HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-046 Declaring approcal of and intention to adopt amendments to City's SMP and directing submittal
RESOL TION NO. 05-046
STATE F WASHINGTON
City 0 Port Townsend
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY 0 PORT TOWNSEND DECLARING THE
APPROVAL OF AND INTENTIO TO ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE
CITY'S SHORELINE MASTE PROGRAM, INCLUDING GOALS,
POLICIES AND REGULATIONS, ND DIRECTING SUBMITTAL TO THE
STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLO Y; AND FURTHER DECLARING THE
INTENT TO REPEAL THE URB N WATERFRONT PLAN (1990) AND
COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC ACC SS PLAN UPON ADOPTION OF THE
SHORELINE M STER PROGRAM.
I
I
The City Council of the City of Port To send finds as follows:
Background
1) The state of Washington Shore!" e Management Act of 1971 (Chapter 90.58 RCW)
requires that cities and counties i cur certain duties, obligations and responsibilities
with regard to implementation 0 the Act.
2) The City of Port Townsend adop ed ajoint Shoreline Master Program (SMP) with
Jefferson County in 1974. Subse uently, the Port Townsend SMP was subsequently
amended in 1989,1992, and 199 .
3) The state Department of Ecology adopted new SMP guidelines in December 2003
(WAC 173-26).
4) Port Townsend, recognized by th state as an "Early Adopter," is now required under
state rules to review and update i s SMP consistent with the state guidelines by
December 1,2005 (SSB 6012).
5) Amendments to the existing SM are necessary to comply with the Act and the state
guidelines.
1
Resolution 05-046
Public Involvement, communication a d coordination
6) The City provided for meaningfu public participation and coordinated with affected
agencies and tribal interests cons'stent with the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter
90.58.130), Ecology Guidelines ( AC 173-26-100), the provisions of the GMA
(RCW 36.70A.035, 36.70A.130, d 36.70A.140), and the plan adoption and
amendment procedures set forth i Chapter 20.04 PTMC.
7) The City of Port Townsend enga ed in an open public discussion of the SMP, its
designations, goals, policies, reg lations, administration provisions and other
components, including review at wenty-five Shoreline Advisory Group meetings,
four public open houses, twelve lanning Commission meetings including two
workshops and a public hearing eld over ten separate sessions between August 4,
2005, and October 13,2005. All written records of the Shoreline Advisory Group
Meetings and all audio taped and written records of the Planning Commission's
deliberations during the meeting and hearing described above are incorporated
herein by this reference.
8) The Advisory Group met with s ff and consultants 25 times between May 2003 and
July 2005. The Advisory Group onsisted of 15 members plus two alternates
representing a diverse group of s eholders including but not limited to: state
agencies, Port of Port Townsend, marine trades, natural resources, tribes, recreational
interests, businesses and homeo ers.
9) Funded by CZM grant G040026 ,a public workshop was held before the Point
Hudson Subcommittee comprise of representatives from the Port Commission, City
Council, and Port and City staff n April 14, 2004 at the Point Hudson Marina Room,
103 Hudson Place, Port Townse d. During the workshop, approximately 70
individuals assisted in the formul tion of policy and use recommendations.
10) A public open house was held on June 3, 2004 at the Pope Marine Building. This
open house provided an overvie of shoreline planning and the objectives of the
SMP update. Participants were ked to provide input on public access and
recreational opportunities.
2
Resolution 05-046
11) A Joint City Council/Shoreline dvisory Group public workshop on Point Hudson
and redevelopment of historic mine trades areas was conducted on October 21,
2004 at Fort Worden. Approxim tely 30 individuals including a majority of City
Council members, the Port of Po Townsend General Manager, Shoreline Advisory
Group members, and the general ublic attended the workshop. Two guest speakers,
planning consultant Keith Gurne and historic preservationist Michael Sullivan,
presented at the meeting.
12) On July 20, 2005, a public works op entitled, "Port Townsend Shorelines: Local
Jewels, National Treasures - Ho To Keep Them Safe" was presented at the Fort
Worden conference center. In a ition to city staff presenting on local planning
efforts, guest speakers focused 0 the state of the Puget Sound and what each of us
can do to help reverse the declin of marine resources. Guest speakers included
representatives from Puget Soun Action Team, Washington State University Water
Watchers, People for Puget Sou , and the Port Townsend Marine Science Center.
13) On August 4, 2005, Planning Co mission initiated a public hearing that continued
over a series often meetings. T Planning Commission reviewed the draft SMP
presented by staff and the recom endations of the Shoreline Advisory Group, On
October 13, 2005, after consideri g public testimony, deliberating the issues and
incorporating necessary revision, the Planning Commission voted 6-0-2 to
recommend approval of the Dra Shoreline Master Program.
14) Timely and effective notice was rovided for each Shoreline Advisory Group
Meeting. Notice was provided i the Meetings Update list published in the Jefferson
County Leader, posted at City of Ices and online at http://www.ci.port-
townsend.wa.us/meetings/index. tml. In addition, staff regularly sent out email
notices of shoreline planning act vities to those that had signed one of the meeting
sign in sheets.
15) Notices of public workshops and Planning Commission meetings were posted online,
at http://www.ci.port-townsend.a.us/meetings/index.htrnl and noticed in the
Jefferson County Leader consist nt with the noticing requirements set forth in Title
20 PTMC.
16) The City worked with state Dep ent of Ecology (DOE) agency staff throughout
the update process. Staff attend d meetings with DOE regarding shoreline planning
in Olympia and Seattle, and Eco ogy staff attended numerous Shoreline Advisory
Group, Planning Commission other meetings with staff. DOE staff reviewed and
provided comments on the Port ownsend shoreline inventory, characterization
report, and draft SMP.
17) The City of Port Townsend enga ed the public, tribes and other agencies through a
variety of means throughout the pdate process including email distribution lists,
3
Resolution 05-046
formal notices, informal meeting, and participation on the Advisory Group and ad-
hoc committees.
18) Shoreline issues were also prese ted on Port Townsend's local cable channel (PTTV).
This channel broadcasts to rough y 5,000 residents in Jefferson County. Educational
videos about shoreline ecology d activities that threaten ecological functions were
aired, along with a brief announc ment about the City's ongoing efforts to update the
SMP.
Environmental Review
19) An environmental checklist was repared for the action of adopting the proposed
amendments in accordance with e State Environmental Policy Act.
20) The SEP A Responsible Official or Port Townsend issued a Declaration of Non-
Significance pursuant to the Stat Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW)
on July 27,2005. One comment as received regarding bird populations in Port
Townsend, and the Determinatio of Non-Significance was determined to be final on
August 30, 2005.
Compliance with Substantive Require ents of the Act and Ecology Guidelines
21) The state Shoreline Management Act requires and authorizes the protection ofthe
state's shorelines through shoreli e master programs that are adopted locally and by
Ecology. Washington's Shorelin Management Act (SMA) was adopted by the
public in a 1972 referendum "to revent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and
piecemeal development of the st te's shorelines." The SMA has three broad policies:
A. Encourage water-depend nt uses: "uses shall be preferred which are
consistent with control 0 pollution and prevention of damage to the natural
environment, or are uniq e to or dependent upon use of the states'
shorelines..."
B. Protect shoreline natural esources, including "...the land and its vegetation
and wildlife, and the wat r ofthe state and their aquatic life..."
C. Promote public access: "t e public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and
aesthetic qualities ofnat al shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the
greatest extent feasible c nsistent with the overall best interest of the state and
the people generally."
22) The Ecology guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC) include an updated required process
to prepare shoreline master progr s. The preparation of a shoreline master program
must include:
. Public participation consiste t with RCW 90.58.130,
. Communication with state ag ncies,
. Communication with affecte Indian tribes,
. An inventory of shoreline co ditions,
4
Resolution 05-046
. Analysis of shoreline issues f concern that includes, as necessary: a
characterization of shoreline unctions and processes; shoreline use analysis;
cumulative impact analysis; e City conducted an inventory and analysis of
shoreline conditions in 2001 ough 2004. A technical advisory team was
convened on September 11 d December 18,2001 to assist in this effort. A
technical workshop was held on March 28, 2002. Information was compiled from
numerous sources, including he Department of Natural Resources Point-No-Point
Treaty Council, and Jefferso County Marine Resources Committee. Information
gathered was field verified. comprehensive inventory of shoreline conditions
and an atlas of shoreline map were prepared 2002. The atlas includes maps of
known habitat areas, eelgrass topography, aerial photos and other information.
Further analysis ofthe enviro ental conditions of the shoreline was conducted,
including review of Salmon nd Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors by Water
Resource Inventory Area 17, he Quilcene-Snow Basin. A Characterization of
Functions and Ecosystem-wi e Processes was published on November 23, 2004.
23) In accordance with the SMA, "[ ]ses shall be preferred which are. ..unique to or
dependent upon uses of the state's shoreline." The draft Port Townsend SMP
regulates the shoreline through a plication of eight shoreline environment
designations: Aquatic, Natural, onservancy, Shoreline Residential, Urban, Historic
Waterfront, Boat Haven Marine rades, and Point Hudson. These designations are
shown on an official map of shor line designations. The primary intent of the
Aquatic designation is to protect d enhance the unique characteristics of marine
waters. The Natural designation rovides for protection of areas relatively free of
human influence and that are mi imally degraded. Conservancy provides for
preservation of natural areas and other lands consistent with a variety of compatible
uses. Residential uses are the pri ary focus of the Shoreline Residential designation.
Urban and Historic Waterfront s pport a mix of water oriented and non water
oriented uses that are consistent ith the commercial mix of the southern shoreline.
Water-dependent uses, including marine industry, are focused in the Boat Haven
Marine Trades designation, whil the Point Hudson designation supports a mix of
small-scale maritime industry an other commercial uses.
5
Resolution 05-046
24) The SMA requires cities and co ties to adopt goals, or "elements," to guide and
support major shoreline manage ent issues. The elements required by RCW
90.58.100(2) are: shoreline use, conomic development, circulation, public access,
recreation, conservation, and hist ric and cultural. The draft Port Townsend SMP
includes goals and policies to su port these required elements as well as for shoreline
restoration.
25) The SMA states that master pro ams shall include provisions for public access to the
shoreline and preservation and e largement of recreation opportunities. The draft
Port Townsend SMP includes a pter on public access policies and regulations that
direct the provision of public acc ss to the shoreline that is commensurate with the
degree of development with shor line development occurs.
26) The Shoreline Management Act equires all shoreline master programs to meet the
fundamental goals of the Act to rotect ecological functions and natural shoreline
resources. To protect natural sh reline resources, the guidelines require master
programs to include provisions t at require mitigation of environmental impacts from
individual developments to main in no net loss of shoreline resource. The guidelines
also require restoration planning 0 achieve overall improvements in shoreline
ecological functions over time.
27) The Growth Management Act re uires the protection of critical areas, including but
not limited to habitat, wetlands d geologically hazardous areas.
28) The state Legislature passed ES B 1933, which ESHB took effect on July 27,2003.
The provisions of ESHB 1933 in ludes that: GMA goals are not in priority order;
shorelines of statewide signific ce may include critical areas, but are not critical
areas; jurisdiction for critical are s protection is under SMA; the SMP must provide a
level of protection to critical are s within shorelines that is "at least equal" to the
level of protection provided to c tical areas by the local government's critical areas
ordinances (CAOs) adopted und r the GMA.
29) The draft Port Townsend SMP pjOVides environmental protection by:
. Establishing shoreline de ignations that direct more intense uses to existing
developed areas and that imits activities allowed in areas with existing natural
features (Chapter 5);
Establishing environmen I protection policies and regulations that required
no net loss of shoreline e vironment resources when development occurs
through avoidance, mini ization, and mitigation, includes regulations for
general environmental i acts, critical areas, habitat, frequently flooded
areas, geologically hazar ous areas, and wetlands (Chapter 6);
Establishing policies and egulations for vegetation preservation, impervious
surface limits and on cle ing and grading that restrict the removal of natural
vegetation in the shorelinr area (Section 5.9 and 9.3); and
I
.
.
6
Resolution 05-046
. Establishing policies and egulations that control the development of specific
uses (Chapter 8) and mod fications (Chapter 9).
30) The standards for protection of c itical areas provided in the draft SMP are based on
the scientific review conducted a part of the shoreline inventory and characterization,
state resource literature, and the dvice of expert professional. The standards
requiring critical areas protection in the draft SMP are at least equal to those included
in the City's GMA critical areas egulations.
31) The City prepared a restoration c apter for the SMP to seek overall improvement of
the shoreline environment over ti e. The restoration chapter is based on restoration
opportunities identified in the sh reline inventory and lists potential restoration
projects and implementation stra egies. City staff and consultant met with an ad hoc
restoration committee to review d develop the draft restoration plan. The Shoreline
Advisory Group reviewed an up ated draft of the restoration plan, following review
by the ad hoc group. The restora ion chapter (Chapter 14 ofthe draft SMP) includes
a restoration vision, goals, object ves and opportunities. It also provides information
about existing and ongoing resto ation programs and opportunities for monitoring
shoreline conditions. Strategies or implementing restoration are provided to provide
guidance on successful restoratio . The draft SMP notes that the nature of restoration
may evolve as conditions change and as new information becomes available.
32) Development may result in cum lative impacts to those functions and values of
shoreline areas that contribute to d are necessary for a healthy natural environment
and perceived quality oflife. To address potential cumulative impacts, the City
prepared an analysis of cumulati e impacts consistent with the state guidelines (July
27,2005). The cumulative impa ts analysis considers the condition of the shoreline
environment as documented in t e characterization report, foreseeable development
based on existing and planned I d uses and development trends, and documents how
development that may result in c mulative impacts over time will be offset through
SMP regulations and policies.
33) The SMA recognizes the need to protect private property rights. The draft Port
Townsend SMP is intended to be consistent with other property regulations, and
ensuring all appropriate rights af orded to property owners. The draft SMP allows for
shoreline uses that are consistent with the goals of the Shoreline Management Act and
for reasonable use of private pro erty as defined by the courts.
34) In accordance with RCW 90.58. 20, preference shall be given to recognize and
protect statewide interests over I cal interest of shorelines of statewide significance.
In Port Townsend, shorelines of tatewide significance include those waters of Puget
Sound and the Strait of Juan de uca lying seaward from the line of extreme low tide,
and are addressed in Chapter 5 0 the draft SMP.
Key Policy Direction
7
Resolution 05-046
35) The Draft SMP contains goals, p licies, and regulations, and a shorelines designation
map intended to establish the ch acter, quality and pattern of the future physical
development along the City's sh reline. The Master Program specifies the type and
location of development, and es blishes height and setback requirements. Important
direction provided by the Master Program includes:
Shoreline goals - The S oreline Management Act requires localities to adopt
goals, or "elements," to g ide and support major shoreline management issues
RCW 90.58.100(2) In ad ition to the required elements, the Draft Master
Program includes a "Rest ration and Adaptive Management" element. This
section addresses the req . rement to achieve "no net loss of ecological
functions necessary to su tain shoreline natural resources" and to provide for
the restoration of impaire ecological functions.
.
Shoreline environment esignations - The Planning Commission concurs
with the Advisory Group's recommendation to employ a classification system
consisting of eight shore!"ne environments. These environment designations
have been assigned as sh wn on the map (Attachment B) consistent with the
corresponding designatio criteria provided for each environment. In
delineating environment esignations the City of Port Townsend aims to
provide for priority uses hile assuring that existing shoreline ecological
functions are protected w th the proposed pattern and intensity of
development. To that en , staff was specifically directed to assign:
Aquatic designation to th area located waterward of the ordinary high-water
mark, excluding those wa ers encompassed within marinas, Chinese Gardens
or Kali Tai Lagoon.
Natural designation to th water areas ofKali Tai and Chinese Gardens, the
northerly shore of Kali T . and to marine bluffs - These areas require very low
intensity uses in order to aintain the ecological functions and ecosystem-
wide processes.
Conservancy designation 0 the south shore ofKali Tai Lagoon - This
designation recognizes th sensitive nature of the area while allowing a
variety of compatible rec ational uses.
.
.
8
Resolution 05-046
. Shoreline Residential des gnation - Given that a majority of Port Townsend's
waterfront residential pro erty lies atop steep marine bluffs, the Shoreline
Residential designation is applied to that area landward of the top of the bluff
while the sensitivity of th marine bluff is protected through application of the
Natural designation.
. Urban designation to are planned for general commercial development
including commercially z ned property between Boat Haven and the
Washington State Ferries terminal, and Kali Tai Care Center on the east side
ofKah Tai Lagoon.
. Historic Waterfront to ar as zoned C-III, Historic Commercial - in
recognition of the mix of es that have revitalized the historic buildings at the
heart of the Port T ownse d Historic District.
. Point Hudson and Boat H ven districts - Consistent with the directive of the
SMA and Ecology Guide ines (WAC 173-26-201 (d)), the City, in cooperation
with the Port of Port To send, identified areas suitable for water-dependent
and associated water-orie ted uses sufficient to meet existing and envisioned
water-dependent needs. he City's shoreline inventory indicated that the
southern shore offers pro cted waters suitable for harbors, however this
shoreline is also extreme1 shallow and supports critical saltwater habitat (i.e.,
eelgrass). In addition, th southern shoreline is almost completely built out,
with much ofthe develop ent consisting of historic buildings. The City
referred to the Port of Po Townsend's Comprehensive Scheme (2004) to
identify the need for wate -dependent uses. Given both the natural constraints
and the lack of increased emand for land available for water-dependent
needs, the Advisory Grou and Planning Commission agreed that provisions
allowing for a mix ofwat r-dependent and a limited range of non water-
dependent uses were app priate.
Point Hudson - Within the oint Hudson designation, a fundamental goal was to
prioritize uses that retain its small-scale character and maritime heritage. Large
new commercial facilities sh uld not be encouraged.
In keeping with previous pi ing efforts, specifically the Port's Comprehensive
Scheme and the 1994 Dr Point Hudson Master Plan, the Advisory Group
concluded that effectively di cussing Point Hudson requires that the property be
divided into subdistricts. Al ough nine subdistricts were considered in the 1994
Draft Point Hudson Master P an; the Advisory Group found that three subdistricts
(the Maritime Heritage Corri or, Point Hudson East, and the Marina) adequately
reflected the unique characte istics existing at Point Hudson. While the Maritime
Heritage Corridor and Mari a subdistricts should focus on water-dependent and
water-related uses, greater flexibility is warranted for Point Hudson East
subdistrict. Several factors ere considered in reaching this conclusion including
the SMA and City of Port To send Comprehensive Plan goals promoting water-
9
Resolution 05-046
oriented uses, goals promoti g adaptive reuse of historic structures, existing uses
at Point Hudson, and the sce ic and environmental qualities ofthe site.
. Point Hudson East. Th size and configuration of the buildings within Point
Hudson East, originally uilt in the 1930's as a federal quarantine station and
subsequently used as by t e Coast Guard and U.S. Army, are not conducive to
marine trade use. Thes buildings have historically housed and continue to
house a mix of water-re ated, water-enjoyment, and non-water oriented uses
(this mix has included k yak retail sales, restaurants, custom arts and crafts,
community based non-pr fits, B&Bs and a hotel, meeting spaces, laundry and
restroom/shower facilitie , and port and professional office uses). Shoreline
regulations favor water- riented uses within the shoreline jurisdiction, but
give local governments exibility to allow nonwater-oriented uses to support
the water-oriented uses, ased on local economic and land use conditions, and
local policy preferences such as historic preservation. In recognition of the
desire to preserve and re bilitate existing buildings, the draft SMP provisions
allow a limited range f non-water oriented uses to occupy a specified
percentage of these buil . ngs. The idea is that adaptive reuse of existing
buildings should be enco aged to preserve buildings that define the character
of the area and qualify or historic status as well as to generate revenue to
support marine trades an keep the area vibrant. Vacant land is reserved for
future marine trades as e SMP limits new development to water-dependent,
water-related, and non- mmercial water enjoyment uses (i.e., restaurants
must be located within e isting buildings). The WACs, which implement the
Shoreline Management ct, anticipate and allow in appropriate situations
mixed use developments . thin the shoreline jurisdiction.
The existing RV Park at oint Hudson is not considered a water-enjoyment
use by this master progr . View corridors within Point Hudson are
impacted by the placeme t of recreational vehicles in the Port operated R V
Park. Opportunities for r storation of ecological functions of the Point are
inhibited by the existing Vs. However, the RVs provide recreational
enjoyment and Port offici Is report that net revenues from the RV Park
currently help keep Point udson financially viable, supporting water-
oriented development wit the income it generates. Recognizing the benefits
afforded by the RVs, the MP allows the existing RVs as a permitted use.
The goal of the SMP is to encourage removal of the RVs by allowing adaptive
reuses in existing buildin s and new compatible development that will
generate sufficient replac ment revenues to the Port such that the R V s can be
phased out. As part ofth recurrent plan and code review and amendments
mandated under the GM (RCW 36. 70A.130), the City proposes to
periodically assess the st us of Point Hudson and determine whether the use
and development regulati ns for Point Hudson are achieving their desired
effect.
10
Resolution 05-046
. Maritime Heritage Cor idor. This district includes the Northwest Maritime
Center site. Historically, the Port-owned buildings in this district have been
used and are better suite for water-oriented uses. Therefore, uses emphasize
water-dependent, water-r lated and water-enjoyment uses and one-mixed use
development (at the Land all site). The mixed-use development is intended to
support water-oriented us s while at the same time make the redevelopment of
the Landfall viable. It hould be noted that the draft SMP would allow a
restaurant in this mixed use development as a permitted use, while recent
zoning text amendments y Council list restaurants within this district of Point
Hudson as a conditional se.
. Marina Subdistrict: ,J'ater-dependent and water-related uses are only
allowed. Vi
To preserve existing marine t~ades and promote new marine trades, the Advisory
Group recommended a serieslofrestrictions on restaurants in the Point Hudson
designation. Their recomme~dation was reviewed and minor modifications were
made prior to their adoption s a zoning code amendment. Consistent with the
zoning code amendment, the raft SMP proposes limiting individual restaurant
size (3500 sq. ft.), and cumuljltive restaurant area (11,000 sq. ft.).
Only necessary parking shoul~ be allowed in the original Point Hudson station
area (such as ADA parking ;;fd business delivery parking). Larger parking
facilities should be moved in and from shoreline areas and connected via
walkways to uses and buildin s in Point Hudson.
New non-transient residentia uses should be prohibited in Point Hudson.
Existing residences should b classified as non-conforming uses. No new
residences should be added ( ither in existing or new buildings).
Buildings should be setback om Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) OIl the
east side of Point Hudson (fa ing Admiralty Inlet), while allowing
interpretive/cultural displays, public access amenities (e.g., gazebo), and hand-
launched boats on the southe ly point where habitat is not as sensitive.
Boat Haven - It is recommende that the Boat Haven designation be primarily for
water dependent and water relate uses. Limited non-water oriented use could be
allowed in the northeast (NE) ba in area of the Boat Haven designation. Marinas
should include free public pump uts. Although no new marinas are permitted under
the Draft SMP, the Planning Co ission and the Advisory Group support showing a
future expansion area located wa erward of the existing marina as a Boat Haven
designation.
Critical Areas including wetla$s, critical habitats, flooding, and geologically
hazardous areas - The Draft aster Program incorporates the City's newly adopted
Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordin ce 2899). Critical areas buffers and development
11
Resolution 05-046
regulations are intended to prote t and improve the city's critical areas for present and
future generations as well as to p ovide for the public's health and safety. The city's
critical areas regulations incorpo ate Ecology's wetland buffer alternative #3, along
with Ecology's latest compensato mitigation requirements and ratios. Regulations
to protect Fish and Wildlife Habi at Conservation areas have been strengthened to
include impervious surface cove ge limitations and vegetation retention standards.
Development within frequently ooded areas is subject to review under both the
critical areas ordinance regulatio s and "Flood Damage Prevention," Chapter 16.08
of the Port Townsend Municipal ode.
In the Port Townsend shoreline, igh marine bluffs are the most visible type of
geologically hazardous area, alth ugh seismic, tsunami and erosion hazards have also
been mapped. Geotechnical rep s are required for development proposed within 50
feet ofthe crest of a marine bluff or a distance equal to the height of the slope up to a
distance of 100 feet from the cre t (measured from the top), whichever is greater.
Vegetation protection and terr stria) habitat - Alteration of the natural landscape
can cause changes in the structur and functioning of shoreline habitats and alter use
of the habitats by fish, shellfish, irds, marine mammals and other organisms. It can
destabilize bluffs, increase erosi , siltation, runoff/flooding, change drainage
patterns, reduce flood storage ca acity and damage habitat. To minimize impacts to
shoreline resources, the Draft M ter Program regulates alteration of the landscape
(including but not limited to cle 'ng, grading, and vegetation removal). Under the
Draft Master Program all clearin must be followed by development or revegetation -
no speculative clearing is permitt d. Clearing within required setback areas must be
revegetated according to an appr ved landscape plan that addresses various standards.
The Advisory Group recognized hat it is difficult to determine precise and
appropriate vegetation protection levels for individual lots, because the science tends
to consider impacts at the basin- ide (broader) level. The Group suggested that the
vegetation retention/restoration r quirement should be adjusted to ensure that the
higher quality/effective vegetatio is retained (not the lower quality areas); that
criteria should be included that e courage the retained vegetation to be located next to
other native vegetation areas, ne the water or to provide connectivity. Vegetation
retention should be of "native ve etation" and vegetation planted should be suited to
the environment and contribute t habitat enhancement.
Public access - In general, the D aft Master Program seeks to maintain and enhance
public access, both physical and isual, throughout the City's shoreline. Relevant
policies and development guideli es from two previously adopted plans, the 1990
Port Townsend Urban Waterfron Plan and the 1992 Comprehensive Public Access
Plan are incorporated into the Dr ft. Consistent with the Ecology Guidelines, the
draft policies call for locating ping away from waterfront. The draft Master
Program also establishes provisi ns for public access to be provided by new
development. I
12
Resolution 05-046
Overwater structures - Follow' g the Advisory Group recommendation, under the
draft SMP, new overwater struct es are limited to water-dependent uses, public
access and ecological restoration and to locations on the southern shoreline.
Redevelopment of existing ove ater structures are more flexible to encourage
ongoing use of existing structure and restoration of historic structures. No new
overwater structures are envision d at Kali Tai Lagoon or Chinese Gardens. There
should be allowance for some co ercial uses on docks (e.g., fuel docks, ferry
terminals, and temporary vendin carts) may be allowable commercial uses in
commercial oriented environme al designations.
Aquaculture - Following the A visory Group recommendation, aquaculture would
be limited to seeding for recove of historic populations and geoduck harvesting on
DNR tracts (when permitted by NR). Fish pens and commercial shellfish
harvesting would not be allowed.
Residential development - Purs t to the direction from the Advisory Group the
draft Master Program requires a inimum fifty- (50) foot setback from the ordinary
high water mark, provided that t e setback may be further increased to retain a 15-
foot setback from a required criti al areas buffer associated with the presence of a
wetland, geologically hazardous ea, or critical fish and wildlife habitat area.
Exceptions may be granted for in III of existing platted lots. Given the sensitivity of
the shoreline environment, the A visory Group recommended impervious surface
limitations. The Planning Com ission reviewed the limitations under the Critical
Areas Ordinance and incorporate the sliding scale for percent limitations based upon
the slope of the land. In addition the Planning Commission incorporated a cap on the
total amount of impervious surfa e for anyone single-family residential development;
effectively discouraging large es tes sprawling over more than 5,000 square feet.
Given the sensitivity of marine buffs and the potential for significant cumulative
effects, the policies and regulatio s prohibit private stairs/trams to the beach in favor
of designated public stairs at key locations such as street ends. Due to the high wave
energy and high bluffs associate with most of the shoreline residential environment,
private residential docks are pro 'bited.
Ferry terminal- The Draft Mas er Program limits the height of overwater structures
to thirty-five (35) feet above extr me high tide, except height limits shall not apply to
flagpoles, antennas, and functio I components of water-dependent uses (e.g.,
overhead walkways for ferry ope ations, booms for haul-out facilities), that may
exceed the height limit when nec ssary to perform their intended functions. Vending
carts or other minor food service may be an allowed accessory use on the terminal.
There was support for expanding the terminal holding area waterward if found to
reduce environmental impacts fr m current conditions. The terminal should be
designed to support under-pier n vigation for kayakers.
Restoration - The Restoration P an is included as Chapter 14 of the draft. The
Shoreline Advisory Group direct d staff to explore opportunities to incorporating
restoration goals throughout the MP. The Urban designation was identified as a
13
Resolution 05-046
candidate for offering restoration incentives - allowing for multi-family residential or
transient accommodations in exc ange for restoration of shoreline ecological
functions or enhanced public acc ss. The SMP includes a discussion of restoration
mechanisms and strategies that e City could implement, as well as parallel activities
that would be led by other gove ental and non-governmental organizations.
Consideration of a tax/fee syste to directly fund shoreline restoration measures is
one of the many strategies listed. Although numerous members of the restoration
committee strongly advocated su h an approach, several members of the Planning
Commission expressed strong re ervations. Chair Randels' motion to delete the
entire section on "Tax Relief' fai ed on a straw vote of 3/3.
Docks, Piers, and Floats - Foil wing the direction of the Advisory Group, the draft
Master Program prohibits boatho ses and allows mooring buoys only for public
agencies. Private mooring buoys were not recommended in part due to the high
exposure ofthe City's northern d eastern shorelines. Shelter for public use should
be required on piers (aka Union hart) and designed to not increase shading of the
water (eelgrass).
Definitions - Consistent with th Advisory Group recommendation, the de[mition of
"mixed use" combines water-dep ndent and/or related uses with water-enjoyment
and/or non-water oriented uses. here was concern expressed for the original
definition of "water oriented" th if called a "priority use" it could reduce the focus;
this definition was revised to refl ct that water-related and water-dependent have
priority and status, over water-en oyment uses.
36) In accordance with the SMA, the shoreline jurisdiction for Port Townsend applies to
those shoreline areas that include: All marine waters of the state situated within the
City limits, Kali Tai Lagoon, Chi ese Gardens, all uplands extending 200 feet from
the ordinary high water mark, an all associated wetlands. The Port Townsend
shoreline jurisdiction extends wa erward from the shoreline to the city limits.
37) The Port Townsend Shoreline M ster Program has been updated consistent with the
requirements ofthe state Shoreli e Management Act (SMA) and the shoreline SMP
guidelines, Chapter 173-26 W A
GMA Consistency
38) Planning Commission finds that MP amendments set forth in Exhibit "A" are wholly
consistent with the Community irection Statement contained in Chapter III of the
Comprehensive Plan, and the re ew and amendment procedures set forth in Section
20.04 PTMC.
I
39) The draft Port Townsend SMP is consistent with the land use designations and goals
of the Port Townsend Comprehe sive Plan. The City of Port Townsend plans to
review and update the policies 0 the Comprehensive Plan and related development
regulations to acknowledge adop ion of the SMP and ensure continued consistency.
14
Resolution 05-046
40) The Planning Commission finds hat the amendments to the City of Port Townsend
Shoreline Master Program, set fo h in Exhibit "A" and attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this refer ce, are necessary to implement the Shoreline
Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) and Ecology Guidelines (WAC 173-26), and
to ensure consistency between th Critical Areas policies contained within the Land
Use Element of the Port Townse d Comprehensive Plan and the City's Implementing
Regulations.
Repeal the Urban Waterfront Plan (1 90) and Community Public Access Plan (1992)
41) Relevant policies and developm nt guidelines from the 1990 Port Townsend Urban
Waterfront Plan and the 1992 Comp ehensive Public Access Plan, have been
incorporated into this Master Progr . To facilitate permit administration, the "stand
alone" plans shall be retired upon ad ption of the Master Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RES L VED, by the City Council of the City of Port
Townsend as follows:
I) The City Council approves 2005 Shoreline Master Program attached to this
Resolution and incorporated herein by r ference, subject to the following:
a. Staff is directed to forward this esolution and the attached 2005 Shoreline Master
Program to the Department of Ecology ( OE) for their review in accordance with RCW
90.58.090
b. Following receipt of written find'ngs and conclusions from DOE, the City Council
will review and take action as authorize by RCW 90.58.090.
c. The 2005 Shoreline Master Prog am shall not become final and effective until
Council reviews DOE findings and conc usions, and adopts the 2005 Shoreline Master
Program, with any changes resulting fro the process outlined in RCW 90.58.090, by
ordinance.
d. Staff is authorized to correct any ographical errors, spelling, formatting and to
make other minor revisions to improve t e reader's comprehension of the document provided
that any revisions do not alter the regulat ry meaning and intent and provided further that
said edits are shown at the time of ordin ce adoption.
2) Staff is directed to prepare, in bil format, for Planning Commission review, and
Planning Commission is requested to re~' ew and make recommendation on, any necessary
revisions to the City's land use planning ocuments, maps, and development regulations
including but not limited to: Comprehe sive Plan, Land Use Map, Zoning Map and zoning
code, to ensure consistency with the Sho eline Master Program approved by this Resolution.
15
Resolution 05-046
Council plans to act on the necessary rev sions at the time of final ordinance approving the
2005 Shoreline Master Program followi g DOE review.
3) Staff is directed to review, in coo dination with the Department of Natural Resources,
whether amendments to the City's Harb r Area are warranted, and make recommendations
for Council action.
ADOPTED by the City Council f the City of Port Townsend, at a regular meeting
thereof, held this nineteenth day of Dece ber 2005.
Attest:
C~~'21..~
Catharine Robinson, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
<I2----~~
John P. Watts, City Attorney
16
Resolution 05-046