agenda - olympiawa.govolympiawa.gov/.../cpd/smp/2011/110919binderopcregagstffinalmins091911.pdf ·...

Members Roger Horn, Chair Amy Tousley, Vice Chair Mark Derricott Paul Ingman Carol Law Larry Leveen Tom Muller James Reddick Rob Richards Jeanne Marie Thomas Richard Wolf

Planning Commission Meeting Monday, September 19, 2011

City Hall, Room 207 601 4th Avenue East, Olympia

AGENDA

1. Call to Order 6:30 p.m.

A. Roll Call B. Acceptance of Agenda C. Announcements D. Approval of Minutes:

• Regular Meeting: August 29, 2011, August 15, 2011 (pg 10, for correction) • SMP Committee: August 17, 2011 • CPU Committee: August 22, 2011 • Finance Committee: August 24, 2011; September 7, 2011;

September 12, 2011

2. Public Communications (for items not on the agenda) 6:40 p.m. 3. Deliberation – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) 6:50 p.m. 4. Deliberation – Shoreline Master Program Update: 7:30 p.m. - Chapter 6, Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations - Setbacks - Review Revisions to Chapter 1, General Provisions - Review Revisions to Chapter 3, Administration Cari Hornbein, Senior Planner

5. Committee Reports 9:20 p.m. - Comprehensive Plan Update (CPU) - Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update - Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) 6. Evaluation of Meeting/Other Thoughts 9:25 p.m. 7. Adjournment 9:30 p.m. Enclosures: Draft Planning Commission Comment Letter on CFP Public Comments received regarding CFP, from:

• Bob Jacobs • Thomas Holz • Karen Messmer

Advisory Committee letters of recommendation regarding CFP, from: • Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee (PRAC) • Utility Advisory Committee (UAC)

Staff Report – Shoreline Master Program Update Regular Meeting Draft Minutes: 8/29/11; 8/15/11 (pg 10, for correction) SMP Minutes: 8/17/11 CPU Minutes: 8/22/11 Finance Sub-Committee Minutes: 8/24/11; 9/7/11; 9/12/11 City Council Minutes: 8/15/11 2011 Work Schedule Upcoming Meetings: September 21 – SMP

• Chapter 5, General Policies, and Regulations September 27 – City Council Meeting

• Water and Wastewater Code Amendments - First Reading October 3, 2011 – Regular Meeting

• Public Hearing – Olympia School District CFP • Deliberations – CFP • SMP Update, Table 6.2A, Chapter 2

October 5, 2011 – SMP • SMP Update, Table 6.2B

October 10, 2011 – CPU • Policy work session – 1) Neighborhood and Small Area Plans, and 2) Neighborhood

Planning: Urban Agriculture, Infill Development, Commercial Businesses in Residential Areas, and Neighborhood-Based Business (“Third Places”)

October 18 – City Council Meeting • Public Hearing on CPF

October 25 – City Council Meeting • Study Session on CFP

Planning Commission Deliberation Process

Purpose: This process is intended to provide a general framework to guide the Planning Commission in its decision-making but is not intended to be overly rigid. Deviations to this process may occur from time to time.

Step 1 Information phase - Gather information regarding the proposal:

• Staff presentation and Q&A on the proposal,

• Gather information from the public through public testimony (if appropriate),

• Close public testimony,

• Staff follow-up on questions generated from public testimony or staff report.

Step 2 Discussion phase - Potential effects of proposal – both positive and negative: • Start with a free form discussion and evaluation of proposal- both pros and cons,

• Weigh policy/code change against Comprehensive Plan policies and goals,

• Following free form discussion, formally go around the table and have each commission member state their position on the proposal (~2 minutes each),

• Follow-up among commission members – Q&A on viewpoints,

• Request staff to provide their perspective on any issues raised (as appropriate),

• Close discussion phase. Step 3 Decision phase - Formulate a recommendation:

• Chair will begin with a restatement of the staff recommendation.

• Is there a motion to approve policy as presented by staff? If yes, motion is made and vote is taken. If motion succeeds, recommendation is made.

• If no motion to recommend as presented by staff or if motion fails, is there an alternate recommendation? If yes, open floor to discussion of motion. Discussion should generally follow format in Step 2. Commission should consider if motion is significantly different from the original proposal, and if so, whether additional public testimony should be taken. Repeat this process as necessary to develop a recommendation.

• Successful motion will generally be captured in the minutes and transmitted to the Council in this manner. Where desired by the majority, a recommendation may be forwarded in letter format.

• Provide opportunity for dissenting opinions to be stated – minority report.

• If no motion is successful, deliberation ends and no recommendation is made.

The listed times for each agenda item are approximate only. If you need special accommodations to participate in this meeting, call (360) 753-8314 by 10:00 a.m. three days prior to the meeting

and ask for the ADA Coordinator.

Hearing-impaired individuals may call the Washington State Relay Service by dialing 711 or 1-800-833-6384 and ask to be connected to the phone number listed

above, or call the City of Olympia’s TTY phone number at (360) 753-8270.

COUNCIL STUDY SESSION

COMMITTEE DATE_________

AGENDA ITEM ________

Shoreline Master Program Update – Staff Report Page 1 of 3

OLYMPIA PLANNING COMMISSION Olympia, Washington September 19, 2011

Shoreline Master Program Update

Deliberations DIRECTOR’S Conduct deliberations on the Draft Shoreline Master Program RECOMMENDATION: with emphasis on Chapter 6, Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations (Table 6.2B-Shoreline Setbacks). Review revisions to Chapter 1, General Provisions, and Chapter 3, Administration. STAFF CONTACT: Cari Hornbein, Senior Planner

Community Planning and Development, 360.753.8048 ORIGINATED BY: Community Planning and Development PRESENTERS AND OTHERS NOTIFIED: Cari Hornbein, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Summary Table: SMP Committee Recommendations for Shoreline Setbacks 2. Excerpt from WAC 173-26 3. Consultant/Staff Responses to OPC Questions A. Examples/Information on Restoration and Enhancement B. Armor Removal or Modification 4. Revised Chapter 1, General Provisions 5. Revised Chapter 3, Administration BUDGET IMPACT/ SOURCE OF FUNDS: NA PRIOR PLANNING COMMISSION/PUBLIC REVIEW: - Planning Commission Briefing – overview and schedule of Shoreline Master Program Update on January 4, 2010

- Series of public meetings on January 14, January 21, February 10, and February 24, 2010

- Series of Planning Commission Shoreline Committee meetings between March and September 2010

- Planning Commission Briefings on April 19, May 3, May 17, June 21, October 18, and November 1, 2010

- Public hearings on November 15, 2010, and January 10, 2011 - Deliberations on January 10 and 12, 2011; February 2, 7, and 28, 2011;

March 7, 21, and 23, 2011; April 4, 6, 18, and 20, 2011; May 2, 4, 16, and 25, 2011; June 6 and 8, 2011; July 18, 2011; and August 1, 15, and 29, 2011

BACKGROUND:

Shoreline Setbacks

At the August 29, 2011, Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners concluded deliberations on shoreline uses and activities. The next topics for deliberation are residential densities and shoreline setbacks, which were recently completed by the SMP Committee. The Committee reviewed setbacks on a reach-by-reach basis, the results of which are summarized in the attached table. Where the SMP


Committee did not reach consensus, they identified multiple options for setbacks to be considered by the full Commission.

This approach departs from the Draft SMP, which established setbacks by

shoreline environment designation. Such an approach has implications for administering the SMP, which are discussed in the following section.

Consultant Responses to Questions

In anticipation of upcoming deliberations on setbacks, Commissioners were invited to submit questions to be answered by the City’s consultant. Commissioners submitted several questions covering a variety of topics including setbacks, but also addressing restoration, mitigation, vegetation conservation, armoring, wave heights, and building heights. Responses are included in Attachment 3 and include related reports and links to other resources (responses to wave heights are contained in an e-mail from Ecology staff).

Revised Chapters

Revisions to Chapters 1 and 3 have been completed and are attached for the Commission’s review.

ANALYSIS: Prior to commencing deliberations on setbacks, the Commission will need to determine whether setbacks should be administered on a reach-by-reach basis or shoreline environment basis. While the reach-by-reach approach allows ‘fine tuning’ of setbacks to specific shoreline conditions, it may not be the preferred approach because of the following issues: 1. Implementation

: One of staff’s goals when drafting the SMP was to make it user friendly to the public as well as easy for staff to administer. There are 25 reaches compared with five shoreline environments, increasing the complexity of the document and potentially making it more difficult for the public to understand and for staff to administer. In addition, prohibiting uses through the imposition of 200’ setbacks would necessitate additional footnotes on Table 6.1., further compounding the level of difficulty in administering the SMP.

2. Use of Setbacks to Prohibit Uses

: The reach-by-reach approach used 200’ setbacks to prohibit commercial, industrial, parking, and recreational uses. In addition to implementation issues described in #1 above, prohibiting uses in this manner is contrary to the SMP Guidelines, which relies on shoreline environments as the framework for establishing regulations. Prohibiting uses in this manner creates inconsistencies with the purpose statement and management policies of the shoreline environments. To avoid this issue, uses should be established within the context of shoreline environments rather than indirectly through setbacks.

Commissioners should also be advised that: 1) prohibiting water-dependent uses is contrary to the purpose of the Shoreline Management Act, 2) prohibiting or restricting water-dependent/enjoyment recreational uses is contrary to public access goals of the Shoreline Management Act, 3) prohibiting development that is envisioned and supported by the Comprehensive Plan is contrary to the consistency requirements of the Guidelines (WAC 172-26-211), and 4) when resolving conflicts regarding shoreline uses, to use preferences and priorities described in WAC 173-26-201 (see Attachment 2),


3. Cumulative Impact Assessment

: The first draft of the cumulative impact assessment has already been written by the City’s consultant and will be finalized once the Commission completes deliberations. One of the required elements of the cumulative impact assessment is an analysis of future use and development of the shoreline based on proposed regulations. Using setbacks on a reach-by-reach basis would require extensive revisions to the draft assessment that would go beyond the project scope and budget. In addition, extensive revisions would require additional time for completion of the cumulative impact assessment and delay issuance of a SEPA threshold determination.

OPTIONS: Conduct deliberations on Chapter 6, Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations,

Table 6.2B. Vote on using a reach-by-reach approach or shoreline environments for establishing setbacks.

Option 1: Establish setbacks based on shoreline environment designations.

• Implications: This approach is consistent with the SMP Guidelines and avoids consequences discussed above.

Option 2: Establish setbacks using reach-by-reach approach.

• Implications: This approach departs from the SMP Guidelines and may result in consequences discussed above.

ATTACHMENT 1

Shoreline Master Program Update Deliberations Attachment 1 Page 1 of 16

ATTACHMENT 1


WAC 173-26-201(2)(d) (d) Preferred uses. As summarized in WAC 173-26-176, the act establishes policy that preference be given to uses that are unique to or dependent upon a shoreline location. Consistent with this policy, these guidelines use the terms "water-dependent," "water-related," and "water-enjoyment," as defined in WAC 173-26-020, when discussing appropriate uses for various shoreline areas. Shoreline areas, being a limited ecological and economic resource, are the setting for competing uses and ecological protection and restoration activities. Consistent with RCW 90.58.020 and WAC 173-26-171 through 173-26-186, local governments shall, when determining allowable uses and resolving use conflicts on shorelines within their jurisdiction, apply the following preferences and priorities in the order listed below, starting with (d)(i) of this subsection. For shorelines of statewide significance, also apply the preferences as indicated in WAC 173-26-251(2). (i) Reserve appropriate areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions to control pollution and prevent damage to the natural environment and public health. In reserving areas, local governments should consider areas that are ecologically intact from the uplands through the aquatic zone of the area, aquatic areas that adjoin permanently protected uplands, and tidelands in public ownership. Local governments should ensure that these areas are reserved consistent with constitutional limits. (ii) Reserve shoreline areas for water-dependent and associated water-related uses. Harbor areas, established pursuant to Article XV of the state Constitution, and other areas that have reasonable commercial navigational accessibility and necessary support facilities such as transportation and utilities should be reserved for water-dependent and water-related uses that are associated with commercial navigation unless the local governments can demonstrate that adequate shoreline is reserved for future water-dependent and water-related uses and unless protection of the existing natural resource values of such areas preclude such uses. Local governments may prepare master program provisions to allow mixed-use developments that include and support water-dependent uses and address specific conditions that affect water-dependent uses. (iii) Reserve shoreline areas for other water-related and water-enjoyment uses that are compatible with ecological protection and restoration objectives. (iv) Locate single-family residential uses where they are appropriate and can be developed without significant impact to ecological functions or displacement of water-dependent uses. (v) Limit nonwater-oriented uses to those locations where the above described uses are inappropriate or where nonwater-oriented uses demonstrably contribute to the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act. Evaluation pursuant to the above criteria, local economic and land use conditions, and policies and regulations that assure protection of shoreline resources, may result in determination that other uses are considered as necessary or appropriate and may be accommodated provided that the preferred uses are reasonably provided for in the jurisdiction.

ATTACHMENT 2


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-26-176�


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.58.020�





ATTACHMENT 3


ESA’s Responses to City of Olympia Planning Commission SMP Questions

1. Are there examples for best practice in shoreline restoration as the practices relate to setbacks, and regulating shoreline modifications (e.g., armoring), and vegetation conservation. There are a wide range of examples that jurisdictions have developed based on the specific circumstances and conditions in their communities. The City of Issaquah is proposing a strategy for the mostly built-out areas along Lake Sammamish that is designed to encourage vegetation enhancement and bulkhead removal / softening on existing developed lots. See item 1 in Attachment A for an example of how this works. Other ‘best practices’ examples are outlined in the City o f Seattle’s Green Shoreline publication available at: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/Green_Shorelines/Overview/default.asp

2. What is recommended to restore an area that is artificial shoreline, which is the case for a great deal of our urban waterfront? The restoration recommendations for a given site or area would depend on a variety of site-specific factors, but generally speaking the goal of shoreline restoration is to remove or reduce the harm caused by “stressors” such as bulkheads, docks, piers and fill. These artificial shoreline features displace natural shallow water habitat, disrupt or impede natural processes such as sediment delivery and transport, alter predator/prey relationships, alter movement and migration patterns for small fish, impede natural tidal circulation, and have other adverse impacts. In developed urban environments, where it is generally not feasible to fully recreate natural conditions, the opportunities to restore the shoreline may be more limited. There are examples of effective urban restoration projects in Olympia at West Bay Park, Tacoma’s Commencement Bay, in the Duwamish River and in portions of Bellingham Bay. Greiner (2010) describes some general restoration principles that can help guide restoration efforts in urban and non-urban areas. See item 2 in Attachment A.

3. What is the best strategy to restore a heavily armored shoreline? There are several strategies that could be appropriate depending on site conditions. Most of them involve using some type of bio-engineered approach to shore stabilization that “softens” the shore and makes it more suitable for fish and other organisms. These are many examples that have been employed around Puget Sound. Please refer to Ecology Publication 00-06-012a Alternative Bank Protection Methods for Puget Sound Shorelines for more information: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0006012a.pdf. Item 3 in Attachment A includes a summary of some of the alternative shore stabilization projects that have been implemented in Puget Sound. Also see Attachment B from the 2009 publication Management Measures for Restoring and Protecting Puget Sound for more information.

ATTACHMENT 3


http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/Green_Shorelines/Overview/default.asp�

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0006012a.pdf�

4. How can we gauge the value of particular setback measurements with respect to restoring a more natural shoreline? Restoration decisions often require making trade-offs based on what we value at a particular locality. For example, the need/desire to provide public access may be in conflict with some other restoration goals. Similarly, the desire to provide a substantial setback may need to be balanced with the desire to support water-dependent uses. Generally, larger setbacks give you more options for dealing with issues of shoreline stabilization (especially in the face of climate change and sea level rise) or for accommodating restoration, but the value of a given setback depends on what you are trying to achieve on a specific site and overall.

5. How can we gauge the value of particular setback measurements with respect to creating cleaner water in Budd Bay? The water quality in Budd Inlet is a function of myriad factors and influences, many of which extend well beyond the jurisdictional limits of the SMP. Although setbacks can play a role in moderating the effects of polluted runoff, their influence may be somewhat localized. A strategy to improve water quality would likely need to include basin-scale controls on impervious surface, comprehensive stormwater treatment and control measures (including retrofits), low-impact development techniques, sediment cleanup and remediation, removal of creosote pilings, and adequate setbacks.

6. Please share any studies and best practices that we can use as guides as we work to determine setbacks, and develop regulations for mitigation, restoration, shoreline modifications (e.g., armoring), and vegetation conservation. See responses to questions 1-3 above.

7. Are there realistic examples of on-site mitigation where small property owners have made a significant contribution to shoreline restoration? Yes, there are many. See Item 4 in Attachment A as an example. This project is in the design phase of a large shoreline restoration project on privately held parcels in Port Madison Bay, located in the north east portion of Bainbridge Island. The project will restore over 1,500 linear feet of shoreline by removing failed or poor condition bulkheads and enhancing and restoring estuarine, nearshore, and riparian habitats. The goal of this project is to: 1) Engage a willing landowner in a nearshore and riparian restoration project that will result in an increase of nearshore habitat critically important to juvenile salmon; 2) Restore nearshore processes, structure and functions in an area where Coho salmon have been documented to spawn in the single large tributary found within the bay (Coho Creek), where there is documented presence of forage-fish (herring, sandlance, and surf smelt, northern anchovy), and where Eelgrass is abundant along semi-protected shorelines of Port Madison; 3) Showcase this project to other landowners to increase awareness of the importance of restoring nearshore habitats in Puget Sound; 4) Engage partners including the Powel Family, Bainbridge Island Land Trust, UW Sea Grant, City of Bainbridge Island, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Suquamish Tribe in the technical review and scope design of the project to ensure successful implementation.

ATTACHMENT 3


The subject shoreline parcels for this project, encompassing approximately 7.5 acres, have been owned by the Powel family since 1954. An initial inventory of shoreline armoring structures (see attached inventory document) by the City of Bainbridge Island Shoreline Stewardship Program indicates a majority of the approximate 1,800 linear feet of shoreline of the Powel property does contain armoring, and approximately 70% of that armoring is in failed or poor condition. The family has identified areas of the shoreline where they are supportive of restoration efforts by removing a majority of existing failed or poor condition bulkhead to restore the near shore, intertidal and upland habitat (see attached priority areas for work). Design work is needed to establish project priorities and ensure that implementation and construction phases are done in a manner agreeable to the landowner(s), that utilizes human and financial resources efficiently, and maximizes a wonderful opportunity to showcase landowner supported shoreline restoration efforts. In the future, Bainbridge Island Land Trust, or area partners, intends to apply for grant funds to support the construction/implementation phase of this project. Bainbridge Island Land Trust has had a formal and positive relationship with the Powel family since 1993 when John and Ann Powel put a permanent conservation easement on their parcels to protect the nearshore and upland environment from further development. Because of the protective conservation easement already in place, there is certainty that restoration efforts will not be impacted by future high density develop, or other high impact land uses, on the parcels. In addition, to fulfill its obligations to ensure conservation values are maintained, the Land Trust monitors each of its conservation easements each year. The trust’s ongoing and perpetual presence on the property will help ensure success of any future habitat restoration projects.

8. What are the relative benefits of on-site vs. off site restoration practices? The benefits depend on the site conditions and the restoration goals. There are situations where off-site restoration is preferred over on-site and vice versa. Please refer to the restoration principles in Item 2, Attachment A. Furthermore, state and federal agencies along with many environmental organization including The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Law Institute have recently acknowledged the need to take a watershed approach to siting and designing effective mitigation and restoration projects. See the recommendations from the Mitigation That Works forum as one example: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0806018.html The following is from Ecology Publication #09-06-032, Using a Watershed Approach to Selecting Mitigation Sites (www.ecy.wa.gov/mitigation/resources.html.):

In urbanizing areas, many functions wetlands provide may not be sustainable long term. This may be particularly true for wetlands in a highly altered landscape where ecological processes are unlikely to be restored and losses in wetland functions are expected to increase with development (Azous and Horner 2001). In such cases, it may be preferable to compensate for impacts to those wetlands by locating mitigation sites in nearby drainages that have a lesser degree of urbanization. In this way, the mitigation site has greater potential to provide functions over time. By reducing the risk of failure that

ATTACHMENT 3


http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0806018.html�

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/mitigation/resources.html�

results from ongoing development, we can achieve a net gain in wetland functions and also restore lost or damaged watershed processes. In some cases proposed alterations to a wetland will impact a function or value that is very important in the immediate area of the site. For example, a wetland in an urban area may provide significant recreational and educational opportunities for local residents. Also, the wetland may be receiving untreated stormwater, thus providing water quality and hydrologic functions to the immediate area. These types of functions and services may need to be replaced on-site. If so, it may be necessary to mitigate at two sites: on-site to replace the functions and services that cannot be moved elsewhere and off-site for all the rest. For example, if a wetland that will be impacted is retaining stormwater, a stormwater facility can be built on-site and the other functions, such as habitat, can be replaced elsewhere. In many cases in urban areas, the landscape setting may preclude replacing habitat functions on site unless the project sponsor provides intensive long-term management and maintenance.

9. Are there documented examples of heavily damaged shorelines that have been recovered to a

more natural state after on-site mitigation was used? Please share case studies. Examples for the Duwamish River can be found at:

http://www.portseattle.org/downloads/community/environment/Final_DuwamishMP_2009071 6.pdf and http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wastewater/Duwamish-waterway/ Restoration.aspx .

10. Are there examples of intensely developed urban areas with relatively natural and intact

vegetated shorelines? Where? What are the best practices to create this type of environment? Most dense urban cities have only small pockets of natural and intact shoreline typically set aside as park land. Examples that come to mind are Carkeek Park, Discovery Park, Seward Park, parts of Sammamish State Park, Marymoor Park, and parts of the Arboretum in Seattle. Also see the response to question 9.

11. Futurewise provided us with a document entitled "Recommendations on Making Small Shoreline Buffers Work with Buffer Science," March 2010. The paper points to a couple studies (including one from ESA) that recommend a marine shoreline setback of 100 to 150 feet. However, they state that in developed areas where 100 foot setbacks are not realistic or practical, a smaller high quality setback can be beneficial. On page 9, in item 3, they state that the narrowest high quality buffer that can filter nutrients is 13 feet, and for filtering pollutants you need 33 to 52 feet. They cite a 1997 WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife study. What is your thought on the value of a continuous 15-foot setback on the Port Peninsula and along West Bay. Would there be a significant improvement in functioning if a 33 to 52 foot setback were established? Would the larger setback be useful even if it contained a 15 to 20 foot trail rather than being fully vegetated? If you don't agree with the statements regarding 13 foot and 33 to 52 foot setbacks, what width of setback would you estimate would be needed to accomplish the purposes of those setbacks.

ATTACHMENT 3


http://www.portseattle.org/downloads/community/environment/Final_DuwamishMP_2009071%096.pdf�

http://www.portseattle.org/downloads/community/environment/Final_DuwamishMP_2009071%096.pdf�

http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wastewater/Duwamish-waterway/%20%09Restoration.aspx�

http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wastewater/Duwamish-waterway/%20%09Restoration.aspx�

The pathway for improving functions along the Port Peninsula and/or West Bay probably requires a combination of strategies including setbacks, vegetation enhancement, water quality treatment/ best management practices, soft-shore stabilization, etc. The solution depends on the City’s goals for those areas as noted above in the response to question 4. If pollution control is the main goal, there may be value in exploring other ways of treating runoff besides (or in addition to) a vegetated buffer or setback.

12. At the end of the paper, Futurewise recommends a buffer policy that states in part "In such areas, an alternative strategy is established using smaller buffers that are based on the existing development pattern, in combination with mitigation requirements for new development that provide enhancement of the smaller buffer and other degraded features to address impacts of the new development outside the small buffer areas." Does this strike you as an effective policy? In my opinion, protecting shoreline ecological functions requires a multi-pronged strategy, of which buffers/setbacks are one component.

13. Currently, we have very steep artificial slopes. If they are flattened, what would be the desired slope of shoreline for effective functioning? If they are flattened, how much distance is needed from the OHWM before a steep slope would not have an effect on ecological functioning? There are many factors that go into determining the “best slope” for a given site. In general, gradual slopes are more desirable ecologically than steep slopes, but I would need to know more about the specific objectives and site characteristics to provide a credible answer.

14. A lot of our shoreline is armored with rip-rap. Does the rip-rap need to be removed in order to have an effectively functioning setback, or could vegetation be planted among the rip-rap and still be effective? Most bio-engineered slope stabilization approaches include a mixture of rock, logs/wood and vegetation. It may be possible to leave some riprap in place and still “soften” the shore, but it depends on the site conditions. Planting amidst the riprap might work in some situations.

15. Would removal of the 5th Avenue dam have a significant (dramatic) effect on the ecological health of Capitol Lake and Budd Inlet? The restoration of the Deschutes Estuary (by removing the dam) has been the subject of substantial scientific study and analysis. The Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) has included this project on its list of high priority restoration actions for improving the health of Puget Sound. See the chapter on the Deschutes Estuary in the Conceptual Design Report at http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/conceptual_design.htm

16. Would removal of one bulkhead in a line of bulkheads have a positive effect, or do all of the bulkheads need to be removed before there is a significant improvement in ecological functioning? In some situations, removal of a single bulkhead can have beneficial effects, but it depends on where the property is located relative to the overall drift cell, what the adjacent shore conditions are, what other stressors are present and may other factors.

ATTACHMENT 3


http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/conceptual_design.htm�

Attachment A Item 1: City of Issaquah

Item 2:

Restoration Principles from Greiner 2010. Principles for Strategic Conservation and Restoration Executive Summary Technical Report 2010-01 http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/technical_reports.htm

Overarching Principles

ATTACHMENT 3.A

Shoreline Master Program Update Deliberations Attachment A Page 1 of 5

http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/technical_reports.htm�

• Conserving intact ecosystems is the most effective method to maintain ecosystem functioning.

Conservation is an easier, more successful and cost-effective method than restoration to maintain ecosystem integrity. To achieve a net gain in healthy ecosystems, restoration must be combined with conservation. Priority should be given to intact areas that contain large, interconnected systems, regions with low development and natural shorelines, and that support important ecological components or are vulnerable to human activities.

• A large-scale restoration plan should apply an ecosystem approach at the landscape level.

When addressing resource degradation and loss over large areas, the ecosystem approach has become the accepted restoration framework. It recognizes that spatial and temporal dynamics are critical components of a functioning ecosystem; thus conservation targets should link population dynamic processes that support them in particular geographic locations. An ecosystem approach at the landscape-scale also examines the cumulative effects of human activities in space and time. This is critical to achieving integrated resource management, because so many landscapes are dominated by mosaics of human development.

• Restoring physical processes promotes ecosystem resilience. Ecosystems are the manifestation of complex interactions among geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic processes. These interactions act on the historic characteristics of the system, and affect the flow of energy, material, and biota across the landscape. The key to successful restoration is ensuring that the physical, ecosystem-forming processes that maintain landscape structure are restored to their natural spatial and temporal scales. In the nearshore environment, restoration efforts should eliminate or reduce impediments to natural processes, for instance by avoiding the stabilization of the land-water interface. Landscape Level Principles

• The natural composition and configuration of ecosystems should be restored to promote landscape resiliency.

The composition and configuration of elements in the landscape determine how physical and biological processes interact, which in turn influences ecosystem structure. Restoring all ecosystem types in an area is important to preserve landscape biodiversity and functioning. Ecosystems that have declined the most in size or quantity should receive high priority.

• Restoring heterogeneity on multiple scales supports a more resilient landscape. Heterogeneity is an integral landscape characteristic that can occur at a variety of spatial and temporal scales, resulting from natural variability in physical processes. It affects and is affected by the movement of material, energy, and biota between landscape elements. Heterogeneity can increase ecosystem functions, including biodiversity, and should be restored within the natural spatial and temporal range. Historic landscapes or current intact areas can be used as templates against which to measure levels of heterogeneity that can support natural communities.

• The surrounding area has significant influence on the success of restoration efforts at a site.

ATTACHMENT 3.A


In the coastal environment, strong linkages among ecosystems and with adjacent terrestrial systems determine the ecological dynamics within each patch as well as the patch dynamics throughout the landscape. The condition of the surrounding area can affect the long-term success of an existing restoration site. Restoration plans should recognize that actions taken in one part of the watershed will affect other parts, and should consider whether the existing processes and boundaries will support the appropriate flow of material, energy, and biota to sustain restored ecosystems. Ideally, a restoration project will be integrated into a supportive landscape and have a positive influence beyond the immediate project site.

• Landscape connectivity should be restored to reduce fragmentation and facilitate the flow of energy, material, and biota between ecosystems.

The connectivity of ecosystems is particularly vital in the nearshore environment where material, energy, and biota are constantly being exchanged between ecosystems. The degree of connectivity regulates landscape linkages, enabling the persistence of species and ecological functioning at scales beyond that of an individual site. A well-connected landscape has a high likelihood of maintaining ecosystem processes and should be promoted wherever possible as opportunities will decrease as human land use and populations increase. Site-Specific Principles

• Larger patches generally encompass more ecological components than smaller patches. All other characteristics being equal, larger patches of ecosystems tend to support more species than smaller patches by incorporating more environmental variation and habitat types. A larger patch is also more likely to incorporate key ecosystem processes such as natural disturbance regimes. However, it is important that the ecological components of a patch are also considered; smaller patches can provide different and supplemental ecological benefits to the landscape than large patches.

• Rare or vulnerable species and habitats should receive high priority to preserve a region’s biodiversity.

Ecosystems or species that are rare endangered, relict, or vulnerable to future threats should be given high conservation and restoration priority. Rare ecological components are essential to a region’s biodiversity and may be irreplaceable. Past decline and future risk can be useful criteria to determine rarity or vulnerability.

• Ecological components that exert disproportionately greater influence on the integrity of an ecosystem should receive special attention.

Special effort should be made to identify and protect processes, areas, and species that are particularly important to the maintenance of an ecosystem or landscape. Some ecological components exert a greater influence on the rest of the landscape than others, such as ecotones, keystone species or ecosystem engineers. Restoration efforts should ensure the persistence of these vital ecological components.

• Cumulative impacts must be considered to accurately assess ecosystem degradation and restoration success.

To appropriately measure the level of degradation, cumulative impacts must be recognized as the number of individual disturbances may not equal the effects exerted on an ecosystem.

ATTACHMENT 3.A


Impacts can accumulate in myriad ways and should be assessed over large spatial and temporal scales. Alteration in biological, physical, and chemical properties often occurs simultaneously, resulting in non-linear degradation. The impacts from small site-scale stressors can accumulate into larger scale issues to the point where the functioning of an entire landscape is altered. Restoration efforts that address more than one impact can significantly increase the level of success of restoration efforts.

Item 3: Examples of alternative shoreline stabilization from Ecology Publication 00-06-012

ATTACHMENT 3.A


Item 4: Bainbridge Island Restoration Design example

ATTACHMENT 3.A


Management Measures Technical Report

MM 1 ARMOR REMOVAL OR MODIFICATION

Definition

This management measure pertains to the removal, relocation, or modification of existing coastal erosion protection structures built on bluff-backed beaches, barrier beaches, or other Puget Sound shorelines. Common examples of alongshore modifications (the main focus of this chapter) include rock revetments, treated-wood or wood pile bulkheads, and concrete retaining walls.

In general, complete removal of armoring provides more effective restoration than simply modifying structures to reduce selected impacts. Armor modification may include changing the design or dimensions of a structure, shifting to a more natural (less impacting) material or configuration, or relocating a structure to a more landward position. Modifying structures may be appropriate where the circumstances preclude complete removal, such as where the risks to upland development from natural erosion are unacceptable.

Justification of Need and Link to Nearshore Processes

Landowners typically armor the nearshore to attempt to stop wave erosion or to reclaim submerged lands for upland uses. However, in many instances armoring is installed where erosion is not substantial and the armoring functions more as a landscaping feature. Armor structures have varying degrees of impact generally related to simplification and disruption of shoreline processes; particularly when sited where interactions with wave and tidal forces are greatest. Alongshore structures such as bulkheads can directly impact shorelines through burial of habitat areas and altered sediment composition. Bulkheads can indirectly impact down-drift shores by decreasing sediment supply and increasing erosion.

The disruption of intertidal energy dynamics can affect shoreline processes and habitat through several pathways. The physical presence of the structure on bluff-backed beaches can eliminate recruitment of upland and bluff sediments that would have otherwise reached the beach through erosion. Disrupted sediment supply affects down-drift beach profiles and substrate characteristics. Vertical armoring on all Puget Sound shoretypes (excluding rocky shoretypes) can result in reflected wave energy, which can lead to coarsening of beach sediment (Kraus 1988, MacDonald et al. 1994). Armoring can also cause lowering or vertical erosion of the beach profile waterward of the structure (scour trough), end scour along shores adjacent to the structure, and reduced beach width. Armor can accelerate entrainment and transport of littoral sediment (Miles et al. 2001). Each of these impacts will likely be exacerbated by changing conditions resulting from sea level rise.

Many nearshore fish and wildlife require functioning high intertidal habitats to provide sources of food, migration corridors, cover, and spawning habitat. Armoring can lead to burial (placement loss) or incremental loss of important habitats such as forage fish spawning areas (Rice 2006). Additional adverse impacts depend on the level of impaired cross-shore connectivity resulting from the structure. These cross-shore impacts can include loss of overhanging riparian vegetation, reduced large woody debris (LWD) recruitment and storage, and altered groundwater regimes (Brennan 2007). Results include reduced insect input and loss of upper beach microhabitats. Each of these adverse impacts has direct and indirect effects on valued ecosystem components including marine riparian areas, forage fish spawning habitats, eelgrass beds, and shellfish areas.

Complete removal of bulkheads is the only known method to completely restore natural shoreline processes; however, upland infrastructure may still need to be protected. In these cases, armor

December 2009 Armor Removal or Modification 1-1

ATTACHMENT 3.B

Shoreline Master Program Update Deliberations Attachment B Page 1 of 11


modification may be appropriate to partially restore natural shoreline processes where other alternatives do not exist. For example, relocation of bulkheads and other armoring with replacement structures located inland and away from erosive forces can partially restore natural processes. Replacement of the armoring with alternative erosion control techniques that use natural materials is another option.

Conceptual Model

The figure below presents a conceptual illustration of the relationship of this measure to nearshore processes, structure, and functions (Figure 1-1). The arrows indicate the pathways through which responses are expected to occur. The strength of the relationship indicated by the type of arrow (black arrows show a stronger relationship than dashed or gray arrows).

Scenario: Armoring at a bluff site eliminates or degrades (depending on tidal elevation and beach position) conditions required for sediment supply, spawning habitat of forage fishes, and recruitment of vegetation.

Change/Action: Removal of bulkhead and any related features restores sediment source, wave energy regime, and riparian vegetation.

Predicted Response: Beach-forming sediment erodes from the bluff, is transported by waves, and is deposited in the intertidal zone down-drift. Forage fishes have increased opportunity to successfully spawn at appropriate tidal elevations and sediment structure. Eggs have better survival rate due to riparian shading and other influences (e.g., seepage) affecting temperature.

Figure 1-1 Conceptual Model for Armor Removal or Modification

1-2 Armor Removal or Modification December 2009

ATTACHMENT 3.B



Complementary Management Measures

Management measures that typically complement Armor Removal or Modification projects include: Beach Nourishment, Contaminant Removal/Remediation, Large Wood Placement, and Topography Restoration. When armor is removed, fill may need to be removed to restore the beach profile (Beach Nourishment). Techniques for achieving functional nearshore elevation, slopes, substrate, and vegetation are specified in separate management measures. The Hydraulic Modification management measure is also related, as removal of structures will also restore the hydraulic conditions.

Benefits and Opportunities

Benefits of the Restoration Action By uncovering nearshore habitat buried under bulkheads and other types of armoring, this management measure recreates lost habitat. Other benefits accrued via this measure are:

Improved connectivity: The upland and longshore connectivity of sediment, hydraulics, and vegetative successional processes can be restored by removing or modifying shoreline armoring. This management measure can facilitate animal movement by helping to connect vital habitats including the marine riparian zone. It can also improve the connectivity of juvenile salmonid migratory habitats by removing/modifying armoring that substantially infringes on the intertidal zone.

Restored sediment transport processes improve shoreform diversity: Physical processes restored by armor modification or removal are generally eroding bluffs, net shore-drift pathways, and accretion at important landforms such as spits. In many Puget Sound locations, diverse landforms historically occurred close together. These landform assemblages are declining due to extensive shoreline development.

Climate change and sea level rise: When applied along bluff-backed beaches, armor removal and the restoration of nearshore sediment sources increases the resilience of down-drift shores, which require sediment to naturally adapt to the landward migration of the shoreline. Benefits can occur at down-drift habitats such as barrier beaches and estuaries.

Valued Ecosystem Components: This measure restores bluff-backed beaches, which are a VEC. By restoring and improving littoral systems this measure directly benefits salmon, forage fish, clams, and eelgrass, which are designated VECs. Other VECs such as Great blue heron and many species of nearshore birds also benefit indirectly when this measure is applied.

Social and political benefits: Removing shore armoring often increases the available beach area, which is especially evident at higher tides resulting in improved aesthetic and recreational values. Access is also typically improved, as visitors do not need to climb over or on slippery riprap or vertical structures.

Measurable Units The area of beach and backshore uncovered by armor removal is the most direct measure of habitat improvement. Measuring restored functions (such as increases in eelgrass coverage in the vicinity of the project, use of the restored beach by forage fish species, etc.) in the footprint of the structure is straight forward, but quantifying the change in down-drift habitat areas or production is much more difficult. The rate of sediment input from bluffs where armor is removed can be quantified, and this gives an indication of the potential for off-site benefits.


ATTACHMENT 3.B



Opportunities for Implementation Armor removal or modification can occur anywhere that bulkheads are present, which tends to be beaches and bluffs. Projects involving this measure typically involve just a single property or small group or properties, so the scale of the projects tends to be relatively small. Entities that typically implement this measure include private property owners, local parks and public works departments (cities and counties), and state resource agencies such as WDNR and Washington State Parks.

Design life: Most engineered structures placed within the surf zone on marine shores tend to fail from natural forces over 15 to 40 years. Property owners may be more willing to consider relocation or removal alternatives when making replacement decisions, including evaluation of future costs. Over the long run, it is often more cost effective to relocate structures landward than to permit, build, mitigate, and maintain shore armoring.

Institutional recognition: Washington State responded to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 by enacting the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58). This law states a preference for alternatives to armoring where technically feasible, and requires property owners to demonstrate that alternatives to armoring are infeasible prior to rebuilding or building new armor structures.

Public recognition: Increased public education on the role of nearshore habitats in recent years is starting to reach shoreline property owners and citizens who influence local shoreline planning decisions. Continued education and outreach activities are needed to increase the use of this management measure on private properties. There are several documented cases of bulkhead removal or relocation throughout the Puget Sound that were performed solely for their restoration values and were not linked to a need to replace a failing structure.

Constraints

Feasibility: Residential structures and other upland infrastructure along the marine shoreline are often located very close to the ordinary high water line. When armoring has effectively reduced coastal erosion, its removal may increase the risk of upland to erosion or slope instability. However, moving houses and infrastructure away from the shore is becoming more common. Complex regulatory requirements: Puget Sound’s local jurisdictions often have different regulations and permit requirements for shoreline development. Local permitting requirements for armor removal can be complicated by the request to provide beach nourishment to offset bulkhead impacts and recreate beach profiles. Complicated permit processes may be a disincentive to armor removal.

Cost: Cost of demolition and/or modification is principally based on the costs of: engineering, permitting, construction equipment, labor, and materials. Distance to the nearest suitable landfill and site access greatly influence these costs. In the case of armoring relocation, the design also significantly influences cost.

Property value: Removal or modification of armoring structures can alter or be perceived as altering the “highest and best use” value of affected lands. Concerns about reductions in future development opportunity or lack of long-term protection may be a constraint to landowner acceptance. This may also place a logistical constraint on restoration practitioners looking to acquire lands.

Sea level rise: Removal or modification of armoring structures may make private property more vulnerable to anticipated implications of climate change and sea level rise (for example, accelerated erosion rates). This may make it more difficult to find property owners who are willing to have their bulkheads removed or modified.


ATTACHMENT 3.B



Effects on navigation channels: Large-scale removal of bulkheads and other structures, as well as beach nourishment, may affect shoaling in navigation channels within Puget Sound.

Best Professional Practices

The feasibility assessment section below provides a general list of topics and studies to be considered during the scoping for design. Design considerations are specific engineering details to be addressed. Though the purpose of this management measure is to improve nearshore function, temporary impacts may occur during construction. Best management practices presented in the implementation section minimize construction impacts. Finally, a brief section detailing post-construction monitoring and performance measures is included.

Feasibility Assessment The scope and detail of feasibility studies will depend on the project size, location, degree of certainty required and the documentation requirements of permitting agencies. Geomorphic and engineering studies for removing or relocating armored structures are outlined below.

Existing and historic conditions: For removal and modification projects, a review of the original structure design, purpose, and any engineering documentation of the design parameters should be evaluated at the onset of the project planning. Site maps and surveys should be examined for potential data gaps.

Coastal geomorphic assessment: Armor removal projects should consider coastal geomorphic conditions such as shoretype, littoral transport, sediment size, and off-site effects to ensure sustainability and adequacy of the restoration approach. The rates and patterns of erosion and deposition should be quantified by examining historic aerial photos and maps, conducting field studies to determine existing and historic conditions, and developing a conceptual sediment budget. A local sediment transport budget can be used to estimate the effects of the project on off-site areas.

Coastal and geotechnical engineering: For armor modification projects, potential feasibility studies may include wave hydraulics, siting, and the need for armoring. This involves characterizing the wave climate. Wave monitoring data are limited, and prediction techniques can vary widely—from sophisticated numerical modeling to visual estimations. Infrastructure, utilities, and access could be engineering constraints and may need relocation or protection.

Risk and uncertainty: Project designers should evaluate the risk and uncertainty for both armor removal and modification projects. The severity of risk can range from intermittent minor erosion, to damage to the armor modification structure, to loss of adjacent infrastructure. Project designs should state where uncertainty exists regarding engineering parameters. The scope and design factor of safety should be consistent with the anticipated outcome of the project (armor removal vs. modification), specific location, and type of armoring requirements.

Design Complete armor removal is desired over armor modification for ecological benefit. Armor modification requires engineering design analysis that includes the demolition and disposal of the existing structure and the design of a more suitably designed and sited structure. Removal typically includes some amount of shore enhancement such as beach nourishment and revegetation. Beyond elements outlined in the Feasibility Assessment section above, Design needs are listed below.

Approach: The alternatives to be considered range from complete armor removal to soft armoring and Beach Nourishment, and/or construction of new armoring in a more landward position. Any armor


ATTACHMENT 3.B



modification project should attempt to maximize the restoration of natural processes while balancing the need for human safety. A removal or modification design that accommodates Revegetation, Large Wood Placement, and Beach Nourishment provides enhanced coastal processes and productivity, input and accumulation of detrital material, and increased potential nearshore habitat area. In general, full removal and enhancement should be the intent of armor modification, unless analyses determine that some form of less-impacting armor is required.

Site conditions: The physical characteristics of Puget Sound’s shorelines are diverse and change notably over short lengths. Actions taken under this management measure may be unique to each site and not comparable across sites. The effects of the project on the natural system outside the project footprint should be understood in order to minimize any harmful effects due to the choice of an engineered design instead of beach nourishment or similar alternatives. Understanding the long-term response of the site under climate change and sea level rise may also be a priority.

Demolition: Demolition considerations may include: access, infrastructure, utilities, equipment availability, regulatory requirements, and disposal. Project designers should determine if relocation or protection is needed for existing utilities, infrastructure, or access routes. Access and demolition staging areas should be planned to avoid excessive impacts to upland vegetation, water features, or adjacent habitats.

Geotechnical engineering: For armor modification projects, designers need to consider static and dynamic forces on armoring structures, including soil and water pressures, wave action, and seepage to avoid excessive long-term maintenance. These include the maximum and minimum design water levels that lead to the required structure crest elevation and anticipated toe scour. The results of the coastal geomorphic and engineering evaluations should be used to site the relocated armoring structure. A secure foundation design is important to minimize settlement and allow for firm compaction of all fill and backfill material since failure at the toe can lead to failure of the entire structure. Armor removal projects generally remove all protective structures from the nearshore. As such, engineering assessments related to structural stability and design are usually not applicable.

Materials and stability: Materials for armor modification relocation projects are traditionally selected for structural properties but should also consider habitat value, aesthetics, maintenance, design life, availability, and cost. Freeze-thaw resistance, marine borers, ultraviolet light degradation, sand abrasion, vandalism, and chemical reactions should also be considered. Stability associated with the rigidity or flexibility of the structural material is a consideration. Rigid materials such as concrete have good initial strength, but without flexibility they may not withstand settling or toe scour. This can lead to premature structure failure or catastrophic failure. Seismic loading, ground deformation, and liquefaction may be stability considerations. Armor removal projects that require removal or reuse of onsite soils should include assessment for suitability as beach material, wetland substrate, or upland fill prior to placement.

Maintenance: The lifecycle maintenance of an erosion control structure should be considered in the planning phase. Design for future plantings, large woody debris placement, and beach nourishment material placement near infrastructure may be required for both armor removal and modification projects. In addition, armor modification projects may require periodic but routine evaluation of real property and inspection of structural components. Even after other engineering design considerations, some residual ongoing maintenance may be required.

Implementation Logistics: Construction methods, material availability, contractor availability and experience, and access considerations for both armor removal and modification projects.

Fueling and hazardous wastes: This management measure often requires the use of heavy construction equipment. Fueling of equipment and handling of oils or hazardous materials should be conducted away from the beach. A preferable alternative is to have heavy equipment use non-petroleum fluids; however,


ATTACHMENT 3.B



contractors often resist this. A spill response plan should be developed for each project. Hazardous waste associated with the removal of creosote-treated wood armoring should be taken off-site and disposed of appropriately.

Erosion control: Ground disturbance associated with this measure can result in erosion and runoff if not addressed. Disturbance must be limited to the minimum area necessary to complete the project. Plastic sheeting, hay bales, and other temporary erosion control measures should be employed where fine-grain soils are handled to avoid long-term erosion or siltation of nearshore waters. Proper silt fencing, catchment basins, and other measures to control surface water runoff and turbidity may be needed. However, when work is conducted in areas with old beach or bluff deposits, erosion control is generally not needed as these are all natural elements of the shore environment. Avoiding the use of plastic sheeting and other material not only keeps costs down but reduces waste generated by the project.

Clean materials: Soils and other materials should be procured from established borrow sites and be clean of solid waste, invasive species seeds, and pollutants.

Disposal: Waste materials resulting from this management measure must be taken to an authorized disposal site or reused within the project footprint.

Native plants: Plants or woody debris may be installed as supplemental enhancements for this management measure. Native plant species should be used in all cases.

Timing: Work below ordinary high water must be completed when the fewest fish are likely to be present and only during approved in-water work time periods (“work windows”). Consult appropriate state and federal regulations for approved work times.

Inspections: Inspections should be performed within one year following project completion to ensure that activities implemented at individual project sites do not create unintended consequences to fish, wildlife, and plant species and their critical habitat.

Evaluation Project proponents should create a monitoring plan to assess post-construction project performance and maintenance needs. The effectiveness of armor removal or modification can be measured by observing:

• topographic stability/ sediment erosion and accretion, • sediment characteristics and available habitats, • accumulation of wood, • soil moisture/temperature, and • backshore vegetation.

The uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of this management measure can be addressed with carefully thought-out monitoring of the restoration project. Data from nearshore early action projects or demonstration projects can also be useful. It may be desirable to identify drift cell armoring thresholds that trigger changes in processes through extensive monitoring of larger projects.

Only a few near-comprehensive data sets are available for armor removal. These are not of sufficient resolution or quality to address armoring impacts associated with location or the temporal and spatial variability of sediment transport processes. Monitoring of sediment and topography change is needed to further the understanding of site-specific changes and implications for long-term sediment supply in Puget Sound. Monitoring to support knowledge of the ecological aspects of the beach and the relationship between nearshore ecology and variation in beach sediment distribution is needed. Case studies conducted on armor removal projects (e.g., armor removal vs. monitoring of adjacent armored sites) may provide a way to collect data under controlled conditions.


ATTACHMENT 3.B



Case Studies and Examples

Seahurst Park, Burien: Seahurst Park is one of largest shoreline parks on Puget Sound. The shore of the south portion of the park contained extensive, failing bulkheads, surf smelt spawning habitat, unstable forested bluffs, eelgrass beds, and a perennial stream delta. The park provided an excellent opportunity to restore natural beaches, habitat-forming processes (“feeder bluffs”), and to monitor the physical and biological response to these actions. The park is located in a highly impacted net shore-drift cell that extends all the way to West Seattle. The park contained extensive shore armoring in the form of rock-filled gabions that had failed and were covered with rock revetments. In addition, small landslides at the forested bluffs were trucked offsite prior to restoration planning, and sediment was lost from the nearshore system (Hummel et al. 2005). The combination of bulkhead-induced erosion from reflected wave energy and loss of sediment supply resulted in 3 to 4 feet of beach lowering between 1972 and 2002.

As a key component of park master planning, the City of Burien obtained Salmon Recovery Funding Board grant funding for a bulkhead alternatives analysis. This analysis resulted in a five-pronged strategy to restore and protect nearshore habitats and restore habitat forming processes (Hummel et al. 2005):

1. Preserve existing functioning nearshore habitats including unstable forested bluffs, eelgrass beds, and stream deltas.

2. Remove shoreline armoring consistent with park uses.

3. Model restored beach slope and substrate on-site and at adjacent reference beaches to provide habitat for forage fish spawning and public recreation.

4. Replenish gravel and sand lost to erosion since the park was developed.

5. Restore and protect the natural delivery paths of sediment and woody debris from the bluffs to the beach.

The first phase of park restoration was completed on the southern 1,200 linear feet of the park in February 2005 (Figure 1-2). The design was developed by Coastal Geologic Services and Anchor Environmental. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hired Marine Vacuum (Mar-Vac), who removed virtually all the armor and fill in the south portion of the park and imported gravel and sand by barge to restore the intertidal beach and backshore. The beach was nourished with a coarse gravel lower layer and a mix of finer gravel and sand in the upper layer, and coarse sand in the high backshore. The new beach surface was up to 3 feet above the 1973 surface and up to 5 feet below the old path/fill elevation. The City had the path moved landward, installed vegetation, and organized monitoring.

Physical beach monitoring included profiles, full topography, and sediment characterization. Overall the large majority of the sediment remained within the original nourishment area and had almost identical slopes as the reference beach. Between the initial beach nourishment in 2005 and 2008, 44% of the comparison area beach had less than 0.25 foot of vertical change (Johannessen and Waggoner 2008). The control beach had minor pockets of erosion and accretion. Most of the erosion in the nourishment area occurred high on the upper beach where imported sediment was originally placed in a distinct berm. The berm was 1 to 2 feet below the as-built elevation. North of the nourishment area, accretion of up to 1 foot vertical was seen, likely the result of northward sediment transport of nourishment sediment. The total amount of sediment lost from within the nourishment area was 562 cy of the total beach nourishment of approximately 9,000 cy placed in 2005 (217 cy/yr erosion).

A bluff landslide occurred at the southern bluff reach 2 years after the armor was removed. The sediment reached the upper beach and has gradually been entrained into the net shore-drift system. Beach sediment


ATTACHMENT 3.B



sorting occurred post-construction. Pebble has been worked to the surface of the beachface to form a thin pebble veneer over finer granule and coarse sand. Some coarse gravel has moved to the lower beachface, while sand and small pebbles have been pushed into berms high on the beachface. Total implementation cost for the beach work was approximately $1,200,000. Other than Armor Modification or Removal other management measures employed were: Beach Nourishment, Large Wood Placement, Public Education and Involvement, Revegetation, and Topography Restoration.

North Beach, Orcas Island: This site in northern San Juan County was comprised of four single-family houses/cabins. The properties had a large failing rock revetment at a no-bank gravel beach (Figure 1-3). The residents complained of the recurring need to restack the revetment rock, difficult beach access, the loss of dry beach area, and lack of places to store small boats. The 550-foot-long site is within a high-energy net shore-drift cell with some cyclical reversals in the littoral drift direction. One important element of the site is that the beach is generally swash-aligned (the shore is parallel to most incoming waves), which causes off-site sediment transport to be limited most of the time. This, along with the presence of a no-bank site, made nourishment feasible even though the site has a 90-mile fetch from the Strait of Georgia. The high fetch led the designer (Wolf Bauer, who pioneered gravel beach nourishment in Puget Sound) to include a rock drift sill at each end of the project. Forage fish spawning was not documented at this site due to coarse native sediment.

Removal of the large revetment and beach nourishment occurred in 1992. The revetment rock was used in upland landscaping or buried in the back of the backshore trench along with nourishment sediment. The beach profile was reestablished and an artificial storm berm was created with 2,400 cubic yards of gravel (up to approximately 2.5 inch in diameter) (Figure 1-3). Beach nourishment extended to the lower intertidal. Backshore revegetation was installed at several properties, consisting mostly of native dunegrass (Elymus mollis). The beach experienced initial onshore gravel transport, which is common with this type of nourishment, but has not experienced noticeable erosion. Beach area and backshore vegetation increased dramatically after removal of the revetment. The project was so successful that an adjacent landowner contributed funds after the project was proven. The site remains in excellent condition in 2009 and there is no discussion of armor by owners. Total project cost was approximately $60,000. Other management measures addressed included Beach Nourishment, Revegetation, and Topography Restoration.

References

Brennan, J.S. 2007. Marine riparian vegetation communities of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-02. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA.

Gerstel and Brown. 2006. Alternative Shoreline Stabilization Evaluation, Prepared for the Puget Sound Action Team, Final Report, Olympia, Washington.

Hummel, P., S. Thomas, J. Dillon, J. Johannessen, P. Schlenger, and W. Laprade. 2005. Seahurst Park: restoring nearshore habitat and reconnecting natural sediment supply processes, in Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference 2005, Session F7.

Johannessen, J. W. 2001. Soft Shore Protection as an Alternative to Bulkheads – Projects and Monitoring, Proceedings of Puget Sound Research 2001, Bellevue WA, Puget Sound Action Team, Session 4b.

Johannessen, J.W. and A.M. MacLennan. 2007. Beaches and bluffs of Puget Sound: A valued ecosystem component, US Army Corps of Engineers, Published by WA Sea Grant, Seattle WA.


ATTACHMENT 3.B




Johannessen, J. and J.Waggoner. 2008. Seahurst Park, South – Physical Beach Monitoring: Year 3 Post Restoration, Prepared for: Burien Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services, Prepared by: Coastal Geologic Services Inc., 19 p. plus Appendices.

Kraus, N.C. 1988. The effects of seawalls on the beach: An extended literature review, In: N.C. Kraus and O.H. Pilkey (Editors) The effects of seawalls on the beach, Journal of Coastal Research, SI 4, p. 1-29.

MacDonald, K., D. Simpson, B. Paulsen, J. Cox, and J. Gendron, 1994. Shoreline armoring effects on physical coastal processes in Puget Sound, Washington: Coastal Erosion Management Studies, vol. 5, Shorelands Program, Washington Dept. of Ecology, Olympia, DOE Report 94-78.

Miles, J.R., P.E. Russell, and D.A. Huntley. 2001. Field measurements of sediment dynamics in front of a seawall, Journal of Coastal Research, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 195-206.

Rice, C.A. 2006. Effects of shoreline modification on a Northern Puget Sound beach: Microclimate and embryo mortality in surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus). Estuaries and Coasts 29(1):63-71.

Thom, R. M., D. K. Shreffler, and K. Macdonald. 1994. Shoreline armoring effects on coastal ecology and biological resources in Puget Sound, Washington. Coastal Erosion Management Studies, Volume 7. Shorelands and Water Resources Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Zelo, I., H. Shipman, and J. Brennan. 2000. Alternative Bank Protection Methods for Puget Sound Shorelines, Washington Department of Ecology, Publication #00-06-12. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Olympia, Washington, May 2000.

ATTACHMENT 3.B




Figure 1-2 Southern Seahurst Park gabion wall and rip-rap removal and beach nourishment: Before (2004) and after (2009) at same location. Photos by Jim Johannessen

Figure 1-3 North Beach Orcas Island armor removal and beach nourishment: Before (1991) and after (2008) at same location. Before photo by Jan Kolton, after by Jim Johannessen.

ATTACHMENT 3.B


City of Olympia Draft SMP Updated – May 25, 2011 Page 1

Chapter 1 General Provisions

1.1 Purpose and Intent 1.2 Governing Principles 1.3 Title 1.4 Adoption Authority 1.5 Applicability 1.6 Relationship to Other Plans and Regulations 1.7 Critical Areas Adopted by Reference 1.8 Liberal Construction 1.9 Severability 1.10 Effective Date 1.1. Purpose and Intent The purpose of the Shoreline Master Program is: A. To guide the future development of shorelines in the City of Olympia in a positive, effective, and

equitable manner consistent with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (Act), as amended (RCW 90.58).

B. To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community by providing long range, comprehensive policies and effective, reasonable regulations for development and use of Olympia’s shorelines; and

C. To ensure, at a minimum, no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes and to plan for restoring shorelines that have been impaired or degraded by adopting and fostering the policy contained in RCW 90.58.020, Legislative Findings for shorelines of the state.

1.2 Governing Principles The goals, policies and regulations of this Shoreline Master Program are based on the governing principles in the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines, WAC 173-26-186 and the policy statement of RCW 90.58.020. A. In implementing the objective of RCW 90.58.020 for shorelines of statewide significance, the City

will base decisions in preparing and administering this Shoreline Program on the following principles, in order of priority:

1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest;

2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;

3. Support actions that result in long-term benefits over short-term benefits;

ATTACHMENT 4



4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;

5. Increase public access to publicly-owned areas of the shoreline;

6. Increase recreational opportunities for public on the shoreline;

7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 as deemed appropriate.

B. Any inconsistencies between this Shoreline Program and the Act must be resolved in accordance with the Act.

C. The policies of this Shoreline Program may be achieved by diverse means, one of which is regulation.

Other means authorized by the Act include but are not limited to the following: acquisition of lands and/or easements by purchase or gift, incentive programs, and implementation of capital facility and/or non-structural programs.

D. Regulation of private property to implement Shoreline Program goals such as public access and protection of ecological functions and processes must be consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations. These include, but are not limited to civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. and State constitutions, recent federal and state case law, and state statutes, such as RCW 34.05.328, 43.21C.060 and 82.02.

E. Regulatory or administrative actions contained herein must be implemented consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine and other applicable legal principles as appropriate and must not unconstitutionally infringe on private property rights or result in an unconstitutional taking of private property.

F. The regulatory provisions of this Shoreline Program are limited to shorelines of the state, whereas the planning functions of this Shoreline Program may extend beyond the designated shoreline boundaries.

G. The policies and regulations established by this Shoreline Program must be integrated and coordinated with those goals, policies and rules of the Olympia Comprehensive Plan and development regulations adopted under the Growth Management Act (GMA). and RCW 34.05.328.

H. The policies and regulations of this Shoreline Program are intended to protect shoreline ecological functions by:

1. Requiring that current and potential ecological functions be identified and understood when

evaluating new or expanded uses and developments;

2. Requiring adverse impacts to be mitigated in a manner that ensures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Mitigation, as defined in Chapter 2, shall include avoidance as a first priority, followed by minimizing, and then replacing/compensating for lost functions and/or resources;

3. Ensuring that all uses and developments, including preferred uses and uses that are exempt from a shoreline substantial development permit, will not cause a net loss of shoreline ecological functions;

ATTACHMENT 4



4. Preventing, to the greatest extent practicable, cumulative impacts from individual developments;

5. Fairly allocating the burden of preventing cumulative impacts among development opportunities; and

6. Including regulations and regulatory incentives to restore shoreline ecological functions where such functions have been degraded by past actions.

1.3 Title This document shall be known as the Olympia Shoreline Master Program (“Shoreline Program”).

1.4 Adoption Authority This Shoreline Master Program is adopted under the authority granted by RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26.

1.5 Applicability A. All proposed uses and development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction shall comply with this

Shoreline Program and RCW 90.58, Shoreline Management Act (Act). This Shoreline Program applies to all uses and developments within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or statement of permit exemption is required.

B. This Shoreline Program shall apply to all of the lands and waters in the City of Olympia that fall under the jurisdiction of the Act (see Chapter 4, Shoreline Jurisdiction).

C. This Shoreline Program shall apply to every person, individual, firm, partnership, association, organization, corporation, local or state governmental agency, public or municipal corporation, or other non-federal entity which develops, owns, leases, or administers lands, wetlands, or waters that fall under the jurisdiction of the Act.

D. Federal agency actions on shorelines of the state are required to be consistent with this Master Program and the Act, as provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act (Title 16 United States Code §1451 et seq.; and §173‐27‐060(1) WAC, Applicability of RCW 90.58, Shoreline Management Act, to federal lands and agencies).

E. The permit requirements established under this Shoreline Program apply to nonfederal activities undertaken on lands subject to non-federal ownership, lease or easement; and to development and uses undertaken on lands not federally owned but under lease, easement, license, or other similar property right of the federal government.

1.6 Relationship to Other Plans and Regulations A. Uses, developments and activities regulated by this Shoreline Program may also be subject to the

provisions of the City of Olympia Comprehensive Plan, the Olympia Municipal Code (OMC), the

ATTACHMENT 4



Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, RCW 43.21C and WAC 197-11), and various other provisions of local, state and federal law.

B. Project proponents are responsible for complying with all applicable laws prior to commencing any use, development or activity.

C. Where this Shoreline Master Program makes reference to any RCW, WAC, or other state or federal law or regulations, the most recent amendment or current edition shall apply.

D. In the event this Shoreline Program conflicts with other applicable City policies or regulations, all regulations shall apply and unless otherwise stated, the more restrictive provisions shall prevail.

1.7 Critical Area Regulations Adopted by Reference A. The City of Olympia Critical Areas regulations contained in the Olympia Municipal Code (OMC),

Chapter 18.32, are integral and applicable to this Master Program, and are hereby adopted by reference, except that:

1. Nonconforming structures and uses within critical areas shall be subject to the provisions of this

Shoreline Program (supersedes OMC 18.37.060).

2. The reasonable use provisions set forth in OMC 18.66.040 shall not be available within the shoreline jurisdiction. Instead, applicants shall apply for a shoreline variance when seeking relief from critical area regulations.

1.8 Liberal Construction As provided for in RCW 90.58.900, the Act is exempt from the rule of strict construction. The Act and this Shoreline Program shall therefore be liberally construed to give full effect to the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies for which the Act and this Shoreline Program were enacted and adopted, respectively.

1.9 Severability The Act and this Shoreline Program adopted pursuant thereto comprise the basic state and city regulations for the use of shorelines in the City. In the event the provisions of this Shoreline Program conflict with other applicable City policies or regulations, the more restrictive shall prevail. Should any section or provision of this Shoreline Program be declared invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of this Shoreline Program as a whole.

1.10 Effective Date This Shoreline Program and all amendments thereto shall become effective immediately upon final approval and adoption by the Washington State Department of Ecology.

ATTACHMENT 4


City of Olympia Draft SMP October 20, 2010 Page 1

Chapter 3 Administration

3.1 General Provisions 3.2 Shoreline Substantial Development Permits 3.3 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permits 3.4 Shoreline Conditional Use Permits 3.5 Shoreline Variances 3.6 Unclassified Uses 3.7 Nonconforming Development 3.8 Submittal Requirements 3.9 Inspections 3.10 Penalties and Enforcement

3.1 General Provisions A. To be authorized, all uses and development shall be carried out in a manner that is consistent with

this Shoreline Program and the policies of the Shoreline Management Act as required by RCW 90.58.140(1), regardless of whether a shoreline permit, statement of exemption, shoreline variance, or shoreline conditional use permit is required.

B. No use, alteration, or development shall be undertaken within the shorelines regulated under this Shoreline Program by any person without first obtaining a permit.

C. Applicants shall apply for shoreline substantial development, variance, and conditional use permits on forms provided by the City.

D. All permits shall be processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in OMC Titles 14, 16, 17 and 18 and WAC 173-27.

3.2 Shoreline Substantial Development Permits A. A shoreline substantial development permit shall be required for all proposed use and development

of shorelines unless the proposal is specifically exempted in accordance with WAC 173-27-040. B. In order to be approved, the decision maker shall find that the proposal is consistent with the

following criteria:

1. All policies and regulations of this Shoreline Program appropriate to the shoreline environment designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance.

ATTACHMENT 5



2. All policies of this Shoreline Program appropriate to the shoreline environment designation and the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and compliance demonstrated.

C. Consideration shall be given to the cumulative environmental impact of additional requests for like

actions in the vicinity of the project site. For example, if shoreline substantial development permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the sum of the permitted actions should also remain consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce significant adverse effects to the shoreline ecological functions and processes or other users.

D. The City is the final authority for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, unless an appeal is filed with the State Shorelines Hearings Board.

3.3 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permit A. Certain developments are exempt from the requirement to obtain a substantial development

permit. Such developments still may require a variance or conditional use permit, and all development within the shoreline is subject to the requirements of this Shoreline Program, regardless of whether a substantial development permit is required. Developments which are exempt from the requirement for a substantial development permit are identified in WAC 173-27-040 and RCW 90.58.147.

B. Whenever a development is exempt from the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit and the development is subject to one or more of the following federal permits, a letter of exemption is required pursuant to WAC 173-27-050:

1. A U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Section 10 Permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; or

2. A Section 404 Permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control act of 1972.

3.4 Shoreline Conditional Use Permits A. The purpose of a shoreline conditional use permit is to allow a case by case review of certain uses

and activities which may have a greater potential for impacts to the shoreline. without project-specific conditions. In authorizing a shoreline conditional use permit, special conditions may be attached by the City or the Department of Ecology to control any undesirable effects of the proposed use.

B. Uses which are classified in this Shoreline Program as conditional uses may be authorized provided that the applicant can satisfy the criteria set forth in WAC 173-27-160: 1. That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the Shoreline

Program;

2. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;

ATTACHMENT 5



3. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program;

4. That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located;

5. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect;

6. That consideration has been given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if shoreline conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects of the shoreline environment.

C. Other uses which are not specifically classified as a permitted or conditional use in this Shoreline

Program may be authorized provided that the applicant can satisfy the criteria set forth in WAC 173-27-160 (see D B above).

D. Uses that are specifically prohibited by this Shoreline Program shall not be authorized.

3.5 Shoreline Variances A. The purpose of a shoreline variance is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk,

dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this Shoreline Program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of this Shoreline Program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020.

B. Shoreline variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate the existence of that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and that the public interest shall suffers no substantial detrimental effect.

C. Variances from the use regulations of this Shoreline Program are prohibited.

D. Land shall not be subdivided to create parcels that are buildable only with a shoreline variance or would be considered non-conforming.

E. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and/or landward of any wetland may be authorized provide the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in this

Shoreline Program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property;

ATTACHMENT 5



2. That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the Shoreline Program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions;

3. That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment;

4. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area;

5. That the variance request is the minimum necessary to afford relieverelief; and

6. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.

F. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark, or within any wetland may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in this

Shoreline Program precludes all reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by this Shoreline Program;

2. That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under Section 3.5.E.1-6 above; and

3. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shoreline will not be adversely affected.

E.G. In the granting of all shoreline variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.

3.6 Unclassified Uses A. Other uses not specifically classified or set forth in this Shoreline Program, including the expansion

or resumption of a nonconforming use, may be authorized as shoreline conditional uses provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: 1. The proposal will satisfy the shoreline conditional use permit criteria set forth above; and

2. The use clearly requires a specific site location on the shoreline not provided for under this Shoreline Program; and

3. Extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable use of the property in a manner consistent with the use regulations of this Shoreline Program.

B. Uses that are specifically prohibited in this Shoreline Program cannot be authorized by a shoreline

conditional use permit.

ATTACHMENT 5



3.7 Nonconforming Development 3.7.1 General Provisions A. Uses, lots or structures within the shoreline jurisdiction that do not meet the specific standards of

this Shoreline Program shall be regulated pursuant to OMC 18.37, Nonconforming and Conforming Buildings and Uses and the provisions of this section.

3.7.2 Continuance A. Subject to the provisions of this Shoreline Program a use, lot, or structure lawfully existing prior to

the effective date of this program or any amendment thereto, which is rendered nonconforming by adoption of the Program or an amendment, may continue in the manner and to the extent that it existed upon the effective date of the program or amendment, respectively.

3.7.3 Nonconforming Development Regulations A. Nonconforming uses, buildings and lots shall be regulated in accordance with OMC 18.37 and the .

In addition to provisions contained therein, the following provisions shall apply within the shoreline jurisdiction: 1. Actions Any actions taken under the provisions of OMC 18.37 shall not result in a net loss to

create adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions and processes, and shall consider the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed action;

2. Required vegetation conservation areas are provided pursuant to Section 5.9 of this Shoreline Program;

3. Alteration or expansion of a nonconforming use or structure within the required shoreline setback, whether horizontally or vertically, shall be prohibited.; However, if a structure is located entirely within the shoreline setback, alterations or expansions shall be permitted only on the side opposite the shoreline;

4.3. If a structure is located entirely within the shoreline setback, alterations or expansions are permitted only on the side opposite the shoreline;

5.4. A nonconforming use may not be converted to a use that is specifically prohibited in the Shoreline Program use;

6.5. The applicant shall obtain required shoreline permits or approvals prior to construction; and

7.6. The provisions of OMC 18.37.070.B and C, Nonconforming Structures and Uses Within Critical Area Buffers, shall not be applied where critical area buffers are located within the shoreline jurisdiction. The uses and activities noted therein shall be subject to all provisions of OMC 18.32, Critical Area Regulations and this Shoreline Program.

B. Existing non-conforming covered moorage may be maintained, repaired, or replaced in accordance

with WAC 173-27-040 and the requirements of the Department of Natural Resources.

ATTACHMENT 5



3.7.4 Procedure for Development of a Nonconforming Lot

A. When lot size would prevent development of a nonconforming lot consistent with the applicable shoreline setback requirements the Administrator may authorize development under the following conditions: 1. A written request is received from the project proponent;

2. The development will be located as far landward as possible from the ordinary high-water mark; and

3. The decision of the Administrator is administrative and shall be based upon the shoreline variance criteria found in Section 3.5.E of this Chapter.

3.7.5 Administrative Variances for Nonconforming Structures A. In the event that a structure or building that does not conform to the shoreline setback is 50 percent

or more destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God or act of public enemy, and the structure cannot be restored on the same footprint due to the application of shoreline and zoning setbacks, the property owner may seek an administrative variance to restore the portion of the legally established structure or building that encroached on the setback in the same location. Administrative variances shall be reviewed by the Shoreline Administrator and may be approved if all of the following criteria are met:

1. That the application of the shoreline and zoning setback requirements set forth in this Master Program and Title 18 precludes or significantly interferes with reasonable use of the property;

2. That the hardship described in (1) is specifically related to damage caused by fire, explosion, act of God, or act of public enemy wherein the structure is damaged 50 percent or more as determined by the Building Official;

3. That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program, complies with applicable design standards in OMC, Title 18, and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment;

4. That the applicant demonstrates that the project will result in no net loss to shoreline ecological functions and processes;

5. That the project meets vegetation conservation requirements set forth in Section 5.9 where alterations are made to the development footprint;

6. That the administrative variance is used only for purposes of restoration of the damaged structure and not for expansion that would otherwise be prohibited; and

7. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.

ATTACHMENT 5



B. The administrative variance shall not be used to further encroach on or reduce the shoreline setback, vegetation conservation areas, or critical area buffers. In these instances, a shoreline variance shall be required.

C. Structures or buildings approved under an administrative variance do not become conforming.

D. Upon receiving an application of an administrative variance, the Administrator shall mail notice of the request to all property owners within 300 feet. At a minimum the notice shall contain a description of the proposed project, the relief being sought, and that interested citizens may contact the Administrator for more information.

3.7.5 6 Notification for Development of a Nonconforming Lot A. Upon receiving a written request to develop a nonconforming lot, the Administrator shall mail

notice of the request to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet. At a minimum, the notice shall state the following: 1. The decision on the request will be made within ten days from the date that the notice was

mailed; and

2. Interested citizens may contact the Administrator for further information.

B. Appeal of the Administrator's decision shall be made in accordance with appeal procedures set forth in OMC 18.75.

3.8 7 Submittal Requirements A. All development proposals under the jurisdiction of this Shoreline Program shall satisfy the

application submittal requirements set forth in OMC Titles 17 and 18.

B. In addition to the submittal requirements in A above, development proposals on shoreline parcels that are located within critical areas and/or their buffers shall submit critical area reports and plans as required in OMC 18.32.

3.9 Inspections A. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.200, the Administrator or his authorized representatives may enter land or

structures to enforce the provisions of this Shoreline Program. Such entry shall follow the provisions set forth in OMC 8.24.120.

3.10 Penalties and Enforcement A. The Shoreline Management Act imposes significant penalties for violation of the Act, regulations and

master programs. A violation constitutes a gross misdemeanor, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment (RCW 90.58.220). In addition to the criminal penalty, the Act imposes liability on any

ATTACHMENT 5



person violating the Act or conditions of a permit for all damage to public or private property arising from the violation. Furthermore, the violator may have to restore an area affected by a violation, and pay the entire cost of restoration, including attorney's fees and court costs (RCW 90.58.230).

B. Enforcement action may be taken by the City or Department of Ecology whenever a person has violated any provision of the Shoreline Management Act or this Shoreline Master Program or other regulation promulgated under the Act. The choice of enforcement action and the severity of any penalty should be based on the nature of the violation, the damage or risk to the public or to public resources, and/or the existence or degree of bad faith of the person subject to the enforcement action.

ATTACHMENT 5


agenda - olympiawa.govolympiawa.gov/.../cpd/smp/2011/110919binderopcregagstffinalmins091911.pdf ·...

Documents