. See "Low-intensity land use." Land Use, Moderate-Intensity. See "Moderate-intensity land use." "Low-impact development (LID)" is a stormwater management and development strategy applied at the parcel and subdivision scale that emphasizes conservation and use of on-site natural features integrated with engineered, small-scale hydrologic controls to more closely mimic predevelopment hydrologic functions. "Low-intensity land use" means land uses which are associated with low levels of human disturbance or low habitat impacts, including, but not limited to, passive recreation, open space, or forest management land uses. "Lowest floor" means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area, including the basement. An unfinished or flood-resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, 12 CAO Amendments building access, or storage in an area other than a basement area, which is not considered a building’s lowest floor; provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable requirements of this title. "Mine hazard areas" means areas that are underlain by, adjacent to, or affected by mine workings such as adits, gangways, tunnels, drifts, or airshafts, and those areas of probable sink holes, gas releases, or subsidence due to mine workings. Factors that should be considered include: proximity to development, depth from ground surface to the mine working, and geologic material. "Mitigation" means avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse critical areas impacts. "Mitigation," in the following sequential order of preference, is: A. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; B. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts; C. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; D. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods, provided the engineered method creates the minimum disturbance necessary to mitigate the action, and the method does not adversely impact categories of critical areas other than those being mitigated; E. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; F. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and G. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures. "Mobile home" means a structure, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term "mobile home" does not include a "recreational vehicle." "Mobile home park or subdivision" means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two (2) or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. "Moderate-intensity land use" means land uses which are associated with moderate levels of human disturbance or substantial habitat impacts including, but not limited to, low density residential (no more than one (1) home per five (5) acres), active recreation, and moderate agricultural land uses. "Monitoring" means evaluating the impacts of development proposals on the biological, hydrological, and geological elements of such systems, and assessing the performance of required mitigation measures throughout the collection and analysis of data by various methods for the purpose of understanding and documenting changes in natural ecosystems and features, including gathering baseline data. 13 CAO Amendments "Native growth protection area (NGPA)" means an area where native vegetation is preserved for the purpose of preventing harm to property and the environment, including, but not limited to, controlling surface water runoff and erosion, maintaining slope stability, buffering, and protecting plants and animal habitat. "Native vegetation" means plant species that are indigenous to the area in question. "Natural waters" means waters, excluding water conveyance systems that are artificially constructed and actively maintained for irrigation. Nonconformity. See BMC 20.54.040, Definitions, of the nonconforming provisions of this title. "Off-site compensation" means to replace critical areas away from the site on which a critical area has been impacted. "On-site compensation" means to replace critical areas at or adjacent to the site on which a critical area has been impacted. "Ordinary high water mark (OHM)" means the mark on all lakes, streams, and tidal waters which will be found by examining the beds and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation, as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a local government or the Department; provided, that in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water. "Out-of-kind compensation" means to replace critical areas with substitute critical areas whose characteristics do not closely approximate those destroyed or degraded. It does not refer to replacement "out-of-category." "Permeability" means the capacity of an aquifer or confining bed to transmit water. It is a property of the aquifer or confining bed and is independent of the force causing movement. "Porous soil types" means soils, as identified by the National Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, that contain voids, pores, interstices, or other openings which allow the passing of water. "Potable water" means water that is safe and palatable for human use. "Practical alternative" means an alternative that is available and capable of being carried out after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes, and has less impacts to critical areas. "Primary association area" means the area used on a regular basis by, is in close association with, or is necessary for the proper functioning of the habitat of a critical species. "Regular basis" means that the habitat area is normally, or usually, known to contain a critical species, or based on known habitat requirements of the species, the area is likely to contain the critical species. "Regular basis" is species and population dependent. Species that exist in low numbers may be present infrequently yet rely on certain habitat t ypes. "Priority habitat" means habitat type or elements with unique or significant value to one (1) or more species as classified by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type or dominant plant species, a described successional stage, or a specific structural element. "Project area" means all areas within fifty (50) feet of the area proposed to be disturbed, altered, or used by the proposed activity or the construction of any proposed structures. When the 14 CAO Amendments action binds the land, such as a subdivision, short subdivision, binding site plan, planned unit development, or rezone, the project area shall include the entire parcel, at a minimum. "Qualified professional" means a person with experience and training in the pertinent scientific discipline, and who is a qualified scientific expert with expertise appropriate for the relevant critical area subject in accordance with WAC 365-195-905(4). A qualified professional must have obtained a B.S. or B.A. or equivalent degree in biology, engineering, environmental studies, fisheries, geomorphology, or related field, and five (5) years of related work experience. A. A qualified professional for habitats or wetlands must have a degree in biology and professional experience related to the subject species, and meet the requirements set forth in BMC 20.14.360. B. A qualified professional for a geological hazard must be a professional civil or geotechnical engineer with experience in the field, or geologist, licensed in the State of Washington. C. A qualified professional for critical aquifer recharge areas means a hydrogeologist, geologist, engineer, or other scientist with experience in preparing hydrogeologic assessments, and meets the requirements set forth in BMC 20.14.450. "Recharge" means the process involved in the absorption and addition of water to groundwater. "Reclaimed water" means municipal wastewater effluent that has been adequately and reliably treated so that it is suitable for beneficial use. Following treatment, it is no longer considered wastewater (treatment levels and water quality requirements are given in the water reclamation and reuse standards adopted by the State Departments of Ecology and Health). Recreation Vehicle. See definition in Chapter 20.42 BMC. "Repair" or "maintenance" means an activity that restores the character, scope, size, and design of a serviceable area, structure, or land use to its previously authorized and undamaged condition. Activities that change the character, size, or scope of a project beyond the original design and drain, dredge, fill, flood, or otherwise alter critical areas are not included in this definition. "Restoration" means measures taken to restore an altered or damaged natural feature including: A. Active steps taken to restore damaged wetlands, streams, protected habitat, or their buffers to the functioning condition that existed prior to an unauthorized alteration; and B. Actions performed to reestablish structural and functional characteristics of the critical area that have been lost by alteration, past management activities, or catastrophic events. "Riparian habitat" means areas adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contain elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that mutually influence each other. The width of these areas extends to that portion of the terrestrial landscape that directly influences the aquatic ecosystem by providing shade, fine or large woody material, nutrients, organic and inorganic debris, terrestrial insects, or habitat for riparian-associated wildlife. Widths shall be measured from the ordinary high water mark or from the top of bank if the ordinary high water mark cannot be identified or from the channel migration zone (CMZ). It includes the entire extent of the floodplain and the extent of vegetation adapted to wet conditions as well as adjacent upland plant communities that directly influence the stream system. Riparian habitat areas include those riparian areas severely altered or damaged due to human development activities. 15 CAO Amendments "Scientific process" means a valid scientific process is one (1) that produces reliable information useful in understanding the consequences of a decision. The characteristics of a valid scientific process are as follows: A. Peer Review. The information has been critically reviewed by other qualified scientific experts in that scientific discipline. B. Methods. The methods that were used are standardized in the pertinent scientific discipline or the methods have been appropriately peer-reviewed to ensure their reliability and validity. C. Logical Conclusions and Reasonable Inferences. The conclusions presented are based on reasonable assumptions supported by other studies and are logically and reasonably derived from the assumptions and supported by the data presented. D. Quantitative Analysis. The data have been analyzed using appropriate statistical or quantitative methods. E. Context. The assumptions, analytical techniques, data, and conclusions are appropriately framed with respect to the prevailing body of pertinent scientific knowledge. F. References. The assumptions, techniques, and conclusions are well referenced with citations to pertinent existing information. "Scrub-shrub wetland" means a wetland with at least thirty (30) percent of its surface area covered by woody vegetation less than twenty (20) feet in height at the uppermost strata. "Section 404 permit" means a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the placement of dredge or fill material or clearing in waters of the United States, including wetlands, in accordance with 33 USC Section 1344. Section 404 permits may also be for endangered species consultation. They require a consultation under Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act. "Seeps" means a spot where water oozes from the earth, often forming the source of a small stream. "Seismic hazard areas" means areas that are subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake-induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, or soil liquefaction. "Shorelines" means all of the water areas of the state as defined in RCW 90.58.030, including reservoirs and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them except: A. Shorelines of statewide significance; B. Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty (20) cubic feet per second (20 cfps) or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and C. Shorelines on lakes less than twenty (20) acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes. "Shorelines of the state" means the total of all "shorelines," as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(d), and "shorelines of statewide significance" within the state, as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(c). "Shorelines of statewide significance" means those areas defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(e). "Shorelands or shoreland areas" means those lands extending landward for two hundred (200) feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred (200) feet from such 16 CAO Amendments floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of Chapter 90.58 RCW. "Soil survey" means the most recent soil survey for the local area or county by the National Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Special flood hazard areas" means the land in the floodplain within an area subject to a one (1) percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Designations of special flood hazard areas on flood insurance map(s) always include the letters A or V. "Special protection areas" means aquifer recharge areas defined by WAC 173-200-090 that require special consideration or increased protection because of unique characteristics, including, but not limited to: A. Groundwaters that support an ecological system requiring more stringent criteria than drinking water standards; B. Groundwater recharge areas and wellhead protection areas that are vulnerable to pollution because of hydrogeologic characteristics; and C. Sole source aquifer status. "Species" means any group of animals classified as a species or subspecies as commonly accepted by the scientific community. "Species, endangered" means any fish or wildlife species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and is listed by the state or federal government as an endangered species. "Species of local importance" means those species of local concern due to their population status or their sensitivity to habitat manipulation, or that are game species. "Species, priority" means any fish or wildlife species requiring protective measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their persistence as genetically viable population levels as classified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, including endangered, threatened, sensitive, candidate and monitor species, and those of recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. "Species, threatened" means any fish or wildlife species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range without cooperative management or removal of threats, and is listed by the state or federal government as a threatened species. "Subdrainage basin" or "subbasin" means the drainage area of the highest order stream containing the subject property impact area. "Stream order" is the term used to define the position of a stream in the hierarchy of tributaries in the watershed. The smallest streams are the highest order (first order) tributaries. These are the upper watershed streams and have no tributaries of their own. When two (2) first order streams meet, they form a second order stream, and when two (2) second order streams meet they become a third order stream, and so on. "Substantial damage" means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed fifty (50) percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. "Substantial improvement" means any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty (50) percent of the market value of the structure either before the improvement or repair is started, or if the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. "Unavoidable" means adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization have been achieved. 17 CAO Amendments "Vulnerability" means the combined effect of susceptibility to contamination and the presence of potential contaminants. "Water-dependent" means a use or portion of a use that cannot exist in a location that is not adjacent to the water, but is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. A use that can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to water. Examples of water- dependent uses include: ship cargo terminal loading areas; fishing; ferry and passenger terminals; barge loading, ship building, and dry docking facilities; marinas, moorage, and boat launching facilities; aquaculture; float plane operations; surface water intake; and sanitary sewer and storm drain outfalls. "Water resource inventory area (WRIA)" means one (1) of sixty-two (62) watersheds in the State of Washington, each composed of the drainage areas of a stream or streams, as established in Chapter 173-500 WAC as it existed on January 1, 1997. "Water table" means that surface in an unconfined aquifer at which the pressure is atmospheric. It is defined by the levels at which water stands in wells that penetrate the aquifer just far enough to hold standing water. "Water typing system" means waters are classified according to WAC 222-16-031. Waters are classified into four (4) types, S, F, Np, and Ns, based on whether the waters are shorelines of the state, their level of human and wildlife use, whether they are perennial streams, and other characteristics. Complete criteria for the water typing system are found in BMC 20.14.720. "Watercourse" means any portion of a channel, bed, bank, or bottom waterward of the ordinary high water line of waters of the state including areas in which fish may spawn, reside, or through which they may pass, and tributary waters with defined beds or banks, which influence the quality of fish habitat downstream. This definition includes watercourses that flow on an intermittent basis or which fluctuate in level during the year and applies to the entire bed of such watercourse whether or not the water is at peak level. This definition does not include irrigation ditches, canals, stormwater runoff devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses, except where they exist in a natural watercourse that has been altered by humans. "Well" means a bored, drilled, or driven shaft, or a dug hole whose depth is greater than the largest surface dimension for the purpose of withdrawing or injecting water or other liquids. "Wellhead protection area (WHPA)" means the portion of a zone of contribution for a well, wellfield, or spring, as defined using criteria established by the Washington State Department of Ecology. "Wetland classes," "classes of wetlands," or "wetland types" means the descriptive classes of the wetlands taxonomic classification system of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin, et al., 1979). "Wetland edge" means the boundary of a wetland as delineated based on the definitions contained in this title. "Wetlands" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or 18 CAO Amendments highway. Wetlands include artificial wetlands created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries pursuant to this chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. All areas within the City meeting the wetland designation criteria in that procedure are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this program. Wetland delineations are valid for five (5) years; after such date, the City shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary. "Wetlands mitigation bank" means a site where wetlands are restored, created, enhanced, or in exceptional circumstances, preserved expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of authorized impacts to similar resources. "Zone of contribution" means the area surrounding a well or spring that encompasses all areas or features that supply groundwater recharge to the well or spring. SECTION 4. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.14.320, entitled “Classification and Designation” is hereby amended to: 20.14.320 CLASSIFICATION AND DESIGNATION (a) Wetland Ratings. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington State Department of Ecology wetland rating system found in the "Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington" (Department of Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029) or as amended and approved by Ecologyhereafter. Wetland delineations are valid for five (5) years; after such date the city shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary. These documents contain the definitions and methods for determining if the criteria below are met. SECTION 5. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.14.330, entitled “Development Standards - Wetlands” is hereby amended to: 20.14.330 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - WETLANDS. (a) Activities may only be permitted in a wetland or wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical areas. (b) Activities and uses shall be prohibited in wetlands and wetland buffers, except as provided for in this title. The following activities are regulated if they occur in a regulated wetland or its buffer: (1) The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter, or material of any kind. (2) The dumping of, discharging of, or filling with any material. (3) The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level or water table. (4) Pile driving. (5) The placing of obstructions. (6) The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure. (7) The destruction or alteration of wetland vegetation through clearing, harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that would alter the character of a regulated wetland. 19 CAO Amendments (8) Class IV general forest practices under the authority of the "1992 Washington State Forest Practices Act Rules and Regulations," WAC 222-12-030, or as thereafter amended. (9) Activities that result in: (i) A significant change of water temperature. (ii) A significant change of physical or chemical characteristics of the sources of water to the wetland. (iii) A significant change in the quantity, timing, or duration of the water entering the wetland. (iv) The introduction of pollutants. (c) Activities Allowed in Wetlands. The activities listed below are allowed in wetlands. These activities do not require submission of a critical area report, except where such activities result in a loss of the functions and values of a wetland or wetland buffer. Any ground disturbing activity or placement of fill within wetlands or in-water may also require state or federal approval and it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that they obtain necessary authorization before beginning work. These activities include: (1) Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and/or other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or functions of the existing wetland. (2) Drilling for utilities/utility corridors under a wetland, with entrance/exit portals located completely outside of the wetland buffer; provided, that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column will be disturbed. (3) Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of nonnative invasive plant species. Removal of invasive plant species shall be restricted to hand removal unless permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies have been obtained for approved biological or chemical treatments. (4) Educational and scientific research activities. (d) Category I Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Category I. (e) Category II and III Wetlands. With respect to activities proposed in Category II and III wetlands, the following standards shall apply: (1) Water-dependent activities may be allowed where there are no feasible alternatives that would have a less adverse impact on the wetland, its buffers and other critical areas. (2) Where nonwater-dependent activities are proposed, it shall be presumed that alternative locations are available, and activities and uses shall be prohibited, unless the applicant demonstrates that: (i) The basic project purpose cannot reasonably be accomplished and successfully avoid, or result in less adverse impact on, a wetland on another site or sites in the general region; and (ii) All alternative designs of the project as proposed that would avoid or result in less of an adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer, such as a reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project, are not feasible. 20 CAO Amendments (iii) Full compensation for the acreage and loss functions will be provided under the terms established under BMC 20.14.340(f) and (g). (f) Category III and IV Wetlands. Isolated Category III and IV wetlands less than one thousand (1,000) square feet that meet all of the following criteria shall be exempt from the buffer provisions in subsection (h) of this section and the normal mitigation sequencing process in BMC 20.14.340(a). Any direct impacts to these wetlands shall be fully mitigated. (1) Is not associated with riparian areas or buffers; (2) Is not part of a wetland mosaic; and (3) Does not contain habitat identified by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife as essential for local populations of priority species, as identified under BMC 20.14.720. (g) Category IV Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary impacts may be permitted in Category IV wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with an approved wetland report and mitigation plan, and only if the proposed activity is the only reasonable alternative that will accomplish the applicant’s objectives. Full compensation for the acreage and loss functions will be provided under the terms established under BMC 20.14.340(f) and (g). (h) 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 outlined in the following table (Table 20.14.330(h)(1). Table 20.14.330(h)(1) Wetland Buffer Table. (Standard wetland buffer widths when minimization measures and wildlife corridors are not provided). Wetland Category and Type Buffer Width (in feet) Based on Habitat Score 3- 5 (Low) 6-7 (Medium) 8-9 (High) I: Estuarine and Coastal wetlands 200 I: All others 100 150 300 II: Estuarine wetlands 150 II: All 100 150 300 III: All 80 150 300 IV: All 50 (2) Reduced Buffer Widths. The standard wetland buffers may be reduced by 25 percent according to the values presented in Table 20.14.330(h)(2) when the impact minimization measures in Table 20.14.330(h)(3) are implemented. For wetlands that score 6 or more points for habitat function, the following conditions must be maintained in order to use the reduced buffers, as follows: In the table the wetland buffers vary according to the wetland type and/or habitat score (on a range of three (3) to nine (9), with nine (9) representing high habitat function). 21 CAO Amendments (i) If an existing, relatively undisturbed vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide exists between the on-site wetland and other Priority Habitats, as defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the off-site portion of the corridor is already protected via an existing conservation easement, critical areas regulations, or other legal requirement, the portion of the corridor on-site must also be protected by a similar legal protection. All other applicable criteria found in subsection (4) must also be met. The evaluation of presence or absence of the conditions described above must be completed as part of the critical areas report. (ii) If no such corridor is present to protect, the reduced buffers alone may be used with the other applicable criteria contained in subsection (4). If an option for protection of a corridor, as defined under (i) above, exists on the parcel, but is not provided, standard buffer widths contained in Table 20.14.330(h)(1) are required. (iii) The buffer widths in the table below (Table 20.14.330(h)(2)) assumes that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer should be widened to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided. Table 20.14.330(h)(2) Wetland Buffer Table. (Reduced wetland buffer widths when minimization measures and corridor are provided) Wetland Category and Type Buffer Width (in feet) Based on Habitat Score 3- 5 (Low) 6-7 (Medium) 8-9 (High) I: Estuarine and Coastal wetlands 150 I: All others 75 110 225 II: Estuarine wetlands 110 II: All 75 110 225 III: All 60 110 225 IV: All 40 (3) Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured horizontally from a perpendicular line established at the wetland edge as surveyed in the field. The width of the wetland buffer shall be determined according to the wetland category. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. Only fully vegetated buffers will be considered. Lawns, walkways, driveways, and other mowed or paved areas will not be considered buffers. (4) Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands. Measures are required to mitigate the impacts and disturbances associated with surrounding land use, where applicable to a specific proposal in order to implement Table 20.14.330(h)(2). If required measures outlined in Table 20.14.330(h)(3) are not implemented, the standard wetland buffers in Table 20.14.330(h)(1) shall be required. . 22 CAO Amendments Table 20.14.330(h)(3) Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Lights (1) Direct lights away from wetland as illustrated in a photometric plan. Noise (2) Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland. (3) If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source. (4) For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional ten (10) feet of heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer. Toxic runoff (5) Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered. (6) Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within one hundred fifty (150) feet of wetland. (7) Apply integrated pest management. Stormwater runoff (8) Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development. (9)Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer. (10)Use low intensity development (for more information refer to the drainage ordinance and manual) best management practices where appropriate. Change in water regime (11) Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns. Pets and human disturbance (12)Use privacy fencing or plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion. (13) Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement. Dust (14)Use best management practices to control dust. Disruption of corridors or connections (15)Maintain connections to off-site areas that are undisturbed. (16)Restore on-site corridors or connections to off-site habitats by replanting. (5) Increased Wetland Buffer Widths. The Director shall require increased buffer widths in accordance with the recommendations of an experienced, qualified professional wetland scientist, and the best available science on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site-specific characteristics. This determination shall be based on one (1) or more of the following criteria: 23 CAO Amendments (i) A larger buffer is needed to protect other critical areas; (ii) The buffer or adjacent uplands has a slope greater than fifteen (15) percent or is susceptible to erosion and standard erosion-control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland; or (iii) The buffer area has minimal vegetative cover. In lieu of increasing the buffer width where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and values, implementation of a buffer planting plan may substitute. Where a buffer planting plan is proposed, it shall include densities that are not less than three (3) feet on center for shrubs and eight (8) feet on center for trees and require monitoring and maintenance to ensure success. Existing buffer vegetation is considered "inadequate" and will need to be enhanced through additional native plantings and (if appropriate) removal of nonnative plants when: (1) nonnative or invasive plant species provide the dominant cover, (2) vegetation is lacking due to disturbance and wetland resources could be adversely affected, or (3) enhancement plantings in the buffer could significantly improve buffer functions. (6) Wetland Buffer Width Averaging. The Director may allow modification of the standard wetland buffer width in accordance with an approved wetland report and the best available science on a case-by-case basis by averaging buffer widths. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where the applicant and a qualified professional wetland scientist demonstrate that: (i) No feasible site design exists without buffer averaging; (ii) It will not reduce wetland functions or functional performance; (iv) The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places; (iv) The total area contained in the buffer area after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the standard buffer; and (v) The buffer width is not reduced to less than seventy-five (75) percent of the standard width or thirty-five (35) feet. (7) Buffer Consistency. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this chapter. (8) Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this title, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. Removal of invasive nonnative weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation bond. (9) Buffer Uses. The following uses may be permitted within a wetland buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this title, provided they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland: (i) Conservation and Restoration Activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife. (ii) Passive Recreation. Low-impact uses and activities which are consistent with the purpose and function of the wetland buffer and do not detract from its integrity may be permitted within the buffer depending on the sensitivity of the wetland. Uses may include: 24 CAO Amendments a. Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways that are generally parallel to the perimeter of the wetland may be located in the outer twenty-five (25) percent of the buffer area and located to avoid removal of significant trees; provided, that: i. They are no wider than six (6) feet, and generally constructed with a surface that does not interfere with substrate permeability. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable; and ii. They shall be limited to pedestrian use; and iii. They shall not be allowed to fully enclose a habitat area or buffer; and iv. They are subject to closure (at the Director’s discretion) during critical spawning, migration or breeding time periods of the species present; b. Wildlife viewing structures; and c. Fishing access areas down to the water’s edge that shall be no larger than six (6) feet. (iii) Stormwater Management Facilities. Stormwater management facilities, limited to stormwater dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the outer twenty-five (25) percent of the buffer of Category III or IV wetlands only; provided, that: a. No other location is feasible; and b. The location of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland. (iv) Low-Impact Development (LID) Facilities. LID facilities may be allowed within the buffer of Category III or IV wetlands only; provided, that: a. No other location is feasible; and b. The location of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland. (i) Signs and Fencing of Wetlands. (1) Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland or buffer and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur and is subject to inspection prior to the commencement of permitted activities. This temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place. (2) Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the Director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer. (i) Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel-coated metal face and attached to a metal post, or another nontreated material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one (1) per lot or every fifty (50) feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the Director: Protected Wetland Area Do Not Disturb Contact City of Bremerton Department of Community Development Regarding Uses and Restriction (3) Fencing. 25 CAO Amendments (i) The Director shall determine if fencing is necessary to protect the functions and values of the critical area. If found to be necessary, any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter shall be conditioned to require the applicant to install a permanent fence at the edge of the wetland buffer when fencing will prevent future impacts to the wetland. (ii) Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this subsection shall be designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner that minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated habitat. SECTION 6. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.14.340, entitled “Mitigation Requirements - Wetlands” is hereby amended to: 20.14.340 MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS - WETLANDS. Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be consistent with the State Department of Ecology publication "Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State," 2006 (Publication Nos. 06-06-011a and 06-06-011b), or as revised. (a) Mitigation shall be required in the following order of preference: (1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts. (3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations. (5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. (b) Mitigation for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation actions shall address functions affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement and shall provide similar wetland functions as those lost, except when: (1) The lost wetland provides minimal functions as determined by a site- specific function assessment, and the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through a formal Washington State watershed assessment plan or protocol; or (2) Out-of-kind replacement will best meet formally identified watershed goals, such as replacement of historically diminished wetland types. (c) Preference of Mitigation Actions. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing, enhancing, or substitution shall occur in the following order of preference: (1) Restoring wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands. (2) Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative cover consisting primarily of nonnative introduced species. This should only be attempted when there is a consistent source of hydrology and it can be shown that the surface and subsurface hydrologic regime is conducive for the wetland community that is being designed. 26 CAO Amendments (3) Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands in combination with restoration or creation. Such enhancement should be part of a mitigation package that includes replacing the impacted area meeting appropriate ratio requirements. (d) Type and Location of Mitigation. Unless it is demonstrated that a higher level of ecological functioning would result from an alternate approach, compensatory mitigation for ecological functions shall be either in kind and on site, or in kind and within the same stream reach, subbasin, or drift cell. Mitigation actions shall be conducted within the same subdrainage basin and on the site as the alteration except when all of the following apply: (1) There are no reasonable on-site or in-subdrainage basin opportunities or on-site and in-subdrainage basin opportunities do not have a high likelihood of success, after a determination of the natural capacity of the site to mitigate for the impacts. Consideration should include: anticipated wetland mitigation replacement ratios, buffer conditions and proposed widths, hydrogeomorphic classes of on-site wetlands when restored, proposed flood storage capacity, potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity); (2) Off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved wetland functions than the impacted wetland; and (3) Off-site locations shall be in the same subdrainage basin unless: (i) Established watershed goals for water quality, flood or conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site; or (ii) Credits from a state-certified wetland mitigation bank or state- approved in-lieu fee (ILF) site are used as mitigation and the use of credits is consistent with the terms of the bank’s certification or ILF approval. (e) Mitigation Timing. Mitigation projects shall be completed with an approved monitoring plan prior to activities that will disturb wetlands. In all other cases, mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora. (1) The Director may authorize a one (1) time temporary delay, up to one hundred twenty (120) days, in completing minor construction and landscaping when environmental conditions could produce a high probability of failure or significant construction difficulties. The delay shall not create or perpetuate hazardous conditions or environmental damage or degradation, and the delay shall not be injurious to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. The request for the temporary delay must include a written justification that documents the environmental constraints that preclude implementation of the mitigation plan. The justification must be verified and approved by the City and include a financial guarantee. (f) Mitigation Ratios. (1) Acreage Replacement Ratios. The following ratios shall apply to creation or restoration that is in kind, is on site, is the same category, is timed prior to or concurrent with alteration, and has a high probability of success. Creation of Category I wetlands, specifically bogs and heritage sites, is not possible, per “Wetland Mitigation in Washington State: Part 1 – Agency Policies and Guidance” (Version 1, Ecology Publication #06-06-011a, March 2006, or as amended). These ratios do not apply to remedial actions resulting from unauthorized alterations; greater ratios shall apply in those cases. These ratios do not apply to the use of credits from a state-certified wetland mitigation bank or approved ILF site. When credits from a 27 CAO Amendments certified bank or approved ILF site are used, replacement ratios should be consistent with the requirements of the bank’s certification or site’s approved instrument. The first number specifies the acreage of replacement wetlands and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands altered. Wetland Category Wetland Mitigation Type and Replacement Ratio Creation Reestablishment Rehabilitation Enhancement Only Category I 6:1* 6:1 12:1 Not allowed Category II 3:1 3:1 6:1 12:1 Category III 2:1 2:1 4:1 8:1 Category IV 1.5:1 1.5:1 3:1 6:1 *Wetland creation is not allowed for Category I bogs and heritage sites (2) Increased Replacement Ratio. The Director may increase the ratios under the following circumstances: (i) Uncertainty exists as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; (ii) A significant period of time will elapse between impact and replication of wetland functions; (iii) Proposed mitigation will result in a lower category wetland or reduced functions relative to the wetland being impacted; or (iv) The impact was an unauthorized impact. (g) Wetlands Enhancement as Mitigation. (1) Impacts to wetland functions may be mitigated by enhancement of existing significantly degraded wetlands, but where feasible should be used in conjunction with restoration and/or creation. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce a wetland report that identifies how enhancement will increase the functions of the degraded wetland and how this increase will adequately mitigate for the loss of wetland area and function at the impact site. An enhancement proposal must also show whether existing wetland functions will be reduced by the enhancement actions. (2) Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced when combined with one to one (1:1) replacement through creation or reestablishment. See Table 1a, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State - Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance - Version 1 (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011a, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as revised). (h) Mitigation of Wetland Buffer Impacts. Compensation for wetland buffer impacts shall occur at a minimum one to one (1:1) ratio. Compensatory mitigation for buffer impacts shall include enhancement of degraded buffers by planting native species and removing structures and impervious surfaces within buffers. (i) Wetland Mitigation Banks. (1) Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved for use as compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when: (i) The bank is certified under Chapter 173-700 WAC; and (ii) The Director determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation for the authorized impacts; and 28 CAO Amendments (iii) The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the bank’s certification. (2) Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be consistent with replacement ratios specified in the bank’s certification. (3) Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the bank’s certification. In some cases, bank service areas may include portions of more than one (1) adjacent drainage basin for specific wetland functions. (j) Wetland Mitigation Monitoring. The mitigation plan shall include a program for monitoring construction of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project. A protocol shall be included outlining the schedule for site monitoring, and how the monitoring data will be evaluated. A monitoring report shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five (5) years. The Director shall have the authority to modify or extend the monitoring period and require additional monitoring reports for up to ten (10) years when any of the following conditions apply: (1) The project does not meet the performance standards identified in the mitigation plan; (2) The project does not provide adequate replacement for the functions and values of the impacted critical area; (3) The project involves establishment of forested plant communities, which require longer time for establishment. SECTION 7. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.14.530, entitled “Development Standards” is hereby amended to: 20.14.530 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (a) All development proposals shall comply with Chapter 17.60 BMC for general and specific flood hazard protection. Development shall not reduce the base flood water storage ability. Construction, grading or other regulated activities that would reduce the flood water storage ability must be mitigated by creating compensatory storage on or off site. (b) Base flood data and flood hazard notes shall be shown on the face of any recorded plat or site plan including, but not limited to, base flood elevations, flood protection elevation, boundary of floodplain, and zero rise floodway. (c) Unless exempted in subsection (d) of this section, when development occurs within the floodplain, a habitat assessment is required, that is prepared in accordance with Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation (FEMA Region X, 2010), or as hereafter amended. The assessment shall determine if the project would adversely affect: (1) The primary constituent elements identified when a species is listed as threatened or endangered; (2) Essential fish habitat designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service; (3) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (4) Vegetation communities and habitat structures; (5) Water quality; 29 CAO Amendments (6) Water quantity, including flood and low flow depths, volumes and velocities; (7) The channel’s natural planform pattern and migration processes; (8) Spawning substrate, if applicable; and/or (9) Floodplain refugia, if applicable. (d) The following activities do not require completion of a floodplain habitat assessment: (1) Repair of existing building in its existing footprint, including damages by fire or other casualties; (2) Removal of noxious weeds; (3) Replacement of nonnative vegetation with native vegetation; (4) Ongoing activities such as lawn and garden maintenance; (5) Removal of danger trees; (6) Normal maintenance of public utilities and facilities; (7) Restoration or enhancement of floodplains, riparian areas and streams that meets federal and state standards. SECTION 8. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.14.730, entitled “Development Standards” is hereby amended to: 20.14.730 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. For the purposes of this title, a designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation area with its buffer is a critical area. Those regulated uses identified below within designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas shall comply with the performance standards outlined in this chapter. A habitat management plan (HMP) is a site investigation to evaluate the potential presence or absence of a regulated fish or wildlife species or habitat affecting a subject property and proposed development. (a) Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species. (1) No development shall be allowed within a habitat conservation area or buffer with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, except that which is provided for by a habitat management plan (HMP). (2) Whenever activities are proposed adjacent to a habitat conservation area with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, such area shall be protected through the application of protection measures in accordance with an HMP prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the City. Approval for alteration of land adjacent to the habitat conservation area or its buffer shall not occur prior to consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for animal species, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for plant species, and other appropriate federal or state agencies. (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: 30 CAO Amendments (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. (c) Wetland Habitats. All proposed activities within or adjacent to habitat conservation areas containing wetlands shall conform to the wetland development performance standards set forth in BMC 20.14.300. If nonwetlands habitat and wetlands are present at the same location, the provisions of this chapter or the wetlands chapter, whichever provides greater protection to the habitat, apply. (d) Buffers and Associated Building Setback Areas. The distance shall be measured from the ordinary high water mark (OHM) or from the top of the bank where the OHM cannot be identified. Buffers shall remain undisturbed natural beach or vegetation areas except where the buffer can be enhanced to improve its functional attributes, as approved by the Department. Buffers shall be maintained along the perimeter of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, as listed below in Table 1 of this section. Refuse shall not be placed in buffers. Alteration of buffer areas and building setbacks may be allowed for water-dependent and water-related activities and for other development authorized by an HMP, reasonable use exceptions, general exemptions, standards for existing (nonconforming) development, and variances in general exemptions, BMC 20.14.145. 20.14.730 Table 1: Water Type Buffer Standards Water Types Attributes Minimum Building Setback Buffer Width Standard S Saltwater and Freshwater See Shoreline Master Program for buffer and minimum building setback F Fish habitat waters 15 feet beyond buffer 150 feet Np Year-round, nonfish habitat 15 feet beyond buffer 50 feet 31 CAO Amendments 20.14.730 Table 1: Water Type Buffer Standards Water Types Attributes Minimum Building Setback Buffer Width Standard Ns Seasonal, nonfish habitat 15 feet beyond buffer 35 feet (1) Buffers. Where existing buffer area vegetation along Type F, Np, and Ns waters 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 when buffers are directly impacted or reduced. Enhancement should be conducted at a minimum 1.5:1 ratio to mitigate direct impacts or buffer reduction. On a case-by-case basis, the Director may consider a smaller enhancement ratio, no less than 1:1, where the applicant provides a greater density of on-center plant spacing than 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. Separate tree spacing requirements for buffer area vegetation triggered by development within shoreline jurisdiction (via a Vegetation Management Plan) can be found under SMP section 7.020(a)(5). 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 vegetation 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 vegetation in the buffer could significantly improve buffer functions. (2) "Minimum building setback" is the required horizontal distance between the finished exterior wall of a structure and the edge of the buffer of the lot on which the structure is located. All portions of a structure must be located away from the buffer a distance equal to or greater than the minimum setback. Uses not requiring a permit defined in the City Building Code as set forth in Chapter 17.04 BMC may be permitted in the setback if the Department determines that such intrusions will not adversely impact the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. (3) Stream Buffer Measurement. Streams shall be classified according to the stream type system as provided in WAC 222-16-031, Interim water typing system. Stream buffer areas are defined by these classifications, as shown in Table 1 of this section. Buffers shall be measured from the ordinary high water mark (OHM) or from the top of the bank where the OHM cannot be identified. The buffer width shall be increased to include streamside wetlands which provide overflow storage for stormwaters, feed water back to the stream during low flows or provide shelter and food for fish. In braided channels, the OHM or top of bank shall be defined so as to include the entire stream feature. (4) Buffer Averaging. For buffering averaging for areas within the areas of shoreline jurisdiction, please refer to Shoreline Master Program Section 7.010(c)(5). For all other areas, buffer widths may be modified by averaging buffer widths as long as the total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than the required buffer prior to averaging, 32 CAO Amendments and as set forth below. A buffer enhancement plan shall be required for any request for buffer averaging. The enhancement plan shall be similar to a mitigation plan, and include provisions for mitigation monitoring and contingency plans. Buffer width averaging shall be allowed only where the applicant demonstrates through a report prepared by a qualified biologist or habitat specialist with five (5) years’ experience that: (i) Buffer averaging is necessary to avoid a hardship caused by circumstances to the property; (ii) The habitat contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics, or the buffer varies in characteristics and it would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places; (iii) Lower intensity land uses would be located adjacent to areas where the buffer width is reduced; (iv) The widest portion of the buffer shall be the area where the habitat is most sensitive; (v) Buffer width averaging will not adversely impact fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (vi) The buffer width may be reduced by thirty-five (35) percent of the standard buffer, but not less than thirty-five (35) feet unless provided for by a habitat management plan. (5) Buffer Reduction. Buffers and associated building setbacks may be reduced where the applicant demonstrates through an approved HMP relying on best available science and prepared by a qualified specialist with five (5) years’ experience that through buffer enhancement the smaller buffer would provide equal or better protection than the larger buffer, but shall not be reduced by more than thirty-five (35) percent. Enhancement techniques can include, but are not limited to: (i) Planting of native trees or shrubs, increasing the diversity of plant cover types, replacing exotic species with native species, or reestablishing fish areas adjacent to a marine shoreline or stream where one (1) currently does not exist will result in improved function of the fish habitat; (ii) Fish barrier removal to restore accessibility to resident or anadromous fish; (iii) Fish habitat enhancement using log structures incorporated as part of a fish habitat enhancement plan; (iv) Stream and/or retention/detention pond improvements: a. Removal or modification of existing stream culverts (such as at road crossings) to improve fish passage and flow capabilities, or b. Upgrade of retention/detention facilities or other drainage facilities beyond required levels to provide a more naturalized habitat; (v) Removal of existing bulkheads to improve fish spawning and habitat areas; (vi) Daylighting a stream that was previously culverted or piped, or daylighting box culverts or trestles. (6) Stormwater Management Facilities. Stormwater management facilities, limited to stormwater dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the outer twenty-five (25) percent of the buffer; provided, that: (i) No other location is feasible; and 33 CAO Amendments (ii) The buffer is over one hundred (100) feet in width; and (iii) The location of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the stream and/or habitat area shown through an approved HMP. (7) Low-Impact Development (LID) Facilities. LID facilities, may be allowed within stream buffers; provided, that: (i) No other location is feasible; and (ii) The buffer is over one hundred (100) feet in width; and (iii) The location of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the stream and/or habitat area shown through an approved HMP. (8) Habitat Conservation Area Buffers. For Type F, Type Np, and Type Ns waters only, habitat conservation area buffers shall be shown on the development site plans or final plat maps along with the notation requirements identified in BMC 20.58.080. (i) If an existing property has a previously delineated and approved fish and wildlife habitat conservation area and associated buffer by the City, the approved conservation area and buffer may remain in effect. Redevelopment, and/or additions outside of the existing footprint shall be subject to the previously approved buffer; however, a buffer enhancement plan may be required in accordance if the habitat buffer area has become degraded or is currently not functioning or if the habitat area and/or buffer may be negatively affected by proposed new development. If, according to the buffer enhancement plan, additional buffer mitigation is not sufficient to protect the habitat, the City may require larger buffers where it is necessary to protect habitat functions based on site-specific characteristics. (e) Class I Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas. All development as described within this chapter or within two hundred (200) feet of designated Class I wildlife conservation areas shall adhere to the following standards: (1) All sites with known locations of Class I fish and wildlife conservation areas or sites within two hundred (200) feet, or the applicable distance identified by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife management recommendations, whichever is greater, to known locations of Class I fish and wildlife conservation areas will require, for all development permits, the submittal and approval of a habitat management plan (HMP) as specified in BMC 20.14.750. The requirement for an HMP shall be determined during the SEPA/critical areas review on the project. (2) All new development within two hundred (200) feet of habitat elements with which Class I fish and wildlife have a critical habitat, or the applicable distance identified by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife management recommendations, whichever is greater, may require the submittal of an HMP as specified in BMC 20.14.750. The requirement for an HMP shall be determined during the SEPA/critical areas review on the project. 20.14.730 Table 2: Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Class I All developments within 200 ft. or applicable distance by WDFW management recommendations of a designated Class I 34 CAO Amendments 20.14.730 Table 2: Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas wildlife habitat conservation area shall have buffer widths determined by a mandatory habitat management plan. Class II All development within a Class II wildlife habitat conservation area shall have the buffer widths be determined by the SEPA/critical area review on the project and may require a habitat management plan. (f) Class II Fish and Wildlife Conservation Area. All new development within Class II fish and wildlife conservation areas may require the submittal of an HMP. An HMP shall consider measures to retain and protect the wildlife habitat and shall consider effects of land use intensity, buffers, setbacks, impervious surfaces, erosion control and retention of native vegetation. The requirement for an HMP shall be determined during the SEPA/critical areas review on the project. (g) Stream Crossings. Any private or public road expansion or new construction which is allowed and must cross streams classified within this chapter shall comply with the following minimum development standards: (1) Bridges or bottomless culverts shall be required for all fish-bearing streams. Other alternatives may be allowed upon submittal of a habitat management plan which demonstrates that other alternatives would not result in significant impacts to the fish and wildlife conservation area, as determined appropriate through the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, hydraulics project approval process. The plan must demonstrate that salmon habitat will be replaced on a 1:1 ratio; (2) Crossings shall not occur in salmonid spawning areas unless no other feasible crossing site exists. For new development proposals, if existing crossings are determined to adversely impact salmon spawning or passage areas, new or upgraded crossings shall be located as determined necessary through coordination with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; (3) Bridge piers or abutments shall not be placed in either the floodway or between the ordinary, high water marks unless no other feasible alternative placement exists; (4) Crossings shall not diminish flood carrying capacity; (5) Crossings shall serve multiple properties whenever possible; and 35 CAO Amendments (6) Where there is no reasonable alternative to providing a conventional culvert, the culvert shall be the minimum length necessary to accommodate the permitted activity (guidance for these projects can be found in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife "Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts" design manual 1999, and the National Marine Fisheries Service "Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings" 2000). (h) Stream Relocations. Stream relocations for the purpose of flood protection and/or fisheries restoration shall only be permitted when adhering to the following minimum performance standards and when consistent with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife hydraulic project approval: (1) The channel, bank and buffer areas should be replanted with native vegetation in undisturbed riparian condition; (2) For those shorelands and waters designated as frequently flooded areas, a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington shall provide information demonstrating that the equivalent base flood storage volume and function will be maintained; and (3) Relocated stream channels shall be designed to meet or exceed the functions and values of the stream to be relocated. (i) Pesticides, Fertilizers and Herbicides. No pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers may be used in fish and wildlife conservation areas or their buffers, except those approved by the EPA and approved under a DOE water quality modification permit for use in fish and wildlife habitat conservation area environments. Where approved, herbicides must be applied by a licensed applicator in accordance with the safe application practices on the label. (j) Land Divisions and Land User Permits. All proposed divisions of land and land uses (subdivisions, short subdivisions, residential cluster developments, conditional use permits, site plan reviews, and binding site plans) which include fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas shall comply with the following procedures and development standards: (1) The open water area of lakes, streams, and tidal lands shall not be permitted for use in calculating minimum lot area; (2) Land division approvals shall be conditioned so that all required buffers are dedicated as open space tracts or an easement or covenant encumbering the buffer. Such dedication, easement or covenant shall be recorded together with the land division and represented on the final plat, short plat or binding site plan; (3) In order to avoid the creation of nonconforming lots, each new lot shall contain at least one (1) building site that meets the requirements of this chapter, including buffer requirements for habitat conservation areas. This site must also have access and a sewage disposal system location that are suitable for development and does not adversely impact the fish and wildlife conservation area; (4) After preliminary approval and prior to final land division approval, the Department may require the common boundary between a required buffer and the adjacent lands be identified using permanent signs. In lieu of signs, alternative methods of buffer identification may be approved when such methods are determined by the Department to provide adequate protection to the aquatic buffer. (k) Trails and Trail-Related Facilities. Construction of public and private trails and trail-related facilities, such as benches, interpretive centers, and viewing platforms, may be allowed in fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas or their buffers pursuant to the following standards: 36 CAO Amendments (1) Trails and related facilities shall, to the extent feasible, be placed on existing road grades, utility corridors, or other such previously disturbed areas; (2) Trails and related facilities shall be planned to minimize removal of trees, shrubs, snags and important wildlife habitat; (3) Viewing platforms, interpretive centers, benches and access to them shall be designed and located to minimize disturbance of wildlife habitat and/or critical characteristics of the affected conservation area; (4) Trails, in general, shall be set back from streams so that there will be no or minimal impact to the stream from trail use or maintenance. Trails shall be constructed with pervious surfaces when feasible; (5) Trails shall be generally limited to pedestrian use unless other more intensive uses, such as bike or horse trails, have been specifically allowed and mitigation has been provided. Trail width shall not exceed five (5) feet unless there is demonstrated need, subject to review and approval by the Department. Trails shall be constructed with pervious materials unless otherwise approved by the Department; (6) Trails shall not be allowed to fully enclose a habitat area or buffer; and (7) The Department may require closure of trails during critical spawning, migration or breeding time periods of the species present. (l) Utilities. Placement of utilities within designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas may be allowed pursuant to the following standards and that the applicant obtains all other required state and federal approvals for any work in-water or in wetlands: (1) Utilities maintenance activities involving no material change in size or function shall be allowed within designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, subject to best management practices; (2) Construction of utilities may be permitted in fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas or their buffers, only when no feasible or reasonable alternative location is available and the utility corridor meets the requirements for installation, replacement of vegetation and maintenance outlined below, and as required in the filing and approval of an HMP which may be required by this chapter; (3) Construction of sewer lines or on-site sewage systems may be permitted in fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas or their buffers when the applicant demonstrates it is necessary to meet state and/or local health code requirements, there are no other feasible alternatives available, and construction meets the requirements of this section. Joint use of the sewer utility corridor by other utilities may be allowed; (4) New utility corridors shall not be allowed in fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas with known locations of federal or state-listed endangered, threatened or sensitive species, heron rookeries or nesting sites of raptors which are listed as state candidate except in those circumstances where an approved HMP indicates that the utility corridor will not significantly impact the conservation area; (5) New utility corridor construction and maintenance shall protect the environment of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and their buffers by the following: (i) New utility facilities, improvements, or upgrades to existing utility facilities should take place within existing improved rights-of-way or existing impervious surfaces so that they do not increase the amount of impervious surfaces within the habitat area; 37 CAO Amendments (ii) New utility corridors shall be aligned when possible to avoid cutting or root damage to trees greater than twelve (12) inches in diameter at breast height (four and one-half (4-1/2) feet) measured on the uphill side; (iii) New utility corridors shall be revegetated with appropriate native or equivalent vegetation at not less than preconstruction vegetation densities or greater, immediately upon completion of construction or as soon thereafter as possible due to seasonal growing constraints. The utility shall ensure that such vegetation survives; (iv) Any additional corridor access for maintenance shall be provided wherever possible at specific points rather than by parallel roads. If parallel roads are necessary, they shall be of a minimum width but no greater than fifteen (15) feet and shall be contiguous to the location of the utility corridor on the side away from the conservation area; (6) Utility corridor maintenance shall include the following measures to protect the environment of regulated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: (i) Utility towers should be painted with brush, pad or roller and should not be sandblasted or spray-painted, nor should lead-based paints be used; (ii) Pesticides, Fertilizers and Herbicides. No pesticides or fertilizers may be used in fish and wildlife conservation areas or their buffers, except those herbicides approved by a licensed applicator in accordance with the safe application practices on the label. (m) Bank Stabilization. A stream channel and bank may be stabilized when naturally occurring earth movement threatens existing structures (defined as requiring a building permit pursuant to the applicable building code), public improvements, unique natural resources, public health, safet y or welfare, or the only feasible access to property, and, in the case of streams and marine shorelines, when such stabilization results in maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat, flood control and improved water quality. Where bank stabilization is determined to be necessary, bioengineering or other nonstructural methods should be the first option for protection. Bulkheads and retaining walls may only be utilized as an engineering solution where it can be demonstrated that an existing residential structure cannot be safely maintained or set back without such measures, and that the resulting retaining wall is the minimum length necessary to provide a stable building area for the structure. A variance pursuant to BMC 20.58.030 must be obtained in all other cases. The Department may require that bank stabilization be designed by a professional engineer and geologist licensed in the State of Washington with demonstrated expertise in hydraulic actions of shorelines. Bank stabilization projects may also require a City grading permit and hydraulic project approval from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Nonstructural marine shoreline and stream bank protective techniques are preferred to bulkheads or other types of marine shoreline and stream bank armoring. Nonstructural techniques include but are not limited to vegetation plantings and bioengineering. Guidance for these projects can be found in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s "Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines Manual" for determining when, why, where, and what projects need to be completed to protect an eroding bank. (n) Fencing and Signs. Prior to approval or issuance of permits for land divisions and new development, the Department may require the common boundary between a required buffer and the adjacent lands be identified using fencing or permanent signs. In lieu of fencing or signs, alternative methods of buffer identification may be approved when such methods are determined by the Department to provide adequate protection to the buffer. 38 CAO Amendments (o) Road/Street Repair and Construction. Any private or public road or street expansion or construction which is allowed in a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or its buffer shall comply with the following minimum development standards: (1) No other reasonable or feasible alternative exists and the road or street crossing serves multiple properties whenever possible; (2) Expansion or construction of any private or public road shall only be allowed when adverse impacts cannot be avoided; (3) Public and private roads should provide for other purposes, such as utility crossings, pedestrian or bicycle easements, viewing points, etc.; (4) The road or street construction is the minimum necessary, as required by the Department of Public Works, and shall comply with the Department of Public Works and Utilities’ standards; and (5) Construction time limits shall be determined in consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in order to ensure habitat protection. (p) Other Allowed Uses in Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas. Other activities may be allowed using the standard for a Category II wetland buffer as identified by BMC 20.14.330(e). SECTION 9. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.14.740, entitled “Special Reports” is hereby amended to: 20.14.740 SPECIAL REPORTS. Habitat Management Plan Requirements. (a) General. If the City determines that impacts to habitats may occur as a result of a development project, a habitat management plan (HMP) shall be required. The applicant may choose to complete an HMP for a site-specific analysis to better determine the impact to habitat and to determine the appropriate buffer width and associated building setbacks for their project based on the site-specific analysis. The preparation and submission of this report is the responsibility of the applicant. The report shall rely on best available science as defined in WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a biologist with five (5) years of experience preparing reports for the relevant type of habitat. The City may retain a qualified consultant at the applicant’s expense to review and confirm the applicant’s reports, studies and plans. The HMP shall clearly demonstrate that greater protection of the functions and values of critical areas can be achieved through the HMP than could be achieved through providing the prescribed habitat buffers and building setbacks. An applicant may propose to implement an HMP as a means to protect habitat buffers associated with streams and/or fish and wildlife conservation areas. Approval for an HMP shall not occur prior to the consultation with the appropriate federal or state agencies. (b) Intent. HMPs are primarily intended as a means to restore or improve buffers that have been degraded by past activity, and should preserve, and not reduce, existing high-quality habitat buffers. While not primarily intended as a means to reduce buffers, the HMP may propose a reduction of the habitat buffer width where it is shown that the HMP will comply with the other requirements of this section. (c) Effect of Buffers. An HMP shall provide habitat functions and values that are greater than would be provided by the prescribed habitat buffers. When habitat buffers are a component of an HMP, they shall be at least the minimum size necessary to accomplish the 39 CAO Amendments objectives of the HMP. The HMP may propose, but the City shall not require, a habitat buffer containing a greater area than is required by the prescribed habitat buffer. In a case-by-case basis, the Director may approve a departure from the prescribed habitat buffers if two state or federal resource agencies or tribes supports a departure from these critical area regulations that can demonstrate equal or greater protection of the critical areas. (d) Impact Mitigation. The HMP shall encompass an area large enough to provide mitigation for buffer reduction below the standard required buffers, and shall identify how the development impacts resulting from the proposed project will be mitigated as defined in BMC 20.14.750. The developer of the plan shall use the best available science in all facets of the analyses. (e) The assessment of habitats for the site and project shall at a minimum include the following information: (1) A map prepared at an easily readable scale, showing: (i) The location of the proposed development site; (ii) Property boundaries; (iii) The relationship of the site to surrounding topographic, water, and cultural features; (iv) Proposed building locations and arrangements; (v) A legend which includes a complete legal description, acreage of the parcel, scale, north arrow, and date of map revision; (2) Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project area and its associated buffer; (3) Identification of any species of local importance, priority species, or endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project area, and assessment of potential project impacts to the use of the site by the species; (4) A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management recommendations, including Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat management recommendations, that have been developed for species or habitats located on or adjacent to the project area; (5) A detailed discussion of the direct and indirect potential impacts on habitat by the project, including potential impacts to water quality; (6) Enhancement of existing degraded buffer area and replanting of the disturbed buffer area with native vegetation; (7) The use of alternative on-site wastewater systems in order to minimize site clearing; (8) Retention of existing native vegetation on other portions of the site in order to offset habitat loss from buffer reduction; (9) The need for fencing and signage along the buffer edge; (10) A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and mitigation, proposed to preserve existing habitats and restore any habitat that was degraded prior to the current proposed land use activity and to be conducted in accordance with the mitigation sequencing required by this chapter; and (11) A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect habitat after the project site has been developed, including proposed monitoring, maintenance, and enforcement programs. 40 CAO Amendments (f) When appropriate due to the type of habitat or species present or the project conditions, the Director may also require the habitat management plan to include: (1) An evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant’s analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, to include any recommendations as appropriate; (2) A request for consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or the local Native American Indian tribe or other appropriate agency; and (3) Detailed surface and subsurface hydrologic features both on and adjacent to the site, including a field determination of the ordinary high water mark or any surface waters and supporting documentation. (g) Mitigation Measures. Possible mitigation measures to be included in the report, or required by the Director, could include, but are not limited to: (1) Establishment of buffer zones; (2) Preservation of critically important plants and trees; (3) Limitation of access to habitat areas; (4) Seasonal restriction of construction activities; (5) Establishing phased development requirements; and (6) Monitoring plan for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met. Generally this will be for a period of five (5) years. (h) HMP Adequacy. The HMP shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the habitat functions and values are improved by implementation of the HMP. If there is a disagreement between the City and the applicant as to the adequacy of the HMP, the issue of plan adequacy shall be resolved by consulting with the appropriate federal or state agency. If the federal or state agencies are not available in a timely manner, the applicant may choose to have the City refer the HMPs to a third-party consultant at the expense of the applicant. After consultation with such state departments or third-party consultant, the Director shall make a final decision on the adequacy of the HMP. (i) Single-family minor development exemption. At direction of the director, single family re-developments amounting to one instance of less than 500 square feet in expansion, may be exempt from requirement listed above, so long as an equal amount of native planting areas waterward of the structure are established, consistent with the requirements of 20.14.730(d)(1). (j) Timing. An HMP must be developed and approved either prior to preliminary plat approval or issuance of the building permit, as applicable, and must be implemented before the City grants either final plat approval or an occupancy permit, as applicable. SECTION 10. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.14.750, entitled “Mitigation Standards and Criteria” is hereby amended to: 20.14.750 MITIGATION STANDARDS AND CRITERIA. (a) The applicant shall avoid all impacts that degrade the functions and values of a critical area or areas. Unless otherwise provided in this title, if alteration to the critical area is unavoidable, all adverse impacts to or from critical areas and buffers resulting from a development proposal or alteration shall be mitigated using the best available science in accordance with an approved habitat management plan and SEPA documents, so as to result in no net loss of critical area functions and values. 41 CAO Amendments (b) Mitigation shall be in kind and on site, when possible, and sufficient to maintain the functions and values of the critical area, and to prevent risk from a hazard posed by a critical area. (c) Mitigation shall not be implemented until after the City’s approval of an HMP that includes a mitigation plan, and mitigation shall be in accordance with the provisions of the approved HMP. (d) Mitigation Sequencing. Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas. When an alteration to a critical area is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following sequential order of preference: (1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts; (3) Rectifying the impact to habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; (4) Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (5) Compensating for the impact to habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and (6) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures. (e) Mitigation Plan Requirements. When mitigation is required, the applicant shall submit for approval by the City a mitigation plan as part of the HMP. The mitigation plan shall include: (1) Environmental Goals and Objectives. The mitigation plan shall include a written report identifying environmental goals and objectives of the compensation proposed and including: (i) A description of the anticipated impacts to the critical areas and the mitigating actions proposed and the purposes of the compensation measures, including the site selection criteria, identification of compensation goals, identification of resource functions, and dates for beginning and completion of site compensation construction activities. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions and values of the impacted critical area; (ii) A review of the best available science supporting the proposed mitigation and a description of the report author’s experience to date in restoring or creating the type of critical area proposed; and (iii) An analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project. (2) Performance Standards. The mitigation plan shall include measurable specific criteria for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the mitigation project have been successfully attained and whether or not the requirements of this title have been met. (3) Detailed Construction Plans. The mitigation plan shall include written specifications and descriptions of the mitigation proposed, such as: 42 CAO Amendments (i) The proposed construction sequence, timing, and duration; (ii) Grading and excavation details; (iii) Erosion and sediment control features; (iv) A planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; and (v) Measures to protect and maintain plants until established. These written specifications shall be accompanied by detailed site diagrams, scaled cross-sectional drawings, topographic maps showing slope percentage and final grade elevations, and any other drawings appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome. (4) Monitoring Program. The mitigation plan shall include a program for monitoring construction of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project (BMC 20.14.760, Monitoring and Contingency Plan). A protocol shall be included outlining the schedule for site monitoring (for example, monitoring shall occur in years one (1), three (3), and five (5) after site construction), and how the monitoring data will be evaluated to determine if the performance standards are being met. A monitoring report shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five (5) years. (5) Contingency Plan. The mitigation plan shall include identification of potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken if monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met (BMC 20.14.760). (6) Financial Guarantees. The mitigation plan shall include financial guarantees, if necessary, to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully implemented. Financial guarantees ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring program, and any contingency measures shall be posted in accordance with bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring (BMC 20.14.760). (f) Innovative Mitigation. (1) The city may encourage, facilitate, and approve innovative mitigation projects that are based on the best available science. Advance mitigation or mitigation banking are examples of alternative mitigation projects allowed under the provisions of this section wherein one (1) or more applicants, or an organization with demonstrated capability, may undertake a mitigation project together if it is demonstrated that all of the following circumstances exist: (i) Creation or enhancement of a larger system of critical areas and open space is preferable to the preservation of many individual habitat areas; (ii) The group demonstrates the organizational and fiscal capability to act cooperatively; (iii) The group demonstrates that long-term management of the habitat area will be provided; and (iv) There is a clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the identified mitigation site. SECTION 11. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.14.760, entitled “Monitoring and Contingency Plan” is hereby amended to: 43 CAO Amendments 20.14.760 MONITORING AND CONTINGENCY PLAN. (a) A monitoring program shall be included as a part of the approved mitigation plan for a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. To ensure that the performance standards of the approved mitigation plan have been met, the mitigation and/or buffer enhancement site(s) shall be monitored for a minimum of five (5) years. A longer monitoring period may be required by the City based on either the initial mitigation plan or a review of subsequent monitoring reports. The monitoring reports shall be submitted on August 1st of each year during the monitoring period. The Director may waive either a performance and/or maintenance bond for single-family residential projects on a case-by case basis. An acceptable surety device is required to ensure the applicant’s compliance with the terms of the mitigation agreement. (1) Performance Surety. All mitigation and buffer enhancement shall be completed prior to final plat approval and/or building occupancy depending on the type of application. However, when improvements cannot be completed prior to final acceptance due to weather conditions which may negatively affect the success of the project, a performance surety may be used. The performance surety shall equal one hundred fifty (150) percent of the cost of the mitigation project, and the required improvements shall be installed in a satisfactory manner within six (6) months or less.(2) Maintenance Surety. A maintenance surety shall be required on all mitigation projects to ensure that the improvement successfully survives the monitoring periods set above. (i) Mitigation Projects. The amount of the maintenance surety shall be equal to fifteen (15) percent of the cost of the mitigation project and the term of the surety shall reflect the term of the monitoring program. (ii) Buffer Enhancement Projects. The amount of the maintenance surety shall be equal to fifteen (15) percent of the costs of the enhancement project and the term of the surety shall reflect the term of the monitoring program. (3) Monitoring Deposit. A cash deposit shall be submitted with all sureties prior to final acceptance of the project to cover the estimated City costs to review the yearly monitoring reports and conduct a site inspection to ensure the performance standards are being met. (b) Long-Term Maintenance. To ensure the long-term success of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, the applicant or their heirs or successors shall be responsible for the long-term maintenance of the habitat area and its associated buffer. The habitat and buffer shall be kept clear of weeds, invasive plant material, lawn clippings, junk, debris, intrusions or the like. SECTION 12. Corrections. The City Clerk and codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including but not limited to, the correction of scrivener, clerical, typographical, and spelling errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. SECTION 13. Severability. 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 44 CAO Amendments SECTION 14. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of ____________________, 2021 _________________________________ KEVIN GORMAN, Council President Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2021 _________________________________ GREG WHEELER, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ ________________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the________ day of ______________________, 2021 EFFECTIVE the_________day of ______________________, 2021 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ Shoreline Master Program Periodic Update SMP (BMC 20.16) Agenda Item # 7 & CAO (BMC 20.14) Agenda # 8 City Council Public Hearing| April 21, 2021 Orders of the Day This City Council study session will discuss code amendments to the SMP and Critical Areas Ordinance. This update is a joint process that has been conducted with the Department of Ecology. Key Takeaways •This is not a major update •Amendments add flexibility •Clarity is provided for when mitigation is required 1 Public Outreach •Informational Postcard April 2020 •Online open house October 2020 •Planning Commission Two workshops & hearing •Social Media •Department of Ecology 2 Gap Analysis Report Purpose (Attachment A-3) Documents consistency with State legislative amendments and provides summary of all proposed changes. Photo Credit: Google Earth © 2018 3 Proposed Amendments SMP, Development Regulations Agenda Item #7 •Consistency with State regulations •Formatting •Provide added flexibility for single family home owners •Minor mapping changes 4 Proposed Amendments COA, Development Regulations Agenda Item #8 Wetlands & Fish/Wildlife Conservation Areas •Consistency with State regulations •Provide added flexibility for single family home owners 5 Timeline •April 2020 Postcard •PC workshop–September 21, 2020 •Online Tool Launch –October 1, 2020 •PC workshop to review full amendment draft –October 19 •Joint Ecology\City public comment period –late October 23 November 23 2020 •Joint Ecology\City public hearing –November 16, 2020 •SEPA Determination –December 15 -29 •Submittal to Ecology for Initial Determination –January •Receive Ecology’s Initial Determination -February •Final review of the SMP and CAO –April 2021 6 Thanks for listening Questions? Additional information Project website: www.BremertonWA.gov/SMPUpdate o Staff contact is Garrett Jackson, Senior Planner o (360) 473-5289 o Garrett.Jackson@ci.Bremerton.wa.us 7 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Renewal of Affiliation Agreement with Tacoma Community College Study Session Date: April 14, 2021 COUNCIL MEETING Date: April 21, 2021 Department: Fire Presenter: Pat McGanney Phone: (360) 473-5381 SUMMARY: The purpose of this agreement is for the Bremerton Fire Department to commit to training health care professionals, to provide desirable clinical learning experiences and facilities for Tacoma Community College Healthcare students. ATTACHMENTS: Affiliation Agreement FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☒ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Renewal Affiliation Agreement with Tacoma Community College; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 6A �/s-/cJ (date) Attested To: By ___________________Angela Woods, City Clerk (date) Approved As To Form By ___________________ _ Roger Lubovich, City Attorney (date) SCHOOL FIRST THREE-YEAR RENEW AL COMPANY By: ____________ _ By: __________ _ Title: ____________ _ Title: _________ _ Date: Date: ----------------------- SCHOOL SECOND THREE YEAR RENEW AL COMPANY By:-------------By: __________ _ Title: ____________ _ Title: ---------- Date: Date: ----------------------- 10 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: April 14, 2021 Interlocal Agreement to establish Kitsap County Fire Training Consortium COUNCIL MEETING Date: April 21, 2021 Department: Fire Presenter: Pat McGanney, Fire Chief Phone: (360) 473-5380 SUMMARY: This Agreement is to establish a county wide Training Consortium to enable joint fire training activities and operations. Each Agency shall retain full authority for and jurisdiction over fire protection, prevention and suppression, emergency medical services, boundaries, elections, budgets and all other matters not specifically addressed in the Agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Undetermined STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☒ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Kitsap County Fire Training Consortium Interlocal Agreement; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 6B Training Consortium Interlocal Agreement—Page 1 Kitsap County Fire Training Consortium (Interlocal Agreement) This agreement is made and entered into by and between the undersigned municipal corporations, collectively referred to as “Agency” or “Agencies.” RECITALS 1. This agreement is entered into in conformity with chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act. 2. The Agencies currently each maintain and operate their own fire departments to provide emergency responder services, including fire protection, fire suppression, and emergency medical services and non-emergent medical care in their respective areas. 3. It is recognized that the Agencies have staff that are performing similar tasks, on a daily basis, and that have varied talents, skills, and expertise; and by allowing the staff to coordinate and collaborate, the skills and abilities of the individuals could be used in a manner that increases the level and efficiency of training. 4. The Agencies desire to provide training at the highest possible level while managing the costs by eliminating duplication of effort and/or expenses where feasible and making the most effective use of combined resources. 5. The Agencies have concluded that collaboration based on equal participation would provide the highest level of training with the least duplication and cost and allow for the completion of functions not possible within current funding. 6. The Kitsap County Fire Training Consortium has adopted the following Mission and Vision Statements: a. Mission: Develop and deliver superior training to improve performance and safety. b. Vision: Unify andUnify enhanceand regionalenhance trainingregional training that improves operational consistency, implements industry best practices and promotes a shared culture of excellence. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and benefits contained herein, it is agreed between the Agencies as follows: 1. Purpose and Scope of Agreement. The purpose and scope of this Agreement is to maintain a Training Consortium to enable joint training activities and operations. Each Agency shall retain full authority for and jurisdiction over fire protection, prevention and suppression, emergency medical services, boundaries, elections, and budgets and all other matters not specifically addressed in this Agreement. Training Consortium Interlocal Agreement—Page 2 2. Governing Structure of Training Consortium 2.1. Administrative Board. (a) The Administrative Board shall be composed of the Fire Chief or Administrator of each Agency to this Agreement. The Administrative Board shall be responsible for: (i) Overseeing administration of the fiscal arrangements as set forth in this Agreement (“Fiscal Agent”); (ii) Directing, guiding and overseeing the actions of the Operations Board; (iii) Implementing the recommendations of the Training Chief; (iv) (v) Communicating with the governing bodies of the Agencies to this Agreement; and Reviewing and approving all expense vouchers. (b) The Administrative Board shall meet every other month. Members of the Administrative Board shall elect by majority vote a Chief to serve as presiding officer of the Administrative Board. The Chair shall serve a two-year term, which may be renewed by a majority vote. The Chair shall have responsibility to schedule the meetings of the Administrative Board, to serve as presiding officer at board meetings, to gather information and to prepare the agenda for board meetings. In the event a Chair is unable or unwilling to complete his or her term, nominations shall be accepted by the Administrative Board for a replacement Chair, who shall be elected by majority vote of the board and who shall complete the term of the resigning Chair. Each Chief shall have an equal vote on matters that come before the Administrative Board. Any decisions of the Administrative Board that involve the expenditure or obligation of an Agency’s funds shall constitute a recommendation to the governing bodies of the Agencies and shall not be effective until the governing bodies of each Agency have approved such recommendation. 2.2. Operations Advisory Team “OAT” (a) The OAT shall be composed of the Training Consortium’s Training Chief and the operations chiefs from each Agency to this Agreement. The OAT shall be responsible for: (i) Consulting and communicating with the Training Chief on matters involving Agency operations. (ii) Work with the Training Chief to establish consistency in Agency operations. (iii) Work with the Training Chief to ensure the training curriculum is consistent with Agency operations. (iv) A designee from the Operations Chiefs in each of north zone (BIFD, NKFR, PFD) and south zone (BFD, CKFR, SKFR), as selected by the Administrative Board, shall report directly to the Board. Training Consortium Interlocal Agreement—Page 3 2.3. Training Consortium Chief. (a) The Training Consortium Chief “Training Chief” shall be appointed by the Administrative Board, selected from one of the agencies of the Training Consortium. The appointment will be for a period of three years. This term may be amended by a majority vote of the administrative board. The Training Chief shall be responsible for: (i) Recommending annual goals and objectives to the Administrative Board; (ii) Developing common operating guidelines for all Agencies; (iii) Developing common training programs, processes, and instructional materials for all Agencies (iv) Developing common training calendars for all Agencies; (v) Performing such other tasks as directed by the Administrative Board. (vi) Developing an annual Budget for the Training Consortium. (vii) Managing the Training Consortium on a day-to-day basis. 2.4. Firefighter Training Advisory Team “FTAT” (a) The FTAT shall be composed of uniformed staff participating in the Training Consortium as appointed by the Training Chief and each agency in a manner that insures each Agency is adequately represented. The FTAT shall be responsible for: (i) Providing feedback and input to the Training Chief regarding the content of the training provided. (ii) Coordinating communications between the Training Chief and the employees receiving training from the Training Consortium 3. Joint Decision Making 3.1. This Agreement does not alter the current command structure or organizational responsibilities of any Agency. However, this Agreement will allow for joint decision-making by the Administrative Board to modify command structures or organizational responsibilities relating to training within the Training Consortium. 3.2. Joint decision-making shall be exercised through the Administrative Board and shall apply only to those areas specifically identified by this Agreement. The Administrative Board shall make joint decisions using the following procedure. Joint decisions shall only be made at a meeting of the Administrative Board attended by a quorum of Agency representatives. A majority of the currently appointed Agency representatives shall constitute a quorum. Joint decisions shall be made by a majority vote. A Chief unable to attend a meeting may vote by proxy by either sending a designated representative or by notifying the Administrative Board of the Chief’s vote via email prior to the meeting or by providing a written proxy to another Chief attending the meeting. Training Consortium Interlocal Agreement—Page 4 4. Fiscal Arrangements 4.1. The Administrative Board shall determine which participating Agency shall be the entity that manages the finances of the Training Consortium. The appointed Agency “Fiscal Agent” shall be responsible for managing the finances of the Training Consortium as part of that Agency’s annual budget. The Agency appointed as Fiscal Agent agrees to manage the Consortium’s budget in compliance with the Washington State Budget, Accounting and Reporting Schedule (BARS). All fiscal documents shall be maintained in accordance with the Washington State Local Government Common Records Retention Schedule (CORE) and made available to any participating agency upon request. 4.2. On or about August 1st of each year, the Administrative Board shall approve an annual budget for the Training Consortium’s operations that identifies each Agency's personnel and financial responsibilities for the following year. The financial responsibilities will be based on a cost per member as identified by the following components: (a) Training Officer Cost. The cost of a Training Officer shall be based on the actual salary of each Agency’s contributed positions. (b) Administrative Costs. The amount shall cover the Fiscal Agent’s administrative costs in managing the Training Consortium, including funds to reimburse the agency providing the Training Chief, necessary administrative support staff and other civilian positions as approved by the board. (c) Supplies and Maintenance Costs. The amount shall cover the Fiscal Agent’s costs in purchasing consumable supplies, professional services and other expenses associated with the delivery of Training. (d) Facilities Costs. The amount shall cover the Kitsap County Fire Training Consortium facility lease and related expenses, as well as costs associated with the use of Training facilities. (e) Cost Per Uniformed Member. FTE Cost +Administrative Costs + Supplies and Maintenance Costs+ Facility Costs/Total number of uniformed members having the rank of Battalion Chief or below = Cost per Uniformed Member. However, this cost may be adjusted as needed by the Administrative Board. (f) Annual Agency Cost. The Annual Agency Cost shall be based upon the agency’s number of uniformed members having the rank of Battalion Chief or below for the budget cycle. (g) The Annual Agency Cost may be satisfied by contributions of personnel (at the FTE value established above), cash, use of training facilities or other services as approved by the Administrative Board. (h) Member agencies may choose to request additional services from the training consortium other than those provided for their uniformed staff. These services may include training events for volunteers or use of the Learning Management System (LMS) for civilians. These additional services shall be provided at the discretion of the Training Chief and with the approval of the Administrative Board. The Training Chief will establish a fee for service that ensures the training is cost neutral for the consortium.’ Training Consortium Interlocal Agreement—Page 5 4.3. In the event the Administrative Board determines, during the course of the year, that additional expenditures or contributions from one or more participating Agencies are necessary, the Administrative Board shall make a recommendation/request to the appropriate Agency. 4.4. In the event an Agency satisfies its Annual Agency Cost with a cash payment, the full value of such cash payment shall be made to the Fiscal Agent on or before February 1st of each year. In the event an Agency that provides personnel or equipment is entitled to receive a cash payment in return, the Training Consortium shall make such cash payment to the Agency on or before February 1st of each year. 5. Resources: This Agreement allows for the collaborative acquisition, use, and management of property and equipment, (“Resources”). Prior to commingling any Resources under this Agreement, all equipment and property with a value of more than $1,000.00 used in the performance of this Agreement shall be appropriately marked and inventoried by the contributing Agency. Ownership of Resources shall remain with the Agency that purchases or provides the Resource. Jointly owned resources, if any, may be purchased pursuant to a separate agreement by the Agencies, and shall be listed in a schedule of joint resources “Joint Resources” that shall be maintained by the Fiscal Agent The ownership and distribution of jointly owned resources shall be governed by the following paragraphs: 5.1. The ownership of Joint Resources acquired after the execution of this agreement shall be documented on the schedule of Joint Resources maintained by the Fiscal Agent. Such Joint Resources shall be owned by the Agencies to this agreement in proportion to the financial and in-kind contribution of each Agency in the year of acquisition of such Resources “Ownership Share.” 5.2. If this agreement is terminated as to all Agencies the depreciated value of the Joint Resources acquired under the terms of this agreement shall be divided in accordance with the Ownership Shares. 5.3. In the event an Agency withdraws from this Agreement, such Agency shall be entitled to receive the depreciated value of its Ownership Share in the Joint Resources as determined in the sole reasonable discretion of the Administrative Board. 6. Personnel. Each Agency shall cooperate with the Administrative Board and shall allow its employees and volunteers (“Training Personnel”) to perform the functions as assigned by the Training Chief exercising authority under this Agreement. 6.1. The Training Chief shall have the authority to determine the working location and conditions for Training Personnel when assigned to the Training Division. Through the joint decision- making process as defined herein, the Agencies may be asked to fill positions or roles not currently staffed within any of the Agencies. Such assignments, if they do not create additional financial responsibilities or litigation impacts for an Agency, shall be controlled by the Administrative Board and shall not require further approval by any Agency. 6.2. Each Agency shall remain as the employer of its own Training Personnel and shall be responsible for establishing and paying Training Personnel compensation and benefits. 6.3. It is understood by the Agencies that the services provided by Training Personnel pursuant to this Agreement will mutually benefit each Agency in proportion to the benefits received by Training Consortium Interlocal Agreement—Page 6 that Agency. 6.4. The Administrative Board shall establish the chain of command for Training Personnel under this Agreement. However, the responsibility for hiring, evaluating, firing and disciplining Training Personnel shall remain with the employing Agency. An employing Agency may seek input from the Administrative Board in hiring, evaluating, firing or disciplining Training Personnel, but such guidance shall be optional and nonbinding on the Agency seeking guidance. 6.5. Training Personnel filling a shared functional position will be provided an explanation of roles, responsibilities, duties and expectations of the shared position prepared by the Training Chief. 6.6. To the extent this Agreement would result in any personnel changes that affect the wages, benefits or working conditions of any represented employees, the Training Chief shall assist the governing body of the affected employing Agencies and the affected bargaining units to address such impacts prior to the implementation of the change. 7. Training Consortium Chief 7.1. The agency that employs the Training Chief that is appointed by the Administrative Board agrees to hire and staff the Training Consortium Chief position. The agencies intend that the best candidate will be selected by the Administrative Board to serve as the Training Consortium Chief as contemplated by this Agreement. In recognition of this understanding the parties agree to work cooperatively in accordance with the following provisions to assist the Agency that employees the Training Chief in maintaining and rotating this position within the Training Consortium Agencies. (a) The agency that employs the Training Chief will remain the employer of the Training Chief. Accordingly, that Agency shall be solely responsible for all matters related to the Training Chief’s human resource management, performance appraisals, employee relations, work related practices, performance effectiveness and responsiveness, conformance with Consortium expectations, and discipline. The Administrative Board will also provide feedback concerning the performance of the said Training Chief to the Agency that is the employer of the Training Chief. 8. Insurance 8.1. The Agencies shall each provide and maintain suitable commercial general liability and auto liability insurance policies to protect it from casualty losses by reason of the activities contemplated by this Agreement. The limits of liability for each coverage shall be at least $2,000,000 for each occurrence. Each Agency shall provide the Consortium with a Certificate of Liability Insurance or Evidence of Coverage, which the Fiscal Agent shall maintain on file, provided that any Agency that is self-insured will provide a letter of self-insurance as evidence of coverage. 9. Indemnification 9.1. Each Agency shall be responsible for the wrongful or negligent actions of its employees while participating in this Agreement, as their respective liability shall appear under the laws of the State of Washington and/or Federal Law, and this Agreement is not intended to diminish or Training Consortium Interlocal Agreement—Page 7 expand such liability. Provided, however, each Agency, by executing this Agreement hereby expressly appoints the Consortium Training Chief as its limited attorney in fact with the limited express authority to enter into and bind the Agency to liability waivers, indemnification or hold harmless agreements or releases required by third parties for the use of any training facilities, training props or private property necessary for the conduct of Training Consortium operations. 9.2. To that end, each Agency promises to indemnify, defend and hold harmless all the other Agencies from any loss, claim or liability arising from or out of the negligent or otherwise tortious actions or omissions of its employees, officers and officials. Such liability shall be apportioned among the Agencies or other at fault persons or entities in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Each agency shall be solely responsible for its own attorney fees and any litigation related costs. 9.3. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to: (a) Waive any defense arising out of RCW Title 51, provided; however, each Agency agrees that its obligations under this provision extend to any claim, demand, and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees or agents. The foregoing indemnity is specifically and expressly intended to constitute a waiver of each Agency's immunity under Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act, RCW Title 51, with respect to the other Agencies only, and only to the extent necessary to provide each Agency with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the other Agency's employees. The Agencies acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. (b) Limit the ability of a participant to exercise any right, defense, or remedy which an Agency may have with respect to third party Agencies or the officer(s) whose action or omission give rise to loss, claim or liability, including but not limited to an assertion that the employee was acting beyond the scope of his or her employment. (c) Cover or require indemnification or payment of any judgment against any individual or Agency for intentionally wrongful conduct outside the scope of employment of any individual or for any judgment for punitive damages against any individual or Agency. Payment of punitive damage awards, fines or sanctions shall be the sole responsibility of the individual against whom said judgment, fine or sanction is rendered and/or his or her employer, should that employer elect to make said payment voluntarily. This agreement does not require indemnification of any punitive damage awards or for any order imposing fines or sanctions. 10. Dispute Resolution. 10.1. Prior to any other action, the Administrative Board shall meet and attempt to negotiate a resolution to any dispute arising under this agreement. 10.2. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute through negotiation, any party may demand mediation through a process to be mutually agreed to in good faith between the parties within 30 days. The parties shall share equally the costs of mediation and shall be responsible for their own costs in preparation and participation in the mediation, including expert witness fees and reasonable attorney’s fees. Training Consortium Interlocal Agreement—Page 8 10.3. If a mediation process cannot be agreed upon or if the mediation fails to resolve the dispute, then within 30 calendar days any party may submit the matter to binding arbitration according to the procedures of the Superior Court Rules for Mandatory Arbitration, including the Local Mandatory Arbitration Rules of the Kitsap County Superior Court, Kitsap County, Washington, as amended, unless the parties agree in writing to an alternative dispute resolution process. The arbitration shall be before a disinterested arbitrator with both parties sharing equally in the cost of the arbitrator. The location of the arbitration shall be mutually agreed or established by the assigned Arbitrator, and the laws of Washington will govern its proceedings. Each party shall be responsible for its own costs in preparing for and participating in the arbitration, including expert witness fees and reasonable attorney’s fees. 10.4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, this dispute resolution process shall be the sole, exclusive and final remedy to or for any party for any dispute regarding this Agreement, and its interpretation, application or breach, regardless of whether the dispute is based in contract, tort, any violation of federal law, state statute or local ordinance or for any breach of administrative rule or regulation and regardless of the amount or type of relief demanded. 11. Term of Agreement 11.1. In the event any Agency shall desire to renegotiate any of the provisions of this agreement, such Agency shall give one-year advance written notice to the other Agencies. The written notice shall specify the provision to be negotiated, the requested change and the reasons therefore. Such requests to renegotiate shall not be considered a notice of termination. 11.2. This agreement shall be effective on January 1, 20220 and shall continue for a term of three (3) years. 12. Termination/Withdrawal 12.1. Any Agency may withdraw from this Agreement and end its participation in the Consortium at the end of any calendar year by filing a notice of termination with the Administrative Board. a notice of termination by December 31st of the preceding calendar year. However, any Agency withdrawing from this Agreement shall provide its notice of termination no later than August 31st of the year prior to the Agency’s withdrawal. Any Agency that provides notice of termination after August 31st shall be required to fully contribute its portion of the Consortium funding for the following calendar year, regardless if the Agency participates in Consortium activities. In the event an Agency terminates its participation under this paragraph but the remaining Agencies continue the Agreement, the Agency that terminated its participation shall be considered a withdrawing Agency that is not entitled to any refund of its prior contributions, but it shall be entitled to reimbursement of its depreciated share of any Jointly Owned Resource and return of any equipment or property owned by the Agency and used by the Consortium under this agreement. 12.2. This agreement may be terminated by consensus of a majority of the Agencies, effective the end of any calendar year, upon giving written notice thereof to the other Agencies by July 1August 31st of the preceding year. In the event of a termination under this paragraph any Joint Resources shall be allocated among the parties in the manner specified in Section 5. 12.3. If an Agency consolidates with another municipal or local government entity through merger, annexation, or through the creation of a Regional Fire Protection Authority, the consolidated entity Training Consortium Interlocal Agreement—Page 9 shall become an Agency to this Agreement and a successor in interest to the Agency’s interest on the effective date of the consolidation without any action by the remaining Agencies, unless otherwise required. Training Consortium Interlocal Agreement—Page 10 13. Additional Agencies. 13.1. Additional Agencies may join the Kitsap County Fire Training Consortium when approved by a majority vote of the Administrative Board and upon approval and execution of this Interlocal Agreement. 13.2. The Administrative Board may authorize one year “Associate Agency” Interlocal Agreements with municipal corporations for one-year trial participation in the Kitsap County Fire Training Consortium. Such Associate Agencies shall be required to agree to the indemnification, insurance and personnel provisions of this Agreement and to contribute financially in accordance with the financial terms in Paragraph 4 but shall have no interest in joint resources and no administrative or decision-making authority. 14. Miscellaneous 14.1. Notices. All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of the Agreement, unless notified to the contrary. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective upon personal service or three (3) business days after the date of mailing by registered or certified mail via the United States Postal Service and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing. 14.2. Benefits. This Agreement is entered into for the benefit of the Agencies to this agreement only and shall confer no benefits, direct or implied, on any third persons. 14.3. Severability. If any provision of this agreement or its application is held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. 14.4. Amendments. This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the Agencies regarding the subjects addressed herein. Amendments to this Agreement may be proposed by the Administrative Board or by any Agency to the Agreement. To become binding, Amendments must be made in writing and must be recommended for approval by the Administrative Board and approved by the unanimous consent of the Agencies to the Agreement. In the event that changes in federal or state law or changes in the boundaries of any or all Agencies significantly affect the performance of any Agency, the Agencies agree to enter into good faith negotiations so that continuation of the operations of the Training Consortium are not impaired. 14.5. Agreement To Be Filed With County Auditor or Published On Web Site. Pursuant to RCW 39.34.040, this Interlocal Agreement shall be filed by the Parties with the Kitsap County Auditor as soon as reasonably practical after its execution, or in the alternative, listed according to subject by each Party on its web site or other electronically retrievable public source. Thereafter, each Party shall notify the other of the method by which it published this Agreement (by either recording it or listing it on its web site) and provide to the other all pertinent information relating thereto. Training Consortium Interlocal Agreement—Page 11 15. 14. Execution. 15.1.14.6. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which will together constitute this one Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Agencies by the signatures of their authorized representatives have executed this Agreement effective upon the date of signatures. SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW Training Consortium Interlocal Agreement—Page 12 Training Consortium Interlocal Agreement—Page 13 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: April 14, 2021 Ordinance No. 5419 amending Section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to simplify Street Fund Budgeting & related Budget Reallocation COUNCIL MEETING Date: April 21, 2021 Department: PW&U Presenter: Tom Knuckey Phone: (360) 473-2376 SUMMARY: The City has three “Street” funds with overlapping responsibilities. The current organization is confusing, overly complex, and results in loss of staff time in managing the budgets included in the three funds. Staff request budgeting for Street Improvements be collapsed into two funds with the Street Fund responsible for operations and major maintenance of all streets, and the Transportation Projects Fund responsible for all street capital improvements. Making this revision eliminates the Residential Street and Sidewalk Fund and requires a revision to BMC 3.50.050 to direct stormwater utility tax to the Transportation Projects Fund. Residential Street project and Transportation Benefit District expenditure reporting will be accomplished using improved accounting practices. ATTACHMENTS: (1) Ordinance No. 5419; (2) Fund Consolidation Table; (3) Power Point Presentation FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. The Residential Street and Sidewalk Fund will be eliminated, and its Operations and Maintenance budget will be transferred into the Street Fund and its Capital budget will be transferred into the Transportation Projects Fund. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ Limited Presentation ☒ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☒ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. 5419 to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 3.50.050 to allocate Stormwater Fees or Taxes to the Transportation Projects Fund; and approve a budget amendment to reallocate the Residential Street and Sidewalk Fund Budget to the Street Fund and Transportation Projects Fund. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 6C Page 1 of 4 Utility Taxes - Stormwater ORDINANCE NO. 5419 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Persons Subject to Tax - Amount.” WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to the distribution of fees or taxes collected for stormwater utility service into the Street Fund for the purpose of funding street improvements within the City; and WHEREAS, the City budgets funds for the operation, maintenance and capital improvements on City streets in three separate funds and the three funds have overlapping responsibilities; and WHEREAS, the current organization with three funds results in budgets for similar work being split into multiple accounts resulting in confusion and time loss related to budget management and accounting; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to simplify financial management to reduce the administrative burden on City Staff; and WHEREAS, eliminating the Residential Street and Sidewalk Fund and transferring its operations and maintenance budget into the Street Fund, and transferring its capital budget into the Transportation Projects Fund simplifies financial management related to City Streets; and WHEREAS, revenue collected from stormwater utility taxes and fees is currently allocated and transferred to the Residential Street and Sidewalk Fund for Street Improvements which will be eliminated with the passing of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to allocate and transfer the revenue collected from stormwater utility taxes and fees into the Street Transportation Projects Fund for Street and Sidewalk improvements; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Residential Streets and Sidewalks Fund is hereby dissolved. SECTION 2. All funds in the Residential Street and Sidewalk Fund operations and major maintenance-related accounts are hereby transferred into the Street Fund, and all funds in the Residential Street and Sidewalk Fund capital-related accounts are hereby transferred into the Transportation Projects Fund. Page 2 of 4 Utility Taxes - Stormwater SECTION 3. Section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Persons Subject to Tax – Amount” is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.50.050 PERSONS SUBJECT TO TAX – AMOUNT. In addition to other taxes or fees that may be imposed or levied by the City, there is hereby levied upon all persons (including the City) engaging in business within the City a fee or tax to be collected as follows: (a)Gas. Upon every person engaging in the business of transmitting, distributing or the selling of manufactured or natural gas, a fee or tax equal to six percent (6%) of the total gross income from such business conducted within the City. (b)Water. Upon every person engaging in the business of providing water utility service, a fee or tax equal to fifteen and one-half percent (15.5%) of the total gross income from such business conducted within the City. The total gross income from the business of providing water utility service includes the "gross income from timber sales" of the utility as that term is defined in this chapter. (c)Wastewater. Upon every person engaging in the business of providing wastewater utility service, a fee or tax equal to twenty percent (20%) of the total gross income from such business conducted within the City. (d)Stormwater. Upon every person engaging in the business of providing stormwater utility service, a fee or tax equal to twenty percent (20%) of the total gross income from such business conducted within the City. All of the fees or taxes collected under this subsection shall be dedicated to the Transportation Projects Fund, for street improvements with fifty percent (50%) allocated and transferred to the Transportation Capital Fund and fifty percent (50%) allocated and transferred to the Residential Street and Sidewalk Fund, unless otherwise allocated by the City Council. (e)Cable. Upon every person engaging in the business of transmitting television signals by means of a cable distribution system commonly known as television cable service, a fee or tax equal to seven percent (7%) of the total gross income from such business conducted within the City. (f)Solid Waste. Upon every person engaging in the business of providing solid waste collection service, a fee or tax equal to nine and one-half percent (9.5%) of the total gross income from such business conducted within the City. (g)Electricity. Upon every person engaging in the business of producing, transmitting, distributing or selling electricity, a fee or tax equal to six percent (6%) of the total gross income from such business conducted within the City. (h)Telephone. Upon every person engaged in carrying on a telephone business for hire or for sale of a commodity or a service within or partly within the corporate limits of the City, a tax for the privilege of so doing business equal to six percent (6%) of the total gross income rendered within the City. (1)Deductions. In computing the telephone tax, there shall be deducted from the gross operating revenues the following items: (i)Amounts derived from transactions in interstate or foreign commerce or from any business which the City is prohibited from taxing under the Constitutions of the United States or the State of Washington. Page 3 of 4 Utility Taxes - Stormwater (ii)Amounts derived from that portion of network telephone service, as defined in RCW 82.04.065, which represents charges to another communications company, as defined in RCW 80.04.010, for connecting fees, switching charges or carrier access charges relating to intrastate toll telephone services, or for access to, or charges for, interstate services or charges for network telephone service that is purchased for the purpose of resale. (iii)Adjustments made to a billing or to a customer account or to a communications company accrual account in order to reverse a billing or charge that had been made as a result of third-party fraud or other crime and was not properly a debt of a customer. (iv)A complete deduction from gross income shall be allowed for credit losses, only to cellular telephone service companies which keep their regular books of account on an accrual basis, for cash discounts and credit losses actually sustained by a taxpayer as a result of telephone service business. (2)Allocation of Income - Cellular Telephone Service. (i)Service Address. Payments by a customer for the telephone service from telephones without a fixed location shall be allocated among taxing jurisdictions to the location of the customer’s principal service address during the period for which the tax applies. (ii)Roaming Phones. When the service is provided while a subscriber is roaming outside the subscriber’s normal cellular network area, the gross income shall be assigned consistent with the taxpayer’s accounting system to the location of the originating cell site of the call, or to the location of the main cellular switching office that switched the call. SECTION 4. Corrections. The City Clerk and codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener, clerical, typographical, and spelling errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. SECTION 5. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of ____________________, 2021. _________________________________ KEVIN GORMAN, Council President Page 4 of 4 Utility Taxes - Stormwater Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2021. _________________________________ GREG WHEELER, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ _________________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 20__. EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 20__. ORDINANCE NO. ________. R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Public Works & Utilities\2021.03.02 BMC 3.50.050 - Utility Taxes, Stormwater.docx Proposal to Simplify the Street Funds April 21, 2021 The three “Street” Funds have Overlapping Responsibilities: •Street Fund •O&M for all streets •Most general expenses for all streets (streetlights, vehicles, fuel, insurance, snow removal, homeless camps, etc.) •Most Labor is budgeted in Streets with transfers to TransCap and Residential Streets based on work performed •Residential Street Fund •Major Maintenance and Capital for Residential Streets •Insurance is split with Streets. •4-FTEs budgeted in Residential Streets with transfers to TransCap •Transportation Projects Fund (TransCap) •Capital and Major Maintenance for Functionally Classified Streets Multiple funds leads to confusion, inaccuracy, and lost time: •State mandated BARS categories complicate accounting, budgeting and reporting -for example, sidewalk, road, and traffic control expenditures are each reported in 5 separate BARS categories. The three funds comprise 31 BARS categories with 414 separate accounts •Project budgets are split between multiple funds, typically Residential Streets and TransCap –fund accounting is complicated, and all costs in each invoice must be split manually between the two funds •Timekeeping is challenging for Administrative and Field staff – result is time loss and inaccuracy •Labor is budgeted in two funds and expended in 3 funds which leads to more work –result is time loss and inaccuracy •PW&U total 2021 budget is $82.5M and the three Street Funds total $15M (18%); however, staff spend 75% of budget administration time managing the Street Funds Total of 31 BARS and 414 Accounts Collapse to two Street Funds; one for all O&M (Streets) and one for all Capital (TransCap). Advantages include: •Number of BARS are reduced by half •Number of Accounts are reduced by nearly a third •Significant reduction in staff time spent managing budgets •Improved accuracy in actual and budgeted expenditures Residential Street expenditure reporting will be accomplished via improved accounting with Asset Management/Work Order Implementation Total of 16 BARS and 299 Accounts Revenue to the three funds is from the General Fund, Taxes (including fuel tax, parking tax, permit fees, etc.), REET, SWUT, TBD and Grants. REET, TBD and SWUT have restrictions; the others do not: •REET must be spent on Capital improvements per RCW 82.46 •TBD must be spent on transportation uses per RCW 36.73. Council has prioritized usage on Residential Streets •SWUT is transferred 50% to TransCap and 50% to Residential Streets per BMC 3.50.050 Proposed Ordinance would dedicate SW Utility Tax revenue to the Transportation Projects Fund: AMENDED AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: April 14, 2021 Master Services and Purchasing Agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for Body Cameras and In-Car Recording Equipment for the Police Department COUNCIL MEETING Date: April 21, 2021 Department: Police Presenter: Tom Wolfe Phone: 360.473.5481 SUMMARY: The Bremerton Police Department requests approval to purchase fifty (50) body cameras and in-car recording equipment. Body-worn cameras can serve both the department and the community as an accountability function. They wish to purchase the equipment from Axon Enterprises, Inc., a participating contractor on the State of Washington’s NASPO list of contracts, No. OK-MA-145-015. ATTACHMENTS: Axon Master Services and Purchasing Agreement, Quote from Axon Enterprises for Body-Worn Cameras, Quote from Axon Enterprises for In-Car Recording Equipment FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Purchase amount of $184,223.23 was approved in BPD’s 2021 budget. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☒ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the agreement; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 6D Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 1 of 17 This Master Services and Purchasing Agreement (“Agreement”) is between Axon Enterprise, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Axon”), and the agency on the Quote (“Agency”). This Agreement is effective as of the later of the (a) last signature date on this Agreement or (b) signature date on the Quote (“Effective Date”). Axon and Agency are each a “Party” and collectively “Parties”. This Agreement governs Agency’s purchase and use of the Axon Devices and Services detailed in the Quote Appendix (“Quote”). It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement act as a master agreement governing all subsequent purchases by Agency for the same Axon products and services in the Quote, and all such subsequent quotes accepted by Agency shall be also incorporated into this Agreement by reference as a Quote. The Parties therefore agree as follows: 1 Definitions. “Axon Cloud Services” means Axon’s web services for Axon Evidence, Axon Records, Axon Dispatch, and interactions between Evidence.com and Axon Devices or Axon client software. Axon Cloud Service excludes third-party applications, hardware warranties, and my.evidence.com. “Axon Device” means all hardware provided by Axon under this Agreement. “Quote” means an offer to sell and is only valid for devices and services on the quote at the specified prices. Any terms within Agency’s purchase order in response to a Quote will be void. Orders are subject to prior credit approval. Changes in the deployment estimated ship date may change charges in the Quote. Shipping dates are estimates only. Axon is not responsible for typographical errors in any offer by Axon, and Axon reserves the right to cancel any orders resulting from such errors. “Services” means all services provided by Axon under this Agreement, including software, Axon Cloud Services, and professional services. 2 Term. This Agreement begins on the Effective Date and continues for five (5) years (“Term”). All subscriptions, including Axon Evidence, Axon Fleet, Officer Safety Plans, Technology Assurance Plans, and TASER 7 plans begin after shipment of the applicable Axon Device and continue for five (5) years (“Subscription Term”). If Axon ships the Axon Device in the first half of the month, the start date is the 1st of the following month. If Axon ships the Axon Device in the second half of the month, the start date is the 15th of the following month. For purchases solely of Axon Evidence subscriptions, the start date is the Effective Date. 3 Payment. Axon invoices upon shipment. Payment is due net 30 days from the invoice date. Payment obligations are non-cancelable. Agency will pay invoices without setoff, deduction, or withholding. If Axon sends a past due account to collections, Agency is responsible for collection and attorneys’ fees. 4 Taxes. Agency is responsible for sales and other taxes associated with the order unless Agency provides Axon a valid tax exemption certificate. 5 Shipping. Axon may make partial shipments and ship Axon Devices from multiple locations. All shipments are FOB shipping point via common carrier. Title and risk of loss pass to Agency upon Axon’s delivery to the common carrier. Agency is responsible for any shipping charges in the Quote. 6 Returns. All sales are final. Axon does not allow refunds or exchanges, except warranty returns or as provided by state or federal law. 7 Warranty. 7.1 Hardware Limited Warranty. Axon warrants that Axon-manufactured Devices are free from defects in workmanship and materials for 1 year from the date of Agency’s receipt, except Signal Sidearm, which Axon warrants for 30 months from the date of Agency’s receipt. Axon warrants its Axon-manufactured accessories for 90-days from the date of Agency’s receipt. Used conducted energy weapon (“CEW”) cartridges are deemed to have operated properly. Extended warranties run from the expiration of the 1-year hardware warranty through the extended warranty term. Non- Axon manufactured Devices are not covered by Axon’s warranty. Agency should contact the Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 2 of 17 manufacturer for support of non-Axon manufactured Devices. 7.2 Claims. If Axon receives a valid warranty claim for an Axon manufactured Device during the warranty term, Axon’s sole responsibility is to repair or replace the Device with the same or like Device, at Axon’s option. A replacement Axon Device will be new or like new. Axon will warrant the replacement Axon Device for the longer of (a) the remaining warranty of the original Axon Device or (b) 90-days from the date of repair or replacement. If Agency exchanges a device or part, the replacement item becomes Agency’s property, and the replaced item becomes Axon’s property. Before delivering a Axon Device for service, Agency must upload Axon Device data to Axon Evidence or download it and retain a copy. Axon is not responsible for any loss of software, data, or other information contained in storage media or any part of the Axon Device sent to Axon for service. 7.3 Spare Axon Devices. For qualified purchases, Axon may provide Agency a predetermined number of spare Axon Devices as detailed in the Quote (“Spare Axon Devices”). Spare Axon Devices are intended to replace broken or non-functioning units while Agency submits the broken on non - functioning units , through Axon’s warranty return process. Axon will repair or replace the unit with a replacement Axon Device. Title and risk of loss for all Spare Axon Devices shall pass to Agency in accordance with shipping terms under Section 5. Axon assumes no liability or obligation in the event Agency does not utilize Spare Axon Devices for the intended purpose. . 7.4 Limitations. Axon’s warranty excludes damage related to: (a) failure to follow Axon Device use instructions; (b) Axon Devices used with equipment not manufactured or recommended by Axon; (c) abuse, misuse, or intentional damage to Axon Device; (d) force majeure; (e) Axon Devices repaired or modified by persons other than Axon without Axon’s written permission; or (f) Axon Devices with a defaced or removed serial number. 7.4.1 To the extent permitted by law, the above warranties and remedies are exclusive. Axon disclaims all other warranties, remedies, and conditions, whether oral, written, statutory, or implied. If statutory or implied warranties cannot be lawfully disclaimed, then such warranties are limited to the duration of the warranty described above and by the provisions in this Agreement. 7.4.2 Axon’s cumulative liability to any Party for any loss or damage resulting from any claim, demand, or action arising out of or relating to any Axon Device or Service will not exceed the purchase price paid to Axon for the Axon Device, or if for Services, the amount paid for such Services over the 12 months preceding the claim . Neither Party will be liable for direct, special, indirect, incidental, punitive or consequential damages, however caused, whether for breach of warranty or contract, negligence, strict liability, tort or any other legal theory. 8 Statement of Work. Certain Axon Devices and Services, including Axon Interview Room, Axon Channel Services, and Axon Fleet, may require a Statement of Work that details Axon’s Service deliverables (“SOW”). In the event Axon provides an SOW to Agency, Axon is only responsible to perform Services described in the SOW. Additional services are out of scope. The Parties must document scope changes in a written and signed change order. Changes may require an equitable adjustment in fees or schedule. The SOW is incorporated into this Agreement by reference. 9 Axon Device Warnings. See www.axon.com/legal for the most current Axon Device warnings. 10 Design Changes. Axon may make design changes to any Axon Device or Service without notifying Agency or making the same change to Axon Devices and Services previously purchased by Agency. 11 Bundled Offerings. Some offerings in bundled offerings may not be generally available at the time of Agency’s purchase. Axon will not provide a refund, credit, or additional discount beyond what is in the Quote due to a delay of availability or Agency’s election not to utilize any portion of an Axon bundle. 12 Insurance. Axon will maintain, at Axon’s own expense and in effect during the Term, and provide a Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 3 of 17 Certificate of Insurance evidencing: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and 2. Commercial General Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Commercial General Liability insurance for Taser 7 may be written on a claims-made basis. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad for m property damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) if applicable; and 3. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 limit per occurrence and aggregate; and 4. Cyber Liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 limit per occurrence or claim; and 5. Workers Compensation insurance as statutorily required by the Industrial Insurance Act of the State of Washington, Title 51, Revised Code of Washington and employer's liability with limits not less than $1,000,000. The Agency shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of Axon. Axon’s insurance shall be primary and non - contributory insurance as respects the Agency and shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the Agency for claims arising out of any operations, liabilities and obligations to which coverage applies. 13 Indemnification. Axon will indemnify Agency’s officers, directors, and employees (“Agency Indemnitees”) against all claims, demands, losses, and reasonable expenses arising out of a third-party claim against an Agency Indemnitee resulting from any negligent act, error or omission, or willful misconduct by Axon under this Agreement, except to the extent of Agency’s negligence or willful misconduct, or claims under workers compensation. 14 IP Rights. Axon owns and reserves all right, title, and interest in Axon devices and services and suggestions to Axon, including all related intellectual property rights. Agency will not cause any Axon proprietary rights to be violated. 15 IP Indemnification. Axon will indemnify Agency Indemnitees against all claims, losses, and reasonable expenses from any third-party claim alleging that the use of Axon Devices or Services infringes or misappropriates the third-party’s intellectual property rights. Agency must promptly provide Axon with written notice of such claim, tender to Axon the defense or settlement of such claim at Axon’s expense and cooperate fully with Axon in the defense or settlement of such claim. Axon’s IP indemnification obligations do not apply to claims based on (a) modification of Axon Devices or Services by Agency or a third-party not approved by Axon; (b) use of Axon Devices and Services in combination with hardware or services not approved by Axon; (c) use of Axon Devices and Services other than as permitted in this Agreement; or (d) use of Axon software that is not the most current release provided by Axon. 16 Agency Responsibilities. Agency is responsible for (a) Agency’s use of Axon Devices; (b) breach of this Agreement or violation of applicable law by Agency or an Agency end user; and (c) a dispute between Agency and a third-party over Agency’s use of Axon Devices. 17 Termination. 17.1 For Breach. A Party may terminate this Agreement for cause if it provides 30 days written notice of the breach to the other Party, and the breach remains uncured at the end of 30 days. If Agency terminates this Agreement due to Axon’s uncured breach, Axon will refund prepaid amounts on a prorated basis based on the effective date of termination. 17.2 By Agency. If sufficient funds are not appropriated or otherwise legally available to pay the fees, Agency may terminate this Agreement. Further, Agency may terminate this Agreement for convenience by providing Axon 90 days prior written notice. Agency will deliver notice of termination under this section as soon as reasonably practicable. Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 4 of 17 17.3 Effect of Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, Agency rights immediately terminate. Agency remains responsible for all fees incurred before the effective date of termination. If Agency purchases Axon Devices for less than the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (“MSRP”) and this Agreement terminates before the end of the Term, Axon will invoice Agency the difference between the MSRP for Axon Devices received, including any Spare Axon Devices, and amounts paid towards those Axon Devices. Only if terminating for non-appropriation, Agency may return Axon Devices to Axon within 30 days of termination. MSRP is the standalone price of the individual Axon Device at the time of sale. For bundled Axon Devices, MSRP is the standalone price of all individual components. 18 Confidentiality. “Confidential Information” means nonpublic information designated as confidential or, given the nature of the information or circumstances surrounding disclosure, should reasonably be understood to be confidential. Each Party will take reasonable measures to avoid disclosure, dissemination, or unauthorized use of the other Party’s Confidential Information. Unless required by law, neither Party will disclose the other Party’s Confidential Information during the Term and for 5-years thereafter. Axon pricing is Confidential Information and competition sensitive. If Agency is required by law to disclose Axon pricing, to the extent allowed by law, Agency will provide notice to Axon before disclosure. Axon may publicly announce information related to this Agreement. 19 General. 19.1 Force Majeure. Neither Party will be liable for any delay or failure to perform due to a cause beyond a Party’s reasonable control. 19.2 Independent Contractors. The Parties are independent contractors . Neither Party has the authority to bind the other. This Agreement does not create a partnership, franchise, joint venture, agency, fiduciary, or employment relationship between the Parties. 19.3 Third-Party Beneficiaries. There are no third-party beneficiaries under this Agreement. 19.4 Non-Discrimination. Neither Party nor its employees will discriminate against any person based on race; religion; creed; color; sex; gender identity and expression; pregnancy; childbirth; breastfeeding; medical conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth, or breastfeeding; sexual orientation; marital status; age; national origin; ancestry; genetic information; disability; veteran status; or any class protected by local, state, or federal law. 19.5 Export Compliance. Each Party will comply with all import and export control laws and regulations. 19.6 Assignment. Neither Party may assign this Agreement without the other Party’s prior written consent. Axon may assign this Agreement, its rights, or obligations without consent: (a) to an affiliate or subsidiary; or (b) for purposes of financing, merger, acquisition, corporate reorganization, or sale of all or substantially all its assets. This Agreement is binding upon the Parties respective successors and assigns. 19.7 Waiver. No waiver or delay by either Party in exercising any right under this Agreement constitutes a waiver of that right. 19.8 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds any portion of this Agreement invalid or unenforceable, the remaining portions of this Agreement will remain in effect. 19.9 Survival. The following sections will survive termination: Payment, Warranty, Axon Device Warnings, Indemnification, IP Rights, and Agency Responsibilities. 19.10 Governing Law. The laws of the state where Agency is physically located, without reference to conflict of law rules, govern this Agreement and any dispute arising from it. The United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods does not apply to this Agreement. Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 5 of 17 19.11 Notices. All notices must be in English. Notices posted on Agency’s Axon Evidence site are effective upon posting. Notices by email are effective on the sent date of the email. Notices by personal delivery are effective immediately. Contact information for notices: Axon: Axon Enterprise, Inc. Agency: Attn: Legal Attn: 17800 N. 85th Street Street Address Scottsdale, Arizona 85255 City, State, Zip legal@axon.com Email 19.12 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the Appendices and any SOW(s), represents the entire agreement between the Parties. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements or understandings, whether written or verbal, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement may only be modified or amended in a writing signed by the Parties. Each representative identified below declares they have been expressly authorized to execute this Agreement as of the date of signature. Axon Enterprise, Inc. Agency Signature: Signature: Name: Name: Title: Title: Date: Date: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 6 of 17 Axon Cloud Services Terms of Use Appendix 1 Definitions. “Agency Content” is data uploaded into, ingested by, or created in Axon Cloud Services within Agency’s tenant, including media or multimedia uploaded into Axon Cloud Services by Agency. Agency Content includes Evidence but excludes Non-Content Data. “Evidence” is media or multimedia uploaded into Axon Evidence as 'evidence' by a n Agency. Evidence is a subset of Agency Content. “Non-Content Data” is data, configuration, and usage information about Agency’s Axon Cloud Services tenant, Axon Devices and client software, and users that is transmitted or generated when using Axon Devices. Non-Content Data includes data about users captured during account management and customer support activities. Non-Content Data does not include Agency Content. “Personal Data” means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. An identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person. 2 Access. Upon Axon granting Agency a subscription to Axon Cloud Services, Agency may access and use Axon Cloud Services to store and manage Agency Content. Agency may not exceed more end users than the Quote specifies. Axon Air requires an Axon Evidence subscription for each drone operator. For Axon Evidence Lite, Agency may access and use Axon Evidence only to store and manage TASER CEW and TASER CAM data (“TASER Data”). Agency may not upload non- TASER Data to Axon Evidence Lite. 3 Agency Owns Agency Content. Agency controls and owns all right, title, and interest in Agency Content. Except as outlined herein, Axon obtains no interest in Agency Content, and Agency Content are not business records of Axon. Agency is solely responsible for uploading, sharing, managing, and deleting Agency Content. Axon will have limited access to Agency Content solely for providing and supporting Axon Cloud Services to Agency and Agency end users. 4 Security. Axon will implement commercially reasonable and appropriate measures to secure Agency Content against accidental or unlawful loss, access or disclosure. Axon will maintain a comprehensive information security program to protect Axon Cloud Services and Agency Content including logical, physical access, vulnerability, risk, and configuration management; incident monitoring and response; encryption of uploaded digital evidence; security education; and data protection. Axon agrees to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information Services Security Addendum. 5 Agency Responsibilities. Agency is responsible for (a) ensuring Agency owns Agency Content; (b) ensuring no Agency Content or Agency end user’s use of Agency Content or Axon Cloud Services violates this Agreement or applicable laws; and (c) maintaining necessary computer equipment and Internet connections for use of Axon Cloud Services. If Agency becomes aware of any violation of this Agreement by an end user, Agency will immediately terminate that end user’s access to Axon Cloud Services. Agency will also maintain the security of end user names and passwords and security and access by end users to Agency Content. Agency is responsible for ensuring the configuration and utilization of Axon Cloud Services meet applicable Agency regulation and standards. Agency may not sell, transfer, or sublicense access to any other entity or person. Agency shall contact Axon immediately if an unauthorized party may be using Agency’s account or Agency Content, or if account information is lost or stolen. Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 7 of 17 To the extent Agency uses the Axon Cloud Services to interact with YouTube®, such use may be governed by the YouTube Terms of Service, available at https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms. 6 Privacy. Axon will not disclose Agency Content or information about Agency except as compelled by a court or administrative body or required by law or regulation. If Axon receives a disclosure request for Agency Content, Axon will give Agency notice, unless legally prohibited from doing so, to allow Agency to file an objection with the court or administrative body. Agency agrees to allow Axon access to certain information from Agency to (a) perform troubleshooting services upon request or as part of regular diagnostic screening; (b) enforce this Agreement or policies governing the use of Axon Evidence; or (c) perform analytic and diagnostic evaluations of the systems. 7 Axon Body 3 Wi-Fi Positioning. Axon Body 3 cameras offer a feature to enhance location services where GPS/GNSS signals may not be available, for instance, within buildings or underground. Agency administrators can manage their choice to use this service within the administrative features of Axon Cloud Services. If Agency chooses to use this service, Axon must also enable the usage of the feature for Agency’s Axon Cloud Services tenant. Agency will not see this option with Axon Cloud Services unless Axon has enabled Wi-Fi Positioning for Agency’s Axon Cloud Services tenant. When Wi-Fi Positioning is enabled by both Axon and Agency, Non-Content and Personal Data will be sent to Skyhook Holdings, Inc. (“Skyhook”) to facilitate the Wi-Fi Positioning functionality. Data controlled by Skyhook is outside the scope of the Axon Cloud Services Privacy Policy and is subject to the Skyhook Services Privacy Policy. 8 Storage. For Axon Unlimited Device Storage subscriptions, Agency may store unlimited data in Agency's Axon Evidence account only if data originates from Axon Capture or the applicable Axon Device. Axon may charge Agency additional fees for exceeding purchased storage amounts. Axon may place Agency Content that Agency has not viewed or accessed for 6 months into archival storage. Agency Content in archival storage will not have immediate availability and may take up to 24 hours to access. 9 Location of Storage. Axon may transfer Agency Content to third-party subcontractors for storage. Axon will determine the locations of data centers for storage of Agency Content. For United States agencies, Axon will ensure all Agency Content stored in Axon Cloud Services remains within the United States. Ownership of Agency Content remains with Agency. 10 Suspension. Axon may temporarily suspend Agency’s or any end user’s right to access or use any portion or all of Axon Cloud Services immediately upon notice, if Agency or end user’s use of or registration for Axon Cloud Services may (a) pose a security risk to Axon Cloud Services or any third-party; (b) adversely impact Axon Cloud Services , the systems, or content of any other customer; (c) subject Axon, Axon’s affiliates, or any third-party to liability; or (d) be fraudulent. Agency remains responsible for all fees incurred through suspension. Axon will not delete Agency Content because of suspension, except as specified in this Agreement. 11 Axon Cloud Services Warranty. Axon disclaims any warranties or responsibility for data corruption or errors before Agency uploads data to Axon Cloud Services. 12 Axon Records. Axon Records is the software-as-a-service product that is generally available at the time Agency purchases an OSP 7 bundle. During Agency’s Axon Records Subscription Term, Agency will be entitled to receive Axon’s Update and Upgrade releases on an if-and-when available basis. An “Update” is a generally available release of Axon Records that Axon makes available from time to time. An “Upgrade” includes (i) new versions of Axon Records that enhance features and Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 8 of 17 functionality, as solely determined by Axon; and/or (ii) new versions of Axon Records that provide additional features or perform additional functions. Upgrades exclude new products that Axon introduces and markets as distinct products or applications. New or additional Axon products and applications, as well as any Axon professional services needed to configure Axon Records, are not included. If Agency purchases Axon Records as part of a bundled offering, the Axon Record subscription begins on the later of the (1) start date of that bundled offering, or (2) date Axon provisions Axon Records to Agency. 13 Axon Cloud Services Restrictions. Agency and Agency end users (including employees, contractors, agents, officers, volunteers, and directors), may not, or may not attempt to: 13.1 copy, modify, tamper with, repair, or create derivative works of any part of Axon Cloud Services; 13.2 reverse engineer, disassemble, or decompile Axon Cloud Services or apply any process to derive any source code included in Axon Cloud Services, or allow others to do the same; 13.3 access or use Axon Cloud Services with the intent to gain unauthorized access, avoid incurring fees or exceeding usage limits or quotas; 13.4 use trade secret information contained in Axon Cloud Services, except as expressly permitted in this Agreement; 13.5 access Axon Cloud Services to build a competitive device or service or copy any features, functions, or graphics of Axon Cloud Services; 13.6 remove, alter, or obscure any confidentiality or proprietary rights notices (including copyright and trademark notices) of Axon’s or Axon’s licensors on or within Axon Cloud Services; or 13.7 use Axon Cloud Services to store or transmit infringing, libelous, or other unlawful or tortious material; to store or transmit material in violation of third-party privacy rights; or to store or transmit malicious code. 14 After Termination. Axon will not delete Agency Content for 90-days following termination. There will be no functionality of Axon Cloud Services during these 90-days other than the ability to retrieve Agency Content. Agency will not incur additional fees if Agency downloads Agency Content from Axon Cloud Services during this time. Axon has no obligation to maintain or provide Agency Content after these 90-days and will thereafter, unless legally prohibited, delete all Agency Content. Upon request, Axon will provide written proof that Axon successfully deleted and fully removed all Agency Content from Axon Cloud Services. 15 Post-Termination Assistance. Axon will provide Agency with the same post-termination data retrieval assistance that Axon generally makes available to all customers. Requests for Axon to provide additional assistance in downloading or transferring Agency Content, including requests for Axon’s data egress service, will result in additional fees and Axon will not warrant or guarantee data integrity or readability in the external system. 16 U.S. Government Rights. If Agency is a U.S. Federal department or using Axon Cloud Services on behalf of a U.S. Federal department, Axon Cloud Services is provided as a “commercial item,” “commercial computer software,” “commercial computer software documentation,” and “technical data”, as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. If Agency is using Axon Cloud Services on behalf of the U.S. Government and these terms fail to meet the U.S. Government’s needs or are inconsistent in any respect with federal law, Agency will immediately discontinue use of Axon Cloud Services. 17 Survival. Upon any termination of this Agreement, the following sections in this Appendix will survive: Agency Owns Agency Content, Storage, Axon Cloud Services Warranty, and Axon Cloud Services Restrictions. Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 9 of 17 Professional Services Appendix 1 Utilization of Services. Agency must use professional services as outlined in the Quote and this Appendix within 6 months of the Effective Date. 2 Body-Worn Camera Starter Service (BWC Starter). BWC Starter includes advance remote project planning and configuration support and one day of on-site Services and a professional services manager to work closely with Agency to assess Agency’s deployment and determine which Services are appropriate. I f Agency requires more than 1 day of on-site Services, Agency must purchase additional on-site Services. The BWC Starter options include: System set up and configuration (Remote Support) • Instructor-led setup of Axon View on smartphones (if applicable) • Configure categories & custom roles based on Agency need • Troubleshoot IT issues with Axon Evidence and Axon Dock (“Dock”) access Dock configuration • Work with Agency to decide the ideal location of Dock setup and set configurations on Dock • Authenticate Dock with Axon Evidence using “Administrator” credentials from Agency • Does not include physical mounting of docks Axon instructor training (Train the Trainer) Training for Agency’s in-house instructors who can support Agency’s Axon camera and Axon Evidence training needs after Axon’s has fulfilled its contracted on-site obligations End user go-live training and support sessions • Assistance with device set up and configuration • Training on device use, Axon Evidence, and Evidence Sync Implementation document packet Axon Evidence administrator guides, camera implementation guides, network setup guide, sample policies, and categories & roles guide 3 Body-Worn Camera Virtual 1-Day Service (BWC Virtual). BWC Virtual includes all items in the BWC Starter Service Package, except one day of on -site services. 4 Out of Scope Services. Axon is only responsible to perform the professional services described in the Quote and this Appendix. Any additional professional services are out of scope. The Parties must document scope changes in a written and signed change order. Changes may require an equitable adjustment in the charges or schedule. 5 Delivery of Services. Axon personnel will work Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., except holidays. Axon will perform all on-site tasks over a consecutive timeframe. Axon will not charge Agency travel time by Axon personnel to Agency premises as work hours. 6 Access Computer Systems to Perform Services. Agency authorizes Axon to access relevant Agency computers and networks, solely for performing the Services. Axon will work to identify as soon as reasonably practicable resources and information Axon expects to use and will provide an initial itemized list to Agency. Agency is responsible for and assumes the risk of any problems, delays, losses, claims, or expenses resulting from the content, accuracy, completeness, and consistency of all data, materials, and information supplied by Agency. 7 Site Preparation. Axon will provide a hardcopy or digital copy of current user documentation for the Axon Devices (“User Documentation”). User Documentation will include all required environmental specifications for the professional Services and Axon Devices to operate per the Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 10 of 17 Axon Device User Documentation. Before installation of Axon Devices (whether performed by Agency or Axon), Agency must prepare the location(s) where Axon Devices are to be installed (“Installation Site”) per the environmental specifications in the Axon Device User Documentation. Following installation, Agency must maintain the Installation Site per the environmental specifications. If Axon modifies Axon Device User Documentation for any Axon Devices under this Agreement, Axon will provide the update to Agency when Axon generally releases it. If Axon modifies Axon Device User Documentation for any Axon Devices under this Agreement, Axon will provide the update to Agency when Axon generally releases it 8 Acceptance. When Axon completes professional Services, Axon will present an acceptance form (“Acceptance Form”) to Agency. Agency will sign the Acceptance Form acknowledging completion. If Agency reasonably believes Axon did not complete the professional Services in substantial conformance with this Agreement, Agency must notify Axon in writing of the specific reasons for rejection within 7 calendar days from delivery of the Acceptance Form. Axon will address the issues and re-present the Acceptance Form for signature. If Axon does not receive the signed Acceptance Form or written notification of reasons for rejection within 7 calendar days of delivery of the Acceptance Form, Axon will deem Agency to have accepted the professional Services. 9 Agency Network. For work performed by Axon transiting or making use of Agency’s network, Agency is solely responsible for maintenance and functionality of the network. In no event will Axon be liable for loss, damage, or corruption of Agency’s network from any cause. Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 11 of 17 Technology Assurance Plan Appendix If Technology Assurance Plan (“TAP”) or a bundle including TAP is on the Quote, this appendix applies. 1 TAP Warranty. The TAP warranty is an extended warranty that starts at the end of the 1-year Hardware Limited Warranty. 2 Officer Safety Plan. If Agency purchases an Officer Safety Plan (“OSP”), Agency will receive the deliverables detailed in the Quote. Agency must accept delivery of the TASER CEW and accessories as soon as available from Axon. 3 OSP 7 Term. OSP 7 begins after Axon ships the Axon Body 3 or TASER 7 hardware to Agency. If Axon ships in the first half of the month, OSP 7 starts the 1st of the following month. If Axon ships in the second half of the month, OSP 7 starts the 15th of the following month (“OSP 7 Term”). 4 TAP BWC Upgrade. If Agency has no outstanding payment obligations and purchased TAP, Axon will provide Agency a new Axon body-worn camera (“BWC Upgrade”) as scheduled in the Quote. If Agency purchased TAP Axon will provide a BWC Upgrade that is the same or like Axon Device, at Axon’s option. Axon makes no guarantee the BWC Upgrade will utilize the same accessories or Axon Dock. 5 TAP Dock Upgrade. If Agency has no outstanding payment obligations and purchased TAP, Axon will provide Agency a new Axon Dock as scheduled in the Quote (“Dock Upgrade”). Accessories associated with any Dock Upgrades are subject to change at Axon discretion. Dock Upgrades will only include a new Axon Dock bay configuration unless a new Axon Dock core is required for BWC compatibility. If Agency originally purchased a single-bay Axon Dock, the Dock Upgrade will be a single-bay Axon Dock model that is the same or like Axon Device, at Axon’s option. If Agency originally purchased a multi-bay Axon Dock, the Dock Upgrade will be a multi-bay Axon Dock that is the same or like Axon Device, at Axon’s option. 6 Upgrade Delay. Axon may ship the BWC and Dock Upgrades as scheduled in the Quote without prior confirmation from Agency unless the Parties agree in writing otherwise at least 90 days in advance. Axon may ship the final BWC and Dock Upgrade as scheduled in the Quote 60 days before the end of the Subscription Term without prior confirmation from Agency. 7 Upgrade Change. If Agency wants to change Axon Device models for the offered BWC or Dock Upgrade, Agency must pay the price difference between the MSRP for the offered BWC or Dock Upgrade and the MSRP for the model desired. If the model Agency desires has an MSRP less than the MSRP of the offered BWC Upgrade or Dock Upgrade, Axon will not provide a refund. T he MSRP is the MSRP in effect at the time of the upgrade. 8 Return of Original Axon Device. Within 30 days of receiving a BWC or Dock Upgrade, Agency must return the original Axon Devices to Axon or destroy the Axon Devices and provide a certificate of destruction to Axon including serial numbers for the destroyed Axon Devices. If Agency does not return or destroy the Axon Devices, Axon will deactivate the serial numbers for the Axon Devices received by Agency. 9 Termination. If Agency’s payment for TAP, OSP, or Axon Evidence is more than 30 days past due, Axon may terminate TAP or OSP. Once TAP or OSP terminates for any reason: 9.1 TAP and OSP coverage terminate as of the date of termination and no refunds will be given. 9.2 Axon will not and has no obligation to provide the Upgrade Models. 9.3 Agency must make any missed payments due to the termination before Agency may purchase any future TAP or OSP. Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 12 of 17 TASER 7 Appendix This TASER 7 Appendix applies to Agency’s TASER 7, OSP 7, or OSP 7 Plus purchase from Axon . 1 Duty Cartridge Replenishment Plan. If the Quote includes “Duty Cartridge Replenishment Plan”, Agency must purchase the plan for each CEW user. A CEW user includes officers that use a CEW in the line of duty and those that only use a CEW for training. Agency may not resell cartridges received. Axon will only replace cartridges used in the line of duty. 2 Training. If the Quote includes a training voucher, Agency must use the voucher within 1 year of issuance, or the voucher will be void. Axon will issue Agency a voucher annually beginning on the start of the TASER Subscription Term. The voucher has no cash value. Agency cannot exchange it for another device or service. Unless stated in the Quote, the voucher does not include travel expenses and will be Agency’s responsibility. If the Quote includes Axon Online Training or Virtual Reality Content Empathy Development for Autism/Schizophrenia (collectively, “Training Content”), Agency may access Training Content. Axon will deliver all Training Content electronically. 3 Extended Warranty. If the Quote includes an extended warranty, the extended warranty coverage period warranty will be for a 5-year term, which includes the hardware manufacturer’s warranty plus the 4-year extended term. 4 Trade-in. If the Quote contains a discount on CEW-related line items, including items related to OSP, then that discount may only be applied as a trade-in credit, and Agency must return used hardware and accessories associated with the discount (“Trade-In Units”) to Axon. Agency must ship batteries via ground shipping. Axon will pay shipping costs of the return. If Axon does not receive Trade-In Units within the timeframe below, Axon will invoice Agency the value of the trade- in credit. Agency may not destroy Trade-In Units and receive a trade-in credit. Agency Size Days to Return from Start Date of TASER 7 Subscription Less than 100 officers 30 days 100 to 499 officers 90 days 500+ officers 180 days 5 TASER 7 Subscription Term. The TASER 7 Subscription Term for a standalone TASER 7 purchase begins on shipment of the TASER 7 hardware. The TASER 7 Subscription Term for OSP 7 begins on the OSP 7 Start date. 6 Access Rights. Upon Axon granting Agency a TASER 7 Axon Evidence subscription, Agency may access and use Axon Evidence for the storage and management of data from TASER 7 CEW devices during the TASER 7 Subscription Term. Agency may not upload any non-TASER 7 data or any other files to Axon Evidence. Agency may not exceed the number of end users than the Quote specifies. 7 Privacy. Axon will not disclose Agency Content or any information about Agency except as compelled by a court or administrative body or required by any law or regulation. Axon will give notice if any disclosure request is received for Agency Content, so Agency may file an objection with the court or administrative body. Agency acknowledges and agrees that Axon may access Agency Content to: (a) perform troubleshooting services up on request or as part of Axon’s maintenance or diagnostic screenings; (b) enforce this Agreement or policies governing use of Axon Evidence; (c) generate aggregated data, excluding information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, either alone or when combined with other personal or identifying Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 13 of 17 information that is linked or linkable to a specific individual (collectively, “PII”), to improve, analyze, support, and operate Axon’s current and future devices and services. 8 Termination. If payment for TASER 7 is more than 30 days past due, Axon may terminate Agency’s TASER 7 plan by notifying Agency. Upon termination for any reason, then as of the date of termination: 8.1 TASER 7 extended warranties and access to Training Content will terminate. No refunds will be given. 8.2 Axon will invoice Agency the remaining MSRP for TASER 7 products received before termination. If terminating for non-appropriations, Axon will not invoice Agency if Agency returns the CEW, rechargeable battery, holster, dock, core, training suits, and unused cartridges to Axon within 30 days of the date of termination. 8.3 Agency will be responsible for payment of any missed payments due to the termination before being allowed to purchase any future TASER 7 plan. Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 14 of 17 Axon Auto-Tagging Appendix 1 Scope. Axon Auto-Tagging consists of the development of a module to allow Axon Evidence to interact with Agency’s Computer-Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) or Records Management Systems (“RMS”). This allows end users to auto-populate Axon video meta-data with a case ID, category, and location- based on data maintained in Agency’s CAD or RMS. 2 Support. For thirty days after completing Auto-Tagging Services, Axon will provide up to 5 hours of remote support at no additional charge. Axon will provide free support due to a change in Axon Evidence, so long as long as Agency maintains an Axon Evidence and Auto-Tagging subscription. Axon will not provide support if a change is required because Agency changes its CAD or RMS. 3 Changes. Axon is only responsible to perform the Services in this Appendix. Any additional Services are out of scope. The Parties must document scope changes in a written and signed change order. Changes may require an equitable adjustment in fees or schedule. 4 Agency Responsibilities. Axon’s performance of Auto-Tagging Services requires Agency to: 4.1 Make available relevant systems, including Agency’s current CAD or RMS, for assessment by Axon (including remote access if possible); 4.2 Make required modifications, upgrades or alterations to Agency’s hardware, facilities, systems and networks related to Axon’s performance of Auto-Tagging Services; 4.3 Provide access to the premises where Axon is performing Auto-Tagging Services, subject to Agency safety and security restrictions, and allow Axon to enter and exit the premises with laptops and materials needed to perform Auto-Tagging Services; 4.4 Provide all infrastructure and software information (TCP/IP addresses, node names, network configuration) necessary for Axon to provide Auto-Tagging Services; 4.5 Promptly install and implement any software updates provided by Axon; 4.6 Ensure that all appropriate data backups are performed; 4.7 Provide assistance, participation, and approvals in testing Auto-Tagging Services; 4.8 Provide Axon with remote access to Agency’s Axon Evidence account when required; 4.9 Notify Axon of any network or machine maintenance that may impact the performance of the module at Agency; and 4.10 Ensure reasonable availability of knowledgeable staff and personnel to provide timely, accurate, complete, and up-to-date documentation and information to Axon . 5 Access to Systems. Agency authorizes Axon to access Agency’s relevant computers, network systems, and CAD or RMS solely for performing Auto-Tagging Services. Axon will work diligently to identify as soon as reasonably practicable resources and information Axon expects to use and will provide an initial list to Agency. Agency is responsible for and assumes the risk of any problems, delays, losses, claims, or expenses resulting from the content, accuracy, completeness, and consistency of all data, materials, and information supplied by Agency. Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 15 of 17 Axon Fleet Appendix 1 Agency Responsibilities. Agency must ensure its infrastructure and vehicles adhere to the minimum requirements to operate Axon Fleet 2 or Axon Fleet 3 (collectively, “Axon Fleet”) as established by Axon during the qualifier call and on-site assessment at Agency and in any technical qualifying questions. If Agency’s representations are inaccurate, the Quote is subject to change. 2 Cradlepoint. If Agency purchases Cradlepoint Enterprise Cloud Manager, Agency will comply with Cradlepoint’s end user license agreement. The term of the Cradlepoint license may differ from the Axon Evidence Subscription. If Agency requires Cradlepoint support, Agency will contact Cradlepoint directly. 3 Third-party Installer. Axon will not be liable for the failure of Axon Fleet hardware to operate per specifications if such failure results from installation not performed by, or as directed by Axon. 4 Wireless Offload Server. 4.1 License Grant. Axon grants Agency a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license to use Wireless Offload Server (“WOS”). “Use” means storing, loading, installing, or executing WOS solely for data communication with Axon Devices for the number of licenses purchased. The WOS term begins upon the start of the Axon Evidence Subscription. 4.2 Restrictions. Agency may not: (a) modify, alter, tamper with, repair, or create derivative works of WOS; (b) reverse engineer, disassemble, or decompile WOS, apply any process to derive the source code of WOS, or allow others to do so; (c) access or use WOS to avoid incurring fees or exceeding usage limits; (d) copy WOS in whole or part; (e) use trade secret information contained in WOS; (f) resell, rent, loan or sublicense WOS; (g) access WOS to build a competitive device or service or copy any features, functions or graphics of WOS; or (h) remove, alter or obscure any confidentiality or proprietary rights notices (including copyright and trademark notices) of Axon or Axon’s licensors on or within WOS. 4.3 Updates. If Agency purchases WOS maintenance, Axon will make updates and error corrections to WOS (“WOS Updates”) available electronically via the Internet or media as determined by Axon. Agency is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate Internet access to receive WOS Updates and maintaining computer equipment necessary for use of WOS. The Quote will detail the maintenance term. 4.4 WOS Support. Upon request by Axon, Agency will provide Axon with access to Agency’s store and forward servers solely for troubleshooting and maintenance. 5 Axon Vehicle Software. 5.1 License Grant. Axon grants Agency a non -exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license to use ViewXL or Dashboard (collectively, “Axon Vehicle Software”.) “Use” means storing, loading, installing, or executing Axon Vehicle Software solely for data communication with Axon Devices. The Axon Vehicle Software term begins upon the start of the Axon Evidence Subscription. 5.2 Restrictions. Agency may not: (a) modify, alter, tamper with, repair, or create derivative works of Axon Vehicle Software; (b) reverse engineer, disassemble, or decompile Axon Vehicle Software, apply any process to derive the source code of Axon Vehicle Software, or allow others to do so; (c) access or use Axon Vehicle Software to avoid incurring fees or exceeding usage limits; (d) copy Axon Vehicle Software in whole or part; (e) use trade secret information contained in Axon Vehicle Software; (f) resell, rent, loan or sublicense Axon Vehicle Software; (g) access Axon Vehicle Software to build a competitive device or service or copy any features, functions or graphics of Axon Vehicle Software; or (h) remove, alter or obscure any confidentiality or proprietary rights notices (including copyright and trademark notices) of Axon or Axon’s licensors on or within Axon Vehicle Software. Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 16 of 17 6 Axon Fleet Upgrade. If Agency has no outstanding payment obligations and has purchased the “Fleet Technology Assurance Plan” (Fleet TAP), Axon will provide Agency with the same or like model of Fleet hardware (“Fleet Upgrade”) as schedule on the Quote. If Agency would like to change models for the Axon Fleet Upgrade, Agency must pay the difference between the MSRP for the offered Axon Fleet Upgrade and the MSRP for the model desired. The MSRP is the MSRP in effect at the time of the upgrade. Agency is responsible for the removal of previously installed hardware and installation of the Axon Fleet Upgrade. Within 30 days of receiving the Axon Fleet Upgrade, Agency must return the original Axon Devices to Axon or destroy the Axon Devices and provide a certificate of destruction to Axon, including serial numbers of the destroyed Axon Devices. If Agency does not destroy or return the Axon Devices to Axon, Axon will deactivate the serial numbers for the Axon Devices received by Agency. 7 Privacy. Axon will not disclose Agency Content or any information about Agency except as compelled by a court or administrative body or required by any law or regulation. Axon will give notice if any disclosure request is received for Agency Content, so Agency may file an objection with the court or administrative body. Agency acknowledges and agrees that Axon may access Agency Content to: (a) perform troubleshooting services upon request or as part of Axon’s maintenance or diagnostic screenings; (b) enforce this Agreement or policies governing use of Axon Evidence; (c) generate aggregated data, excluding information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, either alone or when combined with other personal or identifying information that is linked or linkable to a specific individual (collectively, “PII”), to improve, analyze, support, and operate Axon’s current and future devices and services. 8 Axon Fleet Termination. Axon may terminate Agency’s Fleet subscription for non-payment. Upon any termination: 8.1 Axon Fleet subscription coverage terminates, and no refunds will be given. 8.2 Axon will not and has no obligation to provide the Axon Fleet Upgrade. 8.3 Agency will be responsible for payment of any missed payments due to the termination before being allowed to purchase any future Fleet TAP. Master Services and Purchasing Agreement Title: Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon and Agency Department: Legal Version: 12.0 Release Date: 12/18/2020 Page 17 of 17 Axon Respond Appendix This Axon Respond Appendix applies to both Axon Respond and Axon Respond Plus. 1 Axon Respond Subscription Term. If Agency purchases Axon Respond as part of a bundled offering, the Axon Respond subscription begins on the later of the (1) start date of that bundled offering, or (2) date Axon provisions Axon Respond to Agency. If Agency purchases Axon Respond as a standalone, the Axon Respond subscription begins the later of the (1) date Axon provisions Axon Respond to Agency, or (2) first day of the month following the Effective Date. The Axon Respond subscription term will end upon the completion of the Axon Evidence Subscription associated with Axon Respond. 2 Scope of Axon Respond. The scope of Axon Respond is to assist Agency with real-time situational awareness during critical incidents to improve officer safety, effectiveness, and awareness. In the event Agency uses Axon Respond outside this scope, Axon may initiate good - faith discussions with Agency on upgrading Agency’s Axon Respond to better meet Agency’s needs. 3 Axon Body 3 LTE Requirements. Axon Respond is only available and usable with an LTE enabled body-worn camera. Axon is not liable if Agency utilizes the LTE device outside of the coverage area or if the LTE carrier is unavailable. LTE coverage is only available in the United States, including any U.S. territories. Axon may utilize a carrier of Axon’s choice to provide LTE service. Axon may change LTE carriers during the Term without Agency’s consent. 4 Axon Fleet 3 LTE Requirements. Axon Respond is only available and usable with a Fleet 3 system configured with LTE modem and service. Agency is responsible for providing LTE service for the modem. Coverage and availability of LTE service is subject to Agency’s LTE carrier. 5 Axon Respond Service Limitations. Agency acknowledges that LTE service is made available only within the operating range of the networks. Service may be temporarily refused, interrupted, or limited because of: (a) facilities limitations; (b) transmission limitations caused by atmospheric, terrain, other natural or artificial conditions adversely affecting transmission, weak batteries, system overcapacity, movement outside a service area or gaps in coverage in a service area and other causes reasonably outside of the carrier’s control such as intentional or negligent acts of third parties that damage or impair the network or disrupt service; or (c) equipment modifications, upgrades, relocations, repairs, and other similar activities necessary for the proper or improved operation of service. With regard to Axon Body 3, Partner networks are made available as -is and the carrier makes no warranties or representations as to the availability or quality of roaming service provided by carrier partners, and the carrier will not be liable in any capacity for any errors, outages, or failures of carrier partner networks. Agency expressly understands and agrees that it has no contractual relationship whatsoever with the underlying wireless service provider or its affiliates or contractors and Agency is not a third-party beneficiary of any agreement between Axon and the underlying carrier. 6 Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, or if Agency stops paying for Axon Respond or bundles that include Axon Respond, Axon will end Aware services, including any Axon-provided LTE service. STATEMENT OF WORK & CONFIGURATION DOCUMENT Axon Fleet In-Car Recording Platform This document details a proposed system design Agency Created For: Bremerton PD Sold By: Robbie Taylor Designed By: Jake Borro Installed By: Axon Professional Services VEHICLE OVERVIEW SITE NAME CUSTOMER NAME Headquarters Bremerton PD Total Configured Vehicles Axon Camera Fleet Hub In-Car Router • 39 Total Vehicles with this Configuration Video Capture Sources • 78 • 1 Total Cameras Deployed Fleet Hub(s) Per Vehicle Mobile Data Terminal Per Vehicle • 1 Located In Each Vehicle Mobile Router Per Vehicle • 1 IBR900-1200M-B Offload Mechanism • 4G LTE Cellular Evidence Management System • Evidence.com SYSTEM CONFIGURATION DETAILS The following sections detail the configuration of the Axon Fleet In-Car System Vehicle Hardware Vehicle Hardware 2 Axon Fleet Cameras will be installed in each vehicle 1 Axon Fleet Hub will be installed in each vehicle 1 5-in-1 Antenna will be installed in each vehicle 1 3-in-1 Antenna will be installed in each vehicle 1 IBR900-1200M-B router will be installed in each vehicle Signal Activation Methods 5 Triggers will be configured per vehicle The following devices will be configured for Signal activation: Light-Bar, Gunlock, Crash, Speed, Siren. When triggered, the Axon Signal technology in the Fleet 3 Hub will activate the recording mechanism for all configured Axon cameras within Bluetooth range of the vehicle. Mobile Data Computer Each vehicle will be equipped with a Mobile Data Computer provided by the customer, which meets or exceeds the specifications provided by Axon. Mobile Data Computer Requirements Operating System: Windows 7 SP1 or Windows 10 (version 1909 or higher) - x32 or x64 with the most current service packs and updates Hard Drive: Must have 25GB+ of free disk space RAM/Memory: for x32: 4GB | for x64: 8GB or greater Ethernet Port: It is recommended that the MDC have one dedicated and available Ethernet port reserved for an Ethernet cable from router. The Ethernet port can be located on an electronic and stationary mobile docking station. If a docking station is used, it is the preferred location for the Ethernet port. Wi-Fi Card: If the MDC is not connected to the router via Ethernet LAN, a WiFi card is required in the MDC. In this case, the WiFi card should meet or exceed the router's minimum WiFi radio compatibility requirements. Additional Considerations The Cradlepoint router includes the antenna(s) and Cradlecare. For agencies that use a VPN, Axon traffic must be passed through; such that it does not use the VPN tunnel. Customer must provide IT and / or Admin resources at time of installation to ensure data routing if functional for Axon Fleet operation. In the event an Agency is unable to support the IT requirements associated with the installation, Axon reserves the right to charge the Agency for additional time associated with on -site work completed by an Axon Personnel. Hardware Provisioning Axon will provide the following router for all vehicles: IBR900-1200M-B The customer will provide an MDC for each vehicle. If the customer chooses to provide their own SIM, they must be activated and available at time of installation SIM Location SIM will be located in router and can be inserted in router by Cradlepoint if carrier is specified by agency. 4G / Cellular Offload Considerations Network Considerations The IBR900-1200M-B will be the connection which allows 4G upload of recorded video The customer will ensure that their cellular contract does not allow for data throttling, or service denial, once a set data threshold is met. Throttling or denial of service will negatively affect Fleet upload capabilities. Network Consideration Agreement Network Consideration Agreement Customer acknowledges the minimum requirements for the network to support this Statement of Work. Axon employees performing services under this SOW are CJIS certified. If the network provided by Customer does not meet the minimum requirements, or in the event of a requested change in scope of the project, a Change Order will be required and additional fees may apply. Additional fees would also apply if Axon is required to extend the installation time for reasons caused by the customer or the customer network accessibility. Professional Services & Training Project Management Axon will assign a Project Manager that will provide the expertise to execute a successful Fleet camera deployment and implementation. The Project Manager will have knowledge and experience with all phases of the project management lifecycle and with all application modules being implemented. He/she will work closely with the customer's project manager and project team members and will be responsible for completing the tasks required to meet all contract deliverables. Vehicle Installation Customer agrees to have the above mentioned number of intended vehicles available at the time of deployment. Axon will be performing the installation of all Axon Fleet vehicle hardware. Installation services included with Axon Fleet system include a “clip” and removal of existing in-car system hardware, if applicable. This does not include “full removal” of existing wiring. A “full removal” of all existing hardware and wiring is subject to additional fees. Axon provides basic Fleet operation overview to the customer lead and/or Admin at the time of install. o It is necessary to differentiate between the type of equipment removal to be provided by Axon. Standard Fleet Installation includes hardware removal in a fashion considered “Clip” which means Axon cuts the wires from the old system without removing multiple panels, removing all wiring and parts from the old system. In the case Axon removes the hardware Axon is not responsible for the surplus of hardware or any devices that may have been physically integrated with the removed system. In some situations, radar systems are integrated with the in-car video system and have a cable that connects to the system, if Axon removes the old in car system then Axon is not responsible for the radar system as part of the removal. o A “Rip” removal should be contracted through ProLogic directly. The Rip would be similar to a complete and full removal, which is more common when they retire a vehicle from service. Chosen installation site must have internet access for the Hub, through the router,and MDC for configuration and testing of Fleet 3. Customer must have a resource onsite during installation with Axon Evidence Device Administration permissions to assist with logging into customer MDCs and configuring vehicle software. Custom Trigger Installation The Fleet 3 Hub has multiple trigger configuration options. Any trigger configurations that include a door or magnetic door switch are considered “custom” and may be subject to additional fees. An Axon representative has discussed with the Agency the standard triggers of the Fleet System. Those no-cost triggers include Light-bar,Siren, Speed, Motion Activation and Gun-lock activation. The light-bar must have a controller to allow Axon to interface for the desired position, gun -locks must be installed with existing hardware in the vehicle. Doors are considered “CUSTOM” since they required additional hardware and time for installation, typically requiring the door may need to be taken apart for the installation. Training End-user go-live training provides individual device set up and configuration assistance, training on device use, Evidence.com and AXON Fleet Dashboard. This is included at no additional cost. No tes Tax is subject to change at order processing with valid exemption. Axon’s Sales Terms and Conditions This Quote is limited to and conditional upon your acceptance of the provisions set forth herein and Axon’s Master Services a nd Purchasing Agreement (posted at www.axon.com/legal/sales-terms-and-conditions), as well as the attached Statement of Work (SOW) for Axon Fleet and/or Axon Interview Room purchase, if applicable. Any purchase order issued in response to this Quote is subject solely to the above referenced t erms and conditions. By signing below, you represent that you are lawfully able to enter into contracts. If you are signing on behalf of an entity (i ncluding but not limited to the company, municipality, or government agency for whom you work), you represent to Axo n that you have legal authority to bind that entity. If you do not have this authority, please do not sign this Quote. Signature: Date: Name (Print): Title: PO# (Or write N/A): Thank you for being a valued Axon customer. For your convenience on your next order, please check out our online store buy.axon.com The trademarks referenced above are the property of their respective owners. ***Axon Internal Use Only*** SFDC Contract #: Order Type: RMA #: Address Used: SO #: Review 1 Review 2 Comments: Protect Life. Bremerton Police Dept. -WA ISSUED 3/12/2021 AXON SALES REPRESENTATIVE Robbie Taylor (480) 502-6274 rtaylor@axon.com Q-290737-44267.883RT 1 Payment Terms: Net 30 Delivery Method: Fedex -Ground Q-290737-44267.883RT Year 1 -Core Item Description Term (Months)Quantity List Unit Price Net Unit Price Total (USD) Axon Plans & Packages 20248 TASER 7 EVIDENCE.COM ACCESS LICENSE 60 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 73746 PROFESSIONAL EVIDENCE.COM LICENSE 60 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 73686 EVIDENCE.COM UNLIMITED AXON DEVICE STORAGE 60 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 73683 10 GB EVIDENCE.COM A-LA-CART STORAGE 60 150 0.00 0.00 0.00 20248 TASER 7 EVIDENCE.COM ACCESS LICENSE 60 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 20246 TASER 7 DUTY CARTRIDGE REPLACEMENT ACCESS LICENSE 60 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 73449 RESPOND DEVICE LICENSE 60 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 73682 AUTO TAGGING LICENSE 60 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 73746 PROFESSIONAL EVIDENCE.COM LICENSE 60 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 73686 EVIDENCE.COM UNLIMITED AXON DEVICE STORAGE 60 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 73683 10 GB EVIDENCE.COM A-LA-CART STORAGE 60 36 0.00 0.00 0.00 73449 RESPOND DEVICE LICENSE 60 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 73682 AUTO TAGGING LICENSE 60 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hardware 20160 TASER 7 HOLSTER -SAFARILAND, RH+CART CARRIER 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Issued: 03/12/2021 Quote Expiration: 06/15/2021 Account Number: 107761 Axon Enterprise, Inc. 17800 N 85th St. Scottsdale, Arizona 85255 United States Phone: (800) 978-2737 Protect Life. PRIMARY CONTACT Randy Plumb Phone: (360) 473-5974 Email: randy.plumb@ci.bremerton.wa.us BILL TO Bremerton Police Dept. -WA 1025 Burwell Street Bremerton, WA 98337 US SHIP TO Randy Plumb Bremerton Police Dept. -WA 1025 Burwell Street Bremerton, WA 98337 US SALES REPRESENTATIVE Robbie Taylor Phone: (480) 502-6274 Email: rtaylor@axon.com Fax: Q-290737-44267.883RT 2 Year 1 -Core (Continued) Item Description Term (Months)Quantity List Unit Price Net Unit Price Total (USD) Hardware (Continued) 75015 SIGNAL SIDEARM KIT 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 70112 AXON SIGNAL UNIT 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 20008 TASER 7 HANDLE, YLW, HIGH VISIBILITY (GREEN LASER), CLASS 3R 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 20040 TASER 7 HANDLE WARRANTY, 4-YEAR 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 22175 TASER 7 LIVE CARTRIDGE, STANDOFF (3.5- DEGREE) NS 150 0.00 0.00 0.00 22176 TASER 7 LIVE CARTRIDGE, CLOSE QUARTERS (12-DEGREE) NS 150 0.00 0.00 0.00 73202 AXON BODY 3 -NA10 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 71044 BATTERY, SIGNAL SIDEARM, CR2430 SINGLE PACK 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 70033 WALL MOUNT BRACKET, ASSY, EVIDENCE.COM DOCK 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 74210 AXON BODY 3 -8 BAY DOCK 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 22179 TASER 7 INERT CARTRIDGE, STANDOFF (3.5-DEGREE) NS 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 22181 TASER 7 INERT CARTRIDGE, CLOSE QUARTERS (12-DEGREE) NS 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 22175 TASER 7 LIVE CARTRIDGE, STANDOFF (3.5- DEGREE) NS 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 22176 TASER 7 LIVE CARTRIDGE, CLOSE QUARTERS (12-DEGREE) NS 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 22177 TASER 7 HOOK-AND-LOOP TRN (HALT) CARTRIDGE, STANDOFF NS 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 22178 TASER 7 HOOK-AND-LOOP TRN (HALT) CARTRIDGE, CLOSE QUART NS 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 20018 TASER 7 BATTERY PACK, TACTICAL 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 20041 TASER 7 BATTERY PACK WARRANTY, 4- YEAR 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 20042 TASER 7 DOCK & CORE WARRANTY, 4- YEAR 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 70033 WALL MOUNT BRACKET, ASSY, EVIDENCE.COM DOCK 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 74200 TASER 7 6-BAY DOCK AND CORE 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 11534 USB-C to USB-A CABLE FOR AB3 OR FLEX 2 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 20050 HOOK-AND-LOOP TRAINING (HALT) SUIT 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 80090 TARGET FRAME, PROFESSIONAL, 27.5 IN. X 75 IN., TASER 7 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protect Life.Q-290737-44267.883RT 3 Year 1 -Core (Continued) Item Description Term (Months)Quantity List Unit Price Net Unit Price Total (USD) Hardware (Continued) 74020 MAGNET MOUNT, FLEXIBLE, AXON RAPIDLOCK 55 0.00 0.00 0.00 73202 AXON BODY 3 -NA10 9 699.00 699.00 6,291.00 74210 AXON BODY 3 -8 BAY DOCK 1 1,495.00 1,495.00 1,495.00 70033 WALL MOUNT BRACKET, ASSY, EVIDENCE.COM DOCK 1 43.90 43.90 43.90 74020 MAGNET MOUNT, FLEXIBLE, AXON RAPIDLOCK 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 11534 USB-C to USB-A CABLE FOR AB3 OR FLEX 2 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other 20320 AXON CORE + PLAN WITH T7 CERT HEADER 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 20321 AXON CORE + PLAN WITH T7 CERT PAYMENT 12 50 1,908.00 1,908.00 95,400.00 73827 AB3 CAMERA TAP WARRANTY 60 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 73828 AB3 8 BAY DOCK TAP WARRANTY 60 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 71019 NORTH AMER POWER CORD FOR AB3 8- BAY, AB2 1-BAY / 6-BAY DOCK 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 20120 TASER 7 INSTRUCTOR COURSE VOUCHER 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 20119 TASER 7 MASTER INSTRUCTOR SCHOOL VOUCHER 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 80087 TASER 7 TARGET, CONDUCTIVE, PROFESSIONAL (RUGGEDIZED)1 0.00 0.00 0.00 73842 UNLIMITED EVIDENCE.COM TAP BUNDLE PAYMENT 12 9 1,068.00 1,068.00 9,612.00 73665 RESPOND DEVICE PAYMENT 12 9 60.00 60.00 540.00 73835 AUTO TAGGING LICENSE PAYMENT 12 9 108.00 108.00 972.00 73827 AB3 CAMERA TAP WARRANTY 60 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 73828 AB3 8 BAY DOCK TAP WARRANTY 60 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 71019 NORTH AMER POWER CORD FOR AB3 8- BAY, AB2 1-BAY / 6-BAY DOCK 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Services 80129 SIGNAL OR ROUTER ONLY INSTALLATION (PER VEHICLE)8 0.00 0.00 0.00 79999 AUTO TAGGING / PERFORMANCE IMPLEMENTATION SERVICE 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 85144 AXON STARTER 1 2,750.00 2,750.00 2,750.00 Protect Life.Q-290737-44267.883RT 4 Year 1 -Core (Continued) Item Description Term (Months)Quantity List Unit Price Net Unit Price Total (USD) Services (Continued) 79999 AUTO TAGGING / PERFORMANCE IMPLEMENTATION SERVICE 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal 117,103.90 Estimated Shipping 0.00 Estimated Tax 10,539.37 Total 127,643.27 Year 1 -Fleet Item Description Term (Months)Quantity List Unit Price Net Unit Price Total (USD) Axon Plans & Packages 80410 FLEET, EVIDENCE LICENSE, 1 CAMERA STORAGE, ACCESS 60 78 0.00 0.00 0.00 80400 FLEET, VEHICLE LICENSE, ACCESS 60 39 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hardware 72036 FLEET 3 STANDARD 2 CAMERA KIT 39 0.00 0.00 0.00 80486 EXT WARRANTY, FLEET 3, 2 CAMERA KIT, 4 YEARS 39 0.00 0.00 0.00 11634 CRADLEPOINT IBR900-1200M-B-NPS+5YR NETCLOUD 39 0.00 0.00 0.00 71200 FLEET ANT, AIRGAIN, 5-IN-1, 2LTE, 2WIFI, 1GNSS, BL 39 0.00 0.00 0.00 74110 FLEET ETHERNET CABLE, CAT6, 25 FT 39 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other 73391 FLEET 3 NEW INSTALLATION (PER VEHICLE)39 0.00 0.00 0.00 80457 FLEET 3 BASIC PAYMENT 12 39 1,548.00 1,330.98 51,908.22 Subtotal 51,908.22 Estimated Tax 4,671.74 Total 56,579.96 Spares -BWC Item Description Term (Months)Quantity List Unit Price Net Unit Price Total (USD) Hardware 20008 TASER 7 HANDLE, YLW, HIGH VISIBILITY (GREEN LASER), CLASS 3R 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 73202 AXON BODY 3 -NA10 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 20040 TASER 7 HANDLE WARRANTY, 4-YEAR 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 74028 WING CLIP MOUNT, AXON RAPIDLOCK 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protect Life.Q-290737-44267.883RT 5 Spares -BWC (Continued) Item Description Term (Months)Quantity List Unit Price Net Unit Price Total (USD) Hardware (Continued) 11534 USB-C to USB-A CABLE FOR AB3 OR FLEX 2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other 73827 AB3 CAMERA TAP WARRANTY 60 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal 0.00 Estimated Tax 0.00 Total 0.00 Year 2 Item Description Term (Months)Quantity List Unit Price Net Unit Price Total (USD) Hardware 22175 TASER 7 LIVE CARTRIDGE, STANDOFF (3.5- DEGREE) NS 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 22176 TASER 7 LIVE CARTRIDGE, CLOSE QUARTERS (12-DEGREE) NS 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other 20321 AXON CORE + PLAN WITH T7 CERT PAYMENT 12 50 1,908.00 1,908.00 95,400.00 20119 TASER 7 MASTER INSTRUCTOR SCHOOL VOUCHER 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 20120 TASER 7 INSTRUCTOR COURSE VOUCHER 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 80457 FLEET 3 BASIC PAYMENT 12 39 1,548.00 1,548.00 60,372.00 73835 AUTO TAGGING LICENSE PAYMENT 12 9 108.00 108.00 972.00 73665 RESPOND DEVICE PAYMENT 12 9 60.00 60.00 540.00 73842 UNLIMITED EVIDENCE.COM TAP BUNDLE PAYMENT 12 9 1,068.00 1,303.13 11,728.17 Subtotal 169,012.17 Estimated Tax 15,211.09 Total 184,223.26 Year 3 Item Description Term (Months)Quantity List Unit Price Net Unit Price Total (USD) Hardware 22175 TASER 7 LIVE CARTRIDGE, STANDOFF (3.5- DEGREE) NS 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 22176 TASER 7 LIVE CARTRIDGE, CLOSE QUARTERS (12-DEGREE) NS 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protect Life.Q-290737-44267.883RT 6 Year 3 (Continued) Item Description Term (Months)Quantity List Unit Price Net Unit Price Total (USD) Hardware (Continued) 22177 TASER 7 HOOK-AND-LOOP TRN (HALT) CARTRIDGE, STANDOFF NS 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 22178 TASER 7 HOOK-AND-LOOP TRN (HALT) CARTRIDGE, CLOSE QUART NS 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other 73309 AXON CAMERA REFRESH ONE 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 20321 AXON CORE + PLAN WITH T7 CERT PAYMENT 12 50 1,908.00 1,908.00 95,400.00 73689 MULTI-BAY BWC DOCK 1ST REFRESH 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 20119 TASER 7 MASTER INSTRUCTOR SCHOOL VOUCHER 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 73309 AXON CAMERA REFRESH ONE 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 20120 TASER 7 INSTRUCTOR COURSE VOUCHER 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 80457 FLEET 3 BASIC PAYMENT 12 39 1,548.00 1,548.00 60,372.00 73835 AUTO TAGGING LICENSE PAYMENT 12 9 108.00 108.00 972.00 73665 RESPOND DEVICE PAYMENT 12 9 60.00 60.00 540.00 73842 UNLIMITED EVIDENCE.COM TAP BUNDLE PAYMENT 12 9 1,068.00 1,303.13 11,728.17 73309 AXON CAMERA REFRESH ONE 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 73689 MULTI-BAY BWC DOCK 1ST REFRESH 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal 169,012.17 Estimated Tax 15,211.09 Total 184,223.26 Year 4 Item Description Term (Months)Quantity List Unit Price Net Unit Price Total (USD) Hardware 22175 TASER 7 LIVE CARTRIDGE, STANDOFF (3.5- DEGREE) NS 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 22176 TASER 7 LIVE CARTRIDGE, CLOSE QUARTERS (12-DEGREE) NS 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other 20321 AXON CORE + PLAN WITH T7 CERT PAYMENT 12 50 1,908.00 1,908.00 95,400.00 20119 TASER 7 MASTER INSTRUCTOR SCHOOL VOUCHER 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 20120 TASER 7 INSTRUCTOR COURSE VOUCHER 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 80457 FLEET 3 BASIC PAYMENT 12 39 1,548.00 1,548.00 60,372.00 Protect Life.Q-290737-44267.883RT 7 Year 4 (Continued) Item Description Term (Months)Quantity List Unit Price Net Unit Price Total (USD) Other (Continued) 73835 AUTO TAGGING LICENSE PAYMENT 12 9 108.00 108.00 972.00 73665 RESPOND DEVICE PAYMENT 12 9 60.00 60.00 540.00 73842 UNLIMITED EVIDENCE.COM TAP BUNDLE PAYMENT 12 9 1,068.00 1,303.13 11,728.17 Subtotal 169,012.17 Estimated Tax 15,211.09 Total 184,223.26 Year 5 Item Description Term (Months)Quantity List Unit Price Net Unit Price Total (USD) Hardware 22175 TASER 7 LIVE CARTRIDGE, STANDOFF (3.5- DEGREE) NS 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 22176 TASER 7 LIVE CARTRIDGE, CLOSE QUARTERS (12-DEGREE) NS 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other 73310 AXON CAMERA REFRESH TWO 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 20321 AXON CORE + PLAN WITH T7 CERT PAYMENT 12 50 1,908.00 1,908.00 95,400.00 73688 MULTI-BAY BWC DOCK 2ND REFRESH 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 20119 TASER 7 MASTER INSTRUCTOR SCHOOL VOUCHER 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 73310 AXON CAMERA REFRESH TWO 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 20120 TASER 7 INSTRUCTOR COURSE VOUCHER 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 80457 FLEET 3 BASIC PAYMENT 12 39 1,548.00 1,548.00 60,372.00 73835 AUTO TAGGING LICENSE PAYMENT 12 9 108.00 108.00 972.00 73665 RESPOND DEVICE PAYMENT 12 9 60.00 60.00 540.00 73842 UNLIMITED EVIDENCE.COM TAP BUNDLE PAYMENT 12 9 1,068.00 1,303.13 11,728.17 73310 AXON CAMERA REFRESH TWO 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 73688 MULTI-BAY BWC DOCK 2ND REFRESH 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal 169,012.17 Estimated Tax 15,211.09 Total 184,223.26 Grand Total 921,116.27 Protect Life.Q-290737-44267.883RT 8 Summary of Payments Payment Amount (USD) Year 1 -Core 127,643.27 Year 1 -Fleet 56,579.96 Spares -BWC 0.00 Year 2 184,223.26 Year 3 184,223.26 Year 4 184,223.26 Year 5 184,223.26 Grand Total 921,116.27 Protect Life.Q-290737-44267.883RT 9 Notes NASPO Contract No. OK-MA-145-015 used for pricing and purchasing justification Purchase of TASER 7 are governed by the TASER 7 Agreement located at https://www.axon.com/legal/sales-terms-and-conditions and not the Master Services and Purchasing Agreement referenced below. Tax is subject to change at order processing with valid exemption. Axon’s Sales Terms and Conditions This Quote is limited to and conditional upon your acceptance of the provisions set forth herein and Axon’s Master Services and Purchasing Agreement (posted at www.axon.com/legal/sales-terms-and-conditions), as well as the attached Statement of Work (SOW) for Axon Fleet and/or Axon Interview Room purchase, if applicable.Any purchase order issued in response to this Quote is subject solely to the above referenced terms and conditions. By signing below, you represent that you are lawfully able to enter into contracts. If you are signing on behalf of an entity (i ncluding but not limited to the company, municipality, or government agency for whom you work), you represent to Axon that you have legal authority to bind t hat entity. If you do not have this authority, please do not sign this Quote. Signature:CustSIG Date:CustDate Name (Print):CustName Title:CustTitle PO# (Or write N/A):CustPo Please sign and email to Robbie Taylor at rtaylor@axon.com or fax to Thank you for being a valued Axon customer. For your convenience on your next order, please check out our online store buy.axon.com The trademarks referenced above are the property of their respective owners. Protect Life.Q-290737-44267.883RT 10 ***Axon Internal Use Only*** Review 1 Review 2 SFDC Contract #: Order Type: RMA #: Address Used: SO #: Comments: Protect Life.Q-290737-44267.883RT 11 Bremerton Police Dept. -WA What is the contact name and phone number for this shipment? What are your receiving hours? (Monday-Friday) Is a dock available for this incoming shipment? Are there any delivery restrictions? (no box trucks, etc.) AT T E N T I O N This order may qualify for freight shipping, please fill out the following information. AMENDED AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: April 14, 2021 Ordinance No. 5420 to repeal and replace Chapter 6.32 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Noise Levels” COUNCIL MEETING Date: April 21, 2021 Department: Police Presenter: Jim Burchett Phone: 360.473.5225 SUMMARY: The World Health Organization advises that environmental noise pollution is responsible for a range of health affects including increased risk of ischemic heart disease as well as sleep disturbance, cognitive impairment among children, annoyance, stress-related mental health risks and tinnitus. Recognizing these risks and within the limits established by the First Amendment, recommend Chapter 6.32 be amended to address the problem of noise pollution. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Revision of BMC Chapter 6.32 – Noise Levels. Ordinance No. 5420 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Undetermined at this time – training and equipment. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☒ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the amendment to BMC Chapter 6.32, Noise Levels; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the amendment with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 6E Pulled Page 1 of 9 Chapter 6.32 – Noise Levels ORDINANCE NO. 5420 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Chapter 6.32 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Noise Levels.” WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend and update Chapter 6.32 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, relating to noise levels; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 6.32 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Noise Levels" is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 6.32 NOISE LEVELS 6.32.010 POLICY AND APPLICATION. (a)It is the policy of the City to minimize the exposure of citizens to the physiological and psychological effects of excessive noise and to protect, promote and preserve the public health, safety and welfare. It is the express intent of the City Council to control the level of noise in a manner which promotes commerce; the use, value and enjoyment of property; sleep and repose; and the quality of the environment. (b)The following environments have been identified and approaches adopted: (1)Use of property. The different zoning districts of the City establish lawful uses which can be anticipated to produce noise at certain reasonable levels associated with these uses. The provisions of BMC 6.32.030 utilize thresholds consistent with those set forth in Chapter 70.107 RCW entitled “Noise Control” and Chapter 173-60 WAC entitled “Maximum Environmental Noise Levels” and recognizing that decibel intervals are increased exponentially with each ten MHz of noise generation. The use of property is better suited to the use of noise measuring devices because use is consistent and can be measured at the property line from the property of the complainant. Intermittent noises and noise generated for the purpose of annoyance is more sporadic in nature and requires a different approach. The provisions of BMC 6.32.050 entitled “Public Disturbance Noises” are aimed at those situations which are difficult or impossible to address through measurement pursuant to BMC 6.32.030 entitled “Environmental Sound – Maximum Permissible Levels”. In administering and enforcing the provisions of this chapter, the City desires to coordinate the application of these two approaches. The content of the speech shall not be considered against any person in determining a violation of this Chapter. (2)Similarly, public uses of the rights-of-way, such as parades, and First Amendment speech such as a lawful demonstration should be differentiated from pure commercial speech. Pure commercial speech has been defined by the US Supreme Court as speech “which does no more than propose a commercial transaction.” Such speech while protected is susceptible of regulation provided that the City address the legitimate public concern of noise pollution in a thoughtful and targeted manner. Page 2 of 9 Chapter 6.32 – Noise Levels (3) Finally, the City recognizes that the use of bells, chimes and carillons may constitute a call to worship and accordingly such a use is protected as religious speech under the First Amendment. In addition, the historic use of a carillon by the City of Bremerton is an established historical use appropriate within the zone in which it is located. These noises are appropriate when limited by reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. (c) The provisions of this chapter shall be administered and enforced by the Administrator defined in BMC 6.32.020(a) below. 6.32.010020 DEFINITIONS. All technical terminology used in this chapter not defined herein shall be interpreted in conformance with American National Standards Institute Specifications, Sections 1.1-1960 and 1.4-1971. For purposes of this chapter, the words and phrases used herein shall have the meaning indicated below: (a) "Administrator" means the Chief of Police or the Director of the Department of Community Development, Mayor of the City of Bremerton, or his or her designee as applicable, or his or her designee. (b) "db(A)" means a sound level, measured in decibels, using the A frequency- weighting network of a sound-level meter. (c) “City” means City of Bremerton. (cd) "District" means the land use zones to which the provisions of this chapter apply. For the purposes of this chapter, the following noise control districts shall be established, which include land use zones designated in the Bremerton zoning and subarea plan ordinances, as follows: Noise Control District Land Use Zones (pursuant to BMC Title 20 and Subarea Plans) District I R-10, R-10M18, R-2040, East Park Subarea Plan (SAP) District II NB, BC, DCC, DW, DC, EC, INST, GC, Bay Vista SAP, Downtown SAP, Gorst SAP, Eastside Village SAP District III I, CUL, WS, FC, PSIC SAP (de) "Emergency work" means: (1) Work made necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public emergency consistent with BMC Chapter 2.26. calamity; (2) Work required to protect persons or property from imminent exposure to danger; or (3) Work by private or public utilities for providing or restoring immediately necessary utility service. (f) “Enforcement Officer” means the Administrator or a city, county or state law enforcement officer, City code enforcement officer or other official designated or authorized by the Administrator to enforce the provisions of this chapter. Page 3 of 9 Chapter 6.32 – Noise Levels (g) “Impulsive sound” means sound having the following qualities: the peak of the sound level is less than one (1) second and short compared to the occurrence rate; the onset is abrupt; the decay rapid; and the peak value exceeds the ambient level by more than ten (10) dB(A). (h) “Leq” means the equivalent sound level, which is the constant sound level in a given time period that conveys the same sound energy as the actual time-varying A-weighted sound. The applicable time period for the Leq must be specified. (i) “Lmax” means the maximum sound level over a measurement interval determined by using a sound level meter set to “Fast” response time. (ej) "Motorcycle" means any motor vehicle having a saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three (3) wheels in contact with the ground, except farm tractors and such vehicles powered by an engine of less than five (5) horsepower. (fk) "Motor vehicle" means any vehicle which is self-propelled, used primarily for transporting persons or property upon public highways, and required to be licensed under RCW 46.16.010 or a motorized transportation device as defined in BMC 10.13.010. (Aircraft, watercraft, and vehicles used on rails or tracks are not motor vehicles as that term is used herein.) (gl) "Noise" means the intensity, duration and character of sounds from any and all sources. The terms “noise” and “sound” can be used interchangeably for purposes of this chapter. (hm) "Person" means any natural person,individual firm, association, partnership, corporation or any other entity, public or private. (i) "Police officer" means a duly appointed city, county or State law enforcement officer. (jn) "Property boundary" means the survey line at ground surface which separates real property owned, rented or leased by one or more other persons and its vertical extension. (ko) "Receiving property" means real property within which sound originating from sources outside the property is received. (p) “Sound” means vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and are audible to the human ear. The terms “sound” and “noise” can be used interchangeably for purposes of this chapter. (lq) "Sound level" means a weighted sound pressure level obtained by the use of a sound level meter and weighted as specified in American National Standards Institute Specifications (ANSI), Section 1.4-19711983, as it now exists or is hereafter amended.. (mr) "Sound level meter" means a sound-level measuring device, either Type I or Type II, as defined by American National Standards Institute Specifications, Section 1.4-19711983, as it now exists or as hereafter amended.. (ns) "Weekend" means Saturday and Sunday or any legal holiday. 6.32.040030 ENVIRONMENTAL SOUND – MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE LEVELS. (a) It is unlawful for any person to cause or permit noise from any source located within the City of Bremerton to intrude into the property of another which exceeds the maximum or permissible exterior noise level limits set forth below: Page 4 of 9 Chapter 6.32 – Noise Levels TABLE I – Exterior noise level limits District of Sound Source District Receiving Property Within the City of Bremerton I II III I 55 dB(A) 57 dB(A) 60 dB(A) II 57 dB(A) 60 dB(A) 65 dB(A) III 60 dB(A) 65 dB(A) 70 dB(A) (b) The exterior noise level limits are based on the Leq, as defined in BMC 6.32.020, during the measurement interval, using a minimum interval of one (1) minute for a constant sound source, or a one-hour measurement for a non-continuous sound source. The standard of measurement shall be a one hour Leq. Leq may be measured for times not less than one (1) minute to project an hourly Leq. (1) During a measurement interval, Lmax, as defined in BMC 6.32.020, may exceed the exterior sound level limits shown in Table I by no more than 15 dB(A). (2) For any source of sound that is impulsive, as defined in BMC 6.32.020, and not measured with an impulse sound level meter, the exterior sound level limits established by Table I are reduced by 5 dB(A). (bc) Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the noise limitations of the foregoing table shall be reduced by ten (10) dBA for receiving property within District I and District II. (cd) At any hour of the day or night the applicable noise limitations in (a) and (bc) above may not be exceeded for any receiving property. by no more than: (1) Five (5) dBA for a total of fifteen (15) minutes in any one (1) hour period; or (2) Ten (10) dBA for a total of five (5) minutes in any one (1) hour period; or (3) Fifteen (15) dBA for a total of one and one-half (1.5) minutes in any one (1) hour period. (de) Exemptions. (1) The following shall be exempt from the provisions of subsections (a) and (bc) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.: i. Sounds originating from residential property relating to temporary projects for the maintenance or repair of homes, grounds and appurtenances. ii. Sounds created by the discharge of firearms on authorized shooting ranges. iii. Sounds created by blasting conducted in compliance with WAC 296-52- 64005. iv. Sounds created by aircraft engine testing and maintenance not related to flight operations; provided, that aircraft testing and maintenance shall be conducted at remote sites whenever possible. v. Sounds created by the installation or repair of essential utility services. Page 5 of 9 Chapter 6.32 – Noise Levels (2) The following shall be exempt from the provisions of subsection (cb). i. Noise from electrical substations and existing stationary equipment used in the conveyance of water, waste waterwastewater, and natural gas by a utility. ii. Noise from existing industrial installations which exceed the standards contained in these regulations but which comply with or are authorized by the State Department of Ecology pursuant to Chapter 70.107 RCW entitled “Noise Control”, Chapter 173-58 WAC entitled “Sound Level Measurement Procedures” and Chapter 173-60 WAC entitled “Maximum Environmental Noise Levels”.and which, over the previous three years, have consistently operated in excess of fifteen (15) hours per day as a consequence of process necessity and/or demonstrated routine normal operation. Changes in working hours, which would affect exemptions under this regulation, require approval of the State Department of Ecology. (3) The following shall be exempt from the provisions of subsections (a) and (cb), except insofar as such provisions relate to the reception of noise within District I and District II between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. i. Sounds originating from duly permitted temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity. ii. Sounds originating from forest harvesting and silvicultural activity. (4) The following shall be exempt from all provisions of subsections (a) and (cb): i. Sounds created by motor vehicles when regulated by Chapter 173- 62 WAC. ii. Sounds originating from aircraft in flight and sounds that originate at airports which are directly related to flight operations. iii. Sounds created by surface carriers engaged in interstate commerce by railroad. iv. Sounds created by warning devices not operating continuously for more than five (5) minutes, or bells, chimes, and carillons which do not exceed five (5) minutes in an hour when operated between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. v. Sounds created by safety and protective devices where noise suppression would defeat the intent of the device or is not economically feasible. vi. Sounds created by emergency equipment and work necessary in the interests of law enforcement or for health safety or welfare of the community. vii. Sounds originating from motor vehicle racing events at existing authorized facilities. viii. Sounds originating from officially sanctioned parades and other public events when duly permitted and conducted within the public right-of-way or on a site designated by the applicable permit. ix. Sounds emitted from petroleum refinery boilers during start-up of said boilers; provided, that the start-up operation is performed during daytime hours whenever possible. x. Sounds created by watercraft. xi. Sound created by the discharge of firearms in the course of hunting. ix. xii. Sounds created by motor vehicles, licensed or unlicensed, when operated off public highways except when such sounds are received in District I and District II. x. Fireworks lawfully discharged within the City pursuant to Chapter 9.48 BMC. Page 6 of 9 Chapter 6.32 – Noise Levels 6.32.050040 MEASUREMENT OF SOUND. (a) If the measurements of sound are made with a sound-level meter, it shall be an instrument in good operating condition meeting the requirements for a Type I or Type II instrument, as delineated in American National Standards Institute Specifications (ANSI), Section 1.4-19711983, as it now exists or is hereafter amended.. If the measurements are made with other instruments, or assemblages of instruments, the procedure must be carried out in such a manner that the overall accuracy shall be at least that called for in Section 1.4-1971 1983 ANSI for Type II instruments. (b) When the location, distance or technique for measurement of sound is impractical or would yield misleading or inaccurate results, measurements shall be taken at other locations or distances utilizing appropriate correction factors, as specified in the rules promulgated by the Administrator. (c) Where a receiving party is partly within one (1) district and partly within another, the maximum permissible noise level at a point within the property boundary shall be that permitted into a receiving property wholly within the lowest intensity district in which the sound is measured. 6.32.060 POSITION OF ADMINISTRATOR ESTABLISHED. (a) Establishment. The position of administrator is hereby established, and shall be the mayor, or his or her designee. The administrator is authorized and directed to administer and enforce the provisions of this chapter. (b) Qualifications of Administrator. The administrator shall be a person having a working knowledge of acoustics and competent in the field of noise control. The administrator shall have completed instructional guidance provided by the State Department of Ecology or other recognized institution to operate Type I and Type II sound-level meters, and make all computations and calculations necessary to enforce this chapter. (c) Duties of Administrator. The duties of the administrator shall include, but are not limited to: (1) Obtaining assistance from other appropriate city departments and officials; (2) Training law enforcement officers and staff; (3) Purchasing measuring instruments and training inspectors in their calibration and use; (4) Establishing a noise-control field procedures manual providing techniques and procedures for measuring or reducing noise to provide for clarification, interpretation and implementation of this chapter; (5) Investigating citizens’ noise complaint; (6) Issuing orders for the reduction or elimination of noise; (7) Assisting citizens and city departments in evaluating and reducing the noise impact of their activities; (8) Assisting city planning officials in evaluating the noise component in planning and zoning actions; (9) Instituting a public education program on noise; and (10) Reviewing at least every three years the provisions of this chapter and recommending revisions consistent with technology to reduce noise. Page 7 of 9 Chapter 6.32 – Noise Levels 6.32.070 VARIANCE PROCEDURE. (a) A person who owns or is in possession of any property or use, or any process or equipment, may make a request for a variance to the Administrative Hearing Examiner for relief from any provision of this chapter governing the quality, nature, duration or extent of discharge or noise. The application shall be accompanied by such information and data as the Hearing Examiner may require. The Hearing Examiner shall enforce rules and regulations governing the application for and granting of variances, including hearing and notices. A variance or its renewal shall not be the right of the applicant or holder thereof, but shall be at the reasonable discretion of the Hearing Examiner. (b) The variance shall not be granted under this section unless the Hearing Examiner has considered the relevant interests of the applicant, other owners of property likely to be affected, and the general public and finds that all the following facts and conditions exist: (1) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the applicant’s property, or intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties in the same noise control district; (2) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial personal or property right of the applicants possessed by the owners of other properties in the same noise control district; (3) That the authorization of such variance does not endanger public health or safety in the same or adjacent noise control districts; (4) That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the general policy and purposes of this chapter. (c) In authorizing a variance, conditions regarding noise level, duration, type and other considerations deemed necessary to carry out the policy and purpose of this chapter may be imposed. 6.32.090 APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner must be filed with the Superior Court within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the issuance of the decision. 6.32.110050 PUBLIC DISTURBANCE NOISES It is hereby unlawful and declared a public nuisance for any person to cause, or for any person in possession of property to allow to originate from the property, noise defined in this section. For prosecution under this section, evidence of sound level through the use of a sound level meter reading shall not be necessary to establish a commission of the offense. Provisions of this section shall be cumulative and not exclusive, and shall not affect any other claim, cause of action or remedy including any prosecution for violation of sections regulating environmental noise. The content of the noise will not be considered in determining a violation. For purposes of this section, any noise or sound emanating from a business or other source on the property shall be presumed to be with knowledge, permission or consent of the owner or legal occupant of the property, which presumption may be rebutted by reasonable evidence to the contrary. The following shall be public disturbance noises: (a) The frequent, repetitive or continuance sound of any horn or siren attached to a motor vehicle, except as a warning of danger or as specifically permitted or required by law. (ba) The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous noise in connection with the starting, operation, repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, off-highway vehicle or internal combustion engine within District I and District II so as to unreasonably Page 8 of 9 Chapter 6.32 – Noise Levels disturb or interfere with the peace, comfort and repose of owners or possessors of real property so as to be audible greater than one hundred (100) feet from the source. (cb) The use of a sound amplifier or other device capable of producing or reproducing amplified sound upon public streets for the purpose of commercial advertising or sales or for attracting the attention of the public to any vehicle, structure or property or the contents therein operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than one hundred (100) feet from the source, except as permitted by law, and except that vendors whose sole method of selling is from a moving vehicle shall be exempt from this subsection. (dc) Sound from motor vehicle sound systems, such as tape players, radios, and compact disc players, operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than fiftyone hundred (50100) feet from the vehicle itself. (ed) Operating or playing, or permitting the operating or playing of, any audio equipment, television set, musical instrument, or any sound, music or other noise emanating from any other fixed or portable audio equipment or similar device, operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than one hundred (100) feet from the source.Sound from audio equipment, such as tape players, radios, and compact disc players, operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than fifty (50) feet from the source. (e) Creating loud, raucous, frequent, repetitive, or continuous sounds with the human voice, whether by amplification equipment, such as a microphone, or not, so as to be audible greater than one hundred (100) feet from the source. (f) The creation of any loud noises which emanate frequently, or repetitively or continuously from any building, structure or property which unreasonably disturbs the peace, comfort and repose of others so as to be audible greater than one hundred (100) feet from the source.. (g) Any noise exempted by BMC 6.32.030 shall be exempt from the provisions of BMC 6.32.050 pursuant to the conditions and terms creating the exemption set forth in BMC 6.32.030. 6.32.115 BELLS, CHIMES OR CORILLONS. The operation of bells, chimes or carillons shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter. 6.32.120060 VIOLATIONS – CIVIL PENALTY, CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) Civil Infraction. Any person who violates the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $250.00; provided, that the penalty for a second or subsequent violation within a two-year period shall be a civil penalty of up to $500.00, unless determined to be a habitual violator pursuant to Subsection (b) below.Every offense defined by this chapter or conduct made unlawful hereby shall constitute a civil infraction under the Bremerton Municipal Code; provided, however, A second violation within a twenty-four (24) hour period shall constitute a misdemeanor. (b) Habitual Violators – Misdemeanor. Any person, after receiving three (3) or more infractions, singularly or in combination, for prior violations of this chapter within a one hundred and eighty (180) day period found to be committed by the Municipal Court shall be guilty of a misdemeanor pursuant to BMC 1.12.020(2) upon a subsequent violation within said one hundred and eighty (180) day period. A conviction of a misdemeanor under this subsection shall be considered and counted as an infraction for the purpose of determining whether or not a violator is a habitual violator. In addition to any other sanction or injunctive procedure which may be available at law or equity, any person failing to comply with the final order issued by the Page 9 of 9 Chapter 6.32 – Noise Levels administrator or a police officer shall be subject to a cumulative civil penalty in an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) per day from the date set for compliance until compliance. The civil penalty shall be collected by legal action brought in the name of the City. (c) For enforcement purposes, each day, defined as a twenty-four (24) hour period beginning at 12:01 a.m. in which violation of this chapter occurs, shall constitute a separate violation. SECTION 2. Corrections. The City Clerk and codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener, clerical, typographical, and spelling errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of ____________________, 2021. _________________________________ KEVIN GORMAN, Council President Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2021. _________________________________ GREG WHEELER, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ _________________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2021. EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2021. ORDINANCE NO. ________. R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Police\BMC 6.32 - Noise Levels - City version 15 - 4.16.21 - Final.docx