HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 1, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting Packet.ORCHARD
Meeting Location:
216 Prospect Street
Port Orchard, WA 98366
Contact us:
Phone (360) 876-4407
cityhall@portorchardwa.gov
www.portorchardwa.gov
Planning Commission
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, July 1, 2025
6:00 PM
Attendees and Planning Commissioners may attend in person at City Hall or via Zoom
Pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 42.30 RCW, the Planning Commission is
conducting its public meeting in a hybrid format with options for in -person attendance in the
Council Chambers at City Hall or remote viewing and participation via Zoom (link below).
Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86180242823
Zoom Call -In: 1 253 215 8782
Webinar ID: 8618024 2823
ADA Requirements
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need accommodations to
participate in this meeting, please contact the Department of Community Development at (360)
874-5533. Notification at least 48 hours in advance of meeting will enable the City to make
arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting.
Note: tievator is temporarily out or service, accessing the Council Chambers on the third floor.
Should you need this specific accommodation to attend the meeting in person, please contact
the Department of Community Development at (360) 874-5533 at least 48 hours prior to the
scheduled meeting to make accommodation.
1. Call to Order
A. Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Welcome and Introduction.
Planning Commission and City Staff Introductions.
3. Audience Comments.
Topics not listed for public hearing on tonight's agenda.
Please limit comments to 3 minutes.
4. Approval of Minutes: May 6, 2025 and June 3, 2025 Minutes
July 1, 2025 Meeting Agenda
1
5. Business Items
A. DISCUSSION: Critical Areas Ordinance — POMC 20.162 (Attachment)
Discussion of draft amendments to Port Orchard Municipal Code, 20.162 - Critical
Areas, as part of the implementation of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update.
Staff Contact: Jim Fisk, AICP, Principal Planner
B. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Update to the Planning Commission on past and upcoming
Planning Commission activity
Staff Contact: Nick Bond, AICP, Community Development Director
6. Adjourn
7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: August 5, 2025
ADA Requirements
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need accommodations to participate in this meeting, please
contact the City Clerk's office at (360) 876-4407. Notification at least 48 hours in advance of meeting will enable the City
to make arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting.
REMINDER: Please silence all electronic devices while City Council is in session.
To subscribe to our general news & public notices click the link: http://portorchardwa.gov/subscribe
For current City Council member and contact information, please visit https://portorchardwa.gov/departments/city-
council/.
For Committee Membership please visit https://portorchardwa.gov/city-council-advisory-committees/.
July 1, 2025 Meeting Agenda
2
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
Planning Commission Minutes
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
Phone: (360) 874-5533 • Fax: (360) 876-4980
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 6, 2025
Hybrid Meeting — Council Chambers/Zoom Teleconference
COMMISSIONERS:
Present: Tyler McKlosky (Chair), Annette Stewart (Vice Chair), Stephanie Bailey, Paul Fontenot, Joe
Morrison, Tiffiny Mitchell, Wayne Wright
Absent:
STAFF:
Community Development Director Nick Bond, Principal Planner Jim Fisk, Associate Planner Connor
Dahlquist
1. CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner McKlosky called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. and led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
2. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were four members of the public present in the chamber and three
attending remotely. No comment was given on items not on the agenda.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM APRIL 1, 2025: Commissioner McKlosky asked if the other
commissioners reviewed the minutes from the April 1, 2025 meeting and if anyone had any issues or
proposed amendments. Seeing none, a motion was entertained to approve the minutes. Commissioner
Stewart moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Fontenot seconded. The motion passed
unanimously with abstention from Commissioners McKlosky.
5. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARING: 2025 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Public Comments are summarized and not transcribed verbatim. The minutes reflect the general substance of the
comments made and are not intended to be a word-for-word account. The May 6`" meeting was presented with
technical difficulties so recording and audio may be missing in some parts. Full comment details can be listened to
from the published video recording.
Principal Planner Fisk presented the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as a part of
the 2025 update cycle. At the February meeting, staff introduced the proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendments docket, which were approved by City Council on March 11, 2025. The Planning
Commission reviewed the proposals in April. Staff confirmed that the required public notices were
issued, including SEPA notification and additionally mailed notices to property owners within 300
feet of the affected properties subject to the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment request. As of
the meeting date, no public comments had been received.
3
The 2025 amendment docket initially included six items: three city -initiated text amendments and
three applicant -initiated amendments. Two items have since been removed including the city -
initiated Sherman Avenue Stormwater Park Master Plan, as it is still in early phases of
development, and applicant -initiated Hull Avenue Rezone as they are pursuing a site -specific
rezone through a separate process.
Four remaining amendments remain on the docket for the commission to consider including the
first city -initiated amendment to the Capital Facilities Element to incorporate new projects and
funding sources for transportation, utilities, parks, and public facilities. The second city -initiated
amendment is to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to include new roadways, transit,
and active transportation projects, along with additional funding sources. The third amendment and
an applicant -initiated text amendment proposes a revision to the Expenditures table in the Capital
Facilities Element to reflect updated cost estimates based on inflation and anticipated changes in
project scope and priorities. This request is the same as the City -initiated text amendment to the
Capital Facilities Element. The last amendment on the docket and second applicant -initiated item
is a Comprehensive Plan Map and Legislative Zoning Map amendment for thirteen parcels located
approximately 0.22 miles southwest of SW Old Clifton Road and Lloyd Parkway. The amendment
would redesignate these properties in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, found in Appendix
A, from Industrial to Medium -Density Residential (MDR) and rezone from Light Industrial (LI) to
Residential 3 (R3), supporting residential development.
Commissioner McKlosky opened the public hearing and reminded audience members to keep
comments to three minutes.
In -person audience member Larry Cleman of 1600 SW Durfey Lane gave public testimony.
Cleman's comments were not entirely captured by the recorded Zoom but opposition for the
rezone was given.
Mathew Hale gave public testimony and expressed concerns over the proposed road access that
would impact their property. Hale wanted additional information on the road design, including
how much land would be taken for road width and sidewalks, noting it could eliminate parking
areas they personally invested in. They opposed the use of eminent domain, arguing the developer
should use existing access points on their own land rather than cutting through private properties.
Hale also raised concerns about being forced to connect to city water, potentially losing access to
their family's long-standing private well.
Daniel Hale of 3507 Anderson Hill Road also provided in -person public testimony. Hale voiced
strong opposition to the proposed road project that would cut through their property. They
questioned how eminent domain could be granted for a single person which would impact existing
land owned by others who have lived there for decades. Concerns included loss of private wells
due to being forced onto city water, changes in zoning and property value, and potential
environmental impacts, specifically the removal of existing orchard trees. He urged the
commission to consider these impacts before approving access through their land.
Barbara Shafer of 1767 SW Durfey Lane provided public comment in -person. Shafer shared
concern about a proposed road being constructed through a long-established private dirt road
Page 2 of 12
4
where families and children currently live and play. She emphasized the road's importance as a
safe, quiet space for existing families. Although she is a renter, she highlighted the emotional and
communal value of the area, which has been in the landowner's family for many years, and they've
allowed her family to live there at affordable costs. She opposed plans for a two-lane road with
sidewalks, noting it would disrupt the safety, character, and sense of sanctuary the community
currently enjoys.
In -person audience member William (Bill) Palmer, a Planning consultant and Mike Diaz's
representative, provided public testimony. Palmer spoke in support of the land use designation
change from industrial to residential. He explained that the property has remained undeveloped for
nearly 18 years primarily due to environmental challenges and lack of access. The existing
easement to Anderson Hill Road has been in place for a long time, and while not currently up to
city standards, it is the only viable access at the time of the proposal. He noted that although
alternative access options may be explored in the future, none are currently identified.
Palmer argued that residential traffic would have far less impact on surrounding properties than
industrial traffic, which would be permitted under the current zoning. If the rezone is approved,
future subdivision proposals would include road upgrades, likely two 10 -foot driving lanes with
curb and sidewalk on one side, meeting city standards. He emphasized that the property has legal
access rights and cannot be landlocked under state law.
He acknowledged neighborhood concerns and stated they are valid but reiterated that the proposed
residential use is more compatible with the area than potential industrial development. Palmer
concluded by referencing the detailed project analysis and responses already submitted by the
applicant and expressed confidence that the city has sufficient information to consider the proposal
for approval. He also welcomed questions from commissioners and was open to continued
dialogue with neighbors.
Commissioner McKlosky responded that the Commission will continue to hear public testimony to
give everyone in the room and online opportunity.
An audience member began asking Palmer questions and McKlosky asked to hold audience
conversation. Conversations continued and Principal Planner Fisk notified the conversation -
participants that conversations could continue outside of council chambers so additional public
testimony could be made to the Commission.
Audience member Bennett Skinner provided public comment. Their residence address was not
captured due to loss in audio. Skinner objected to the proposed use of an existing easement for
access, clarifying that the road in question was originally built as a private driveway through a
handshake agreement decades ago and was never intended for broader development use. He
emphasized that the property is not landlocked, as other access points exist, and expressed
concerns about the road's proximity to private wells, septic systems, and drain fields, which they
believe could violate setback and health codes.
He stated they had not been contacted about the project and only learned of it when surveyors
appeared on the property. While sympathetic to the applicant's investment, Skinner believes the
Page 3 of 12
5
project would be harmful to their own property and the safety and character of the area. They
argued that if the land remains zoned for commercial/industrial use, the feared residential traffic
would not occur since commercial development would likely access the property elsewhere and
not require heavy use of the easement.
Skinner highlighted the long-standing generational presence of the property and explained they
rent land to others at affordable rates to help community members stay housed. He expressed
appreciation for being heard and welcomed continued dialogue as the process moves forward.
Larry Durfey of 1800 SW Durfey Lane shared in -person comment. Durfey voiced strong
opposition to the proposed road access through a private easement for a new residential
development. He emphasized that his main concern, and that of nearby residents, is not the
development itself, but the proposed use of a steep, narrow, privately maintained dirt road that runs
through existing residential properties. Durfey explained that the road was originally built by his
father and a neighbor's father under a private agreement, intended only to serve a few homes, not
for future high -density development traffic.
He pointed out that if the developer, Mike Diaz, instead accessed the property from Old Clifton
Road or through nearby industrial -zoned land (where there is already infrastructure, including a
gun range and water tank roads), there would be little or no objection from residents. However,
using the current access would cut through residential yards, impact septic systems, and come
within feet of existing homes, posing major safety risks to children, pets, and families. He
described how the current informal use of the road relies on mutual courtesy, with neighbors
pulling aside to let one another pass, something not feasible with increased traffic.
Durfey expressed frustration that the developer has not seriously considered alternate access routes
and warned that bringing in potentially hundreds of cars for a multifamily development would
dramatically change traffic on Old Clifton Road, which he said is already dangerous and
congested. He likened the steepness of the proposed access to Berry Lake Road and questioned
whether it could be safely improved.
He asked the Commission to prioritize the safety, peace, and well-being of long-time community
members over developer convenience. He reiterated that there are other feasible access routes
through industrial land that would not disturb the residential character of the area and urged the
commission to let the land stay as it has historically been, emphasizing that residents simply want
to preserve their way of life and the generational homes they've maintained for decades.
Tiffany Hale gave the final in -person testimony. Hale sought clarification from the Commission
where the easement location was and how it would impact the Hale property and Skinner
properties.
McKlosky shared that the question had been documented, and the public hearing will continue
with online testimony.
Erin Durfey at 1900 SW Durfey Lane provided public comment online. As the daughter of Larry
Durfey and a third -generation resident on the road in question, she expressed deep concern over
Page 4 of 12
6
the proposed development's impact on her family, neighbors, and way of life. She lives at the
bottom of the road with her two young children and maintains a small homestead with chickens
and other animals. Erin described the close-knit nature of their community, where neighbors
support one another and maintain a peaceful, safe environment.
She emphasized that expanding the current dirt road into a two-lane road with sidewalks to
accommodate new residential traffic would be highly disruptive and detrimental to every
household on the road. The increase in traffic and foot activity would fundamentally alter the
character of their neighborhood, and she described the idea as frightening and overwhelming.
Erin also voiced frustration with the lack of direct communication from the city or developer,
noting that she only learned about the situation through her father's efforts to inform the
neighborhood. She stressed that while official notifications may have been sent, they did not reach
the community in a meaningful or accessible way.
Tavia Vice of 1740 SW Durfey Lane provided the next online public testimony. Vice shared her
opposition to the proposed road expansion and residential development. She began by emphasizing
that the Old Clifton and Anderson Hill Road intersection is already hazardous and cannot safely
support an increase in traffic volume, especially from potentially hundreds of new residents. She
warned that the added congestion could worsen an already problematic intersection, raising serious
safety concerns.
She also criticized the proposal to construct additional apartment buildings, pointing out that Port
Orchard has seen hundreds of new units constructed in recent years. In her view, the city does not
need more high -density housing, particularly in a rural, residential neighborhood like hers.
Tavia further warned of significant impacts on local wildlife, including bears, deer, and rabbits that
currently inhabit the area. She stressed that continued development would eliminate natural habitat
and push wildlife into urban areas, increasing human -wildlife conflicts and disrupting the
environment.
Tavia also raised concern about school overcrowding, specifically noting that the local high school
is already over capacity. Adding more residents would exacerbate this issue and strain public
services.
Tavia described her neighborhood as a tight -knit, quiet, and family -oriented community where
children currently play safely along a low -traffic, private road. She explained that turning the small
rural road into a standard two-lane street with sidewalks would not only dramatically alter the
neighborhood's character but would also bring cars dangerously close to existing homes. Many
homes were built with setbacks appropriate for a quiet road, not for the higher traffic volumes
associated with urban development.
She concluded by urging the Planning Commission to consider the strong opposition from
residents and the long-term consequences of pushing forward with a project that she believes is
incompatible with the existing community, environment, and infrastructure.
Page 5 of 12
7
John Medlock of 1740 SW Durfey Lane provided an objection to the road improvements and being
able to use the existing easement. He shared his personal experience building his home in 2020,
highlighting the difficulty of accessing utilities, noting he had to drill over 150 feet for well water,
and that there is no sufficient aquifer for large-scale development. He emphasized that any new
construction would require extensive utility work, likely needing to run lines over 1,200 feet up a
private driveway, which he views as logistically infeasible and disruptive.
Medlock pointed out the physical challenges of the road itself, which is steep and winding, making
it difficult to upgrade to a two-lane road with sidewalks without encroaching on neighboring
properties. He also stressed that the Old Clifton/Anderson Hill intersection is already overwhelmed
and could not safely accommodate 100-200 additional vehicles that a large apartment
development would bring.
He argued that the existing easement originated as a personal handshake agreement between
property owners, was not something meant to support a subdivision or commercial development.
He argued that no one beyond his property has legal access, and that the applicant would likely
have to compensate multiple residents if they pursued access through Durfey Lane, making it
impractical and contentious.
Medlock concluded by stating that the land in question is effectively landlocked, unless access is
obtained another way, and that any attempt to push through the current plan would be a major
burden on current residents. He thanked the commission for listening and urged them to reject the
proposed access route and development.
Testimony for the May Planning Commission meeting concluded and Director Bond reminded the
Commission the meaning of the rezone item presented to them, which is whether or not the
property should be rezoned form industrial to residential. Project -specific details are not being
voted upon, which considers legal access, water availability, environmental review, and more.
Bond reminded the Commission that they or the City Council have no obligation to grant a
Comprehensive Plan amendment and in order to approve it, it has to meet the criteria set forth in
Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.04.040. These include consistency with the comprehensive plan,
the Growth Management Act, and consideration of cumulative impacts.
Bond noted that one key criterion is alignment with growth targets. Port Orchard currently has a
large surplus of residential land and only a small surplus of employment (industrial) land. While
the proposed amendment would slightly reduce the city's employment capacity, it would not drop
below the required threshold based on countywide growth targets. Therefore, from a capacity
standpoint, it is technically supportable.
He also highlighted that compatibility with neighboring land uses is a required consideration.
While many neighbors voiced concerns about the impacts of potential residential development, the
city is not yet reviewing a specific development proposal, only the land use change. Any future
subdivision proposal, or development activity, would be reviewed in detail by the hearing
examiner or other designated decision -maker, for compliance with zoning and environmental
regulations, including possible mitigation or even denial based on specific impacts.
Page 6 of 12
8
Principal Planner Fisk shared clarifying input on the comment of eminent domain in that the City
has no desire to acquire any property on behalf of the development for this purpose.
Director Bond reiterated that cities in Washington have no right to acquire an easement through
eminent domain for a developer if they don't already have it.
McKlosky asked Commissioner Wright online if he had any comments before the Zoom audio
connection was disrupted once more.
Commissioner Wright shared that he had not thoroughly reviewed the development proposal yet
but highlighted concerns about the location of existing wells near the proposed access road and
how expanding the road could be problematic due to well protection zones, potentially making the
current easement unusable. He stressed that if wells are that close, an alternative access route
might be necessary.
Wright noted that the planning commission's role so far has been limited to evaluating whether
residential zoning might be better than industrial, not the full development details. He emphasized
that access to the property is a major challenge, especially given the need to cross a creek, which
would be complex and costly.
Based on his professional experience, he warned that these factors make the property difficult to
develop. He encouraged all parties to carefully consider these issues going forward. Finally, he
pointed out that the Planning Commission has not been presented with new information about the
wells or related development challenges and questioned whether a decision should be made
without that data.
Commissioner Morrison expressed sympathy for the property owners present but also
acknowledged Mr. Diaz's property rights. He emphasized that the current discussion is limited to
recommending a comprehensive plan amendment for a rezoning request, not decisions about
access, easements, or subdivision permits, which are still far off. Morrison noted that the core
question before the commission is whether to support the property owner's rezoning request. He
mentioned his own interest in industrial land and broad analysis of the property and also found that
it would be difficult to utilize such land effectively. Morrison asked Director Bond if a residential
rezoning only allows for residential use, or if a industrial/residential mix existed.
Director Bond responded that there is an Industrial Flex zone which allows for a mix but that is not
what is being proposed.
Principal Planner Fisk shared that the applicant requested an R3 designation which does allow for
apartments and that R2 does not allow for apartments. The Industrial Flex zone is a commercial
designation which does not allow for detached houses.
Director Bond shared that the Commission may recommend an R2 rezone instead of R3 which
would eliminate the possibility of apartments.
Page 7 of 12
9
Commissioner Morrison responded that he is not sure if the Commission should recommend a
different rezone than as originally proposed as it is important for Port Orchard to build a range of
housing types to allow all income -levels to have access to housing.
Commissioner Mitchell thanked all the attendees in -person and remotely for engaging in the public
hearing process. She expressed empathy for the residents' concerns, sharing her own experience
living in McCormick Woods and witnessing unsafe driving on Old Clifton Road. She
acknowledged the dangers of increased traffic in the fast-growing area.
Mitchell highlighted the many points raised during the hearing, particularly around alternative
access options that may not have been fully considered. She noted that although the commission is
only deciding on a rezoning tonight, not access or subdivision plans, she understands residents'
worries about the broader implications.
Mitchell suggested postponing a decision on the rezoning amendment to allow for more
community discussion and input. She emphasized the value in openly weighing whether residential
or industrial use is preferable for the site and the importance of continued public involvement,
especially now that awareness has increased.
Commissioner Stewart provided comments and commended the audience on the community
they've been in their part of Port Orchard and for being engaged in the process. She acknowledged
that what she heard from many speakers was not total opposition to development, but rather a
desire to preserve the character and peace of their specific road and neighborhood.
Stewart noted that growth and development in Port Orchard are likely inevitable, even if not on
this particular property. Given the complexity and strong community concern, she expressed a
desire for more time before making a decision and thanked everyone for attending, emphasizing
that their participation had a meaningful impact.
Commissioner Bailey followed and agreed with Commissioner Stewart's comments. Audio was
not captured so the full extent of Bailey's feedback was not recorded.
Commissioner Fontenot shared both a professional perspective and personal connection to the
issue. Professionally, he emphasized his broader goal on the Planning Commission, which is to
guide smarter, more holistically considered development in Port Orchard. He explained that he has
long been focused on avoiding sprawling, car -dependent growth and instead wants to see the city
grow inward, building a city that is better connected by public transit for more efficient growth.
Fontenot acknowledged that growth in Port Orchard is inevitable but argued it should be directed
in ways that minimize disruption and prioritize sustainability. Fontenot noted that the area in
question around Old Clifton, Anderson Hill, and McCormick Woods are already a disconnected,
car -reliant part of the city. He pointed out that continued development there, especially residential,
would worsen traffic and safety problems without solving underlying infrastructure challenges. He
was especially concerned about how that area is integrated with the city's transit system.
Page 8 of 12
10
Fontenot also addressed environmental concerns, stating that while industrial development might
seem less intrusive in some ways, its potential impacts on the nearby creek and critical areas were
serious. He shared that this environmental risk is what initially led him to lean toward favoring
residential zoning over industrial, although he was clear that this doesn't mean automatic support
for any specific project.
Fontenot expressed deep empathy with residents who testified. He described growing up in a
similarly rural, tight -knit neighborhood, and said that if a road expansion or major development
had been proposed there without direct communication or consultation, he too would have been
outraged. He reiterated that the Commission's decision at this stage is only about whether to
recommend changing the zoning and not about approving a development project or subdivision.
Commissioner McKlosky recapped the item of discussion which included updates to the capital
facilities element, the transportation improvement program, and the amendments involving the
rezone. McKlosky entertained a motion to either recommend adopting all the amendments or none
of the amendments.
Commissioner Mitchell wished to recommend adoption of the transportation improvement
program and capital facilities element but wanted to hold off the rezone amendment to allow for
further public comment.
Director Bond gave feedback that amending the Comprehensive Plan is allowed once a year so
bifurcating the amendments is not possible. The Commission may continue to keep the discussion
open until the June Planning Commissioner meeting, but Bond reminded Commissioners that a
public hearing for the middle housing code update will also be happening. The middle housing
code has a June 30th deadline. Bond shared that Commissioners may reach out to staff from now
until next month with any questions that they might have. Any additional public engagement
beyond the hearing would cause timeline conflicts for other items that need to happen on following
agendas. He emphasized that it would be important to have a decision on the amendments by the
end of May.
Commissioner Mitchell recommended to table the amendments to the June meeting to allow for
additional public feedback and that they may email her to continue the conversation.
Director Bond recommended keeping the record of tonight's hearing open until the June meeting
so that people may submit written testimony. He shared that the Planning Commission has a
shared email which may be found on the city's website.
Commissioner Mitchell asked staff if conditions of additional community engagement on the
easement access may be included in the passing of the motion. Director Bond shared that there is
not a way to conditionally grant a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Bond reminded
Commissioners that public noticing for additional public comment would occur if the project
happened to be over nine units which would trigger SEPA review.
Page 9 of 12
11
Commissioner Mitchell reiterated keeping the record open until the next Planning Commission
meeting and to reach out to Commissioners through their email to provide further written
comment.
Commissioner Mitchell made a motion to table all the amendments and keep the record open.
Commissioners Wright and Morrison shared that the applicant should consider the change of
residential zoning type from R3 to R2 during the extended timeline of public feedback and to come
back with a revised proposal if that meets their needs.
Commissioner Fontenot seconded Mitchell's motion to table.
Commissioner Stewart shared her personal connection to Larry Durfey and asked if she should
recuse herself from the motion.
Director Bond shared that voting on a motion to table did not present any conflicts.
The motion passed unanimously.
Director Bond reminded members of the public that written comment may also be provided to
planning(hiportorchardwa.gov as well as mailing comments to the Department of Community
Development at 216 Prospect St. Port Orchard, WA 98366 or call the department to talk to staff.
Commissioner Morrison emphasized that it is important for the applicant to have a dialogue with
property owners as so many questions about project -specifics were raised tonight that
Commissioners don't have the answers for. He hopes that there is a better understanding of
proposal intent by the June meeting.
B. Discussion: Middle Housing Model Ordinance Development Regulations
Principal Planner Fisk presented the presented proposed amendments to the Port Orchard
Municipal Code to implement recent state housing legislation. These changes aim to support
middle housing, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and reduced off-street parking requirements, in
compliance with a state -mandated deadline of June 30, 2025. The amendments also align with the
city's 2024 Comprehensive Plan.
Fisk explained that the draft ordinance had been submitted to the Washington State Department of
Commerce for the required 60 -day review, and a SEPA Determination of Non -Significance was
issued on April 29. The city is following the state's model middle housing ordinance for Tier 3
compliance, with plans to create more tailored Tier 2 regulations in the future.
Elements of the proposal include adopting unit -based density limits and allowing multiple building
types on one lot so long as they meet district density caps. For reference, in the R1 zone, a lot
could include two units, such as a house and two ADUs. The R2 zone would allow up to four
units, and R3 up to six, with no cap for apartment buildings.
Page 10 of 12
12
A new unit lot subdivision process is proposed which would allow for multi -unit developments to
be divided into smaller fee -simple lots, provided the parent lot meets certain dimensional
standards.
ADU regulations would be further become more flexible, including expanded size allowances and
previously approved removal of owner -occupancy rules. Parking requirements would be reduced
or eliminated in accordance with Senate Bill 5184.
To improve clarity and reduce complexity, the code's residential design standards have been
consolidated and streamlined. Discretionary design criteria has been eliminated, garage and facade
standards reorganized into a flexible option, and middle housing is now held to the same standards
as detached homes.
Overlay districts have also been simplified. The McCormick Village overlay has been revised to
reflect new housing types, and the downtown height overlay has been renamed and expanded to
apply citywide, consolidating height rules across zones, except in view protection areas.
Fisk concluded by requesting that the Planning Commission schedule a public hearing to formally
review the ordinance and prepare a recommendation for the City Council. Once the ordinance is
adopted, staff will begin developing permanent Tier 2 regulations.
Commissioner Wright shared that the redlined document is a bit difficult to read and the next
version should reduce that for better comprehension. Wright also shared that there were some
inconsistencies with the way ADUs were discussed. Wright shared that he will provide written
feedback to Fisk.
Principal Planner Fisk shared that Associate Planner Dahlquist is working on updated graphics for
middle housing building types and standards which will be represented in the next draft version.
Commissioner Fontenot shared a positive reaction to the ordinance update and is looking forward
to the update.
Commissioner McKlosky reminded Commissioners that the topic will be revisited at the June
meeting for a public hearing.
C. DISCUSSION: Planning Commission Schedule for July 2025
Director Bond and staff wanted to ask whether all Commissioners will be present for the July
commission meeting as it falls on a holiday week. If a quorum was not met, they would consider
rescheduling.
All Commissioners confirmed that they will be present for the July 1st meeting.
D. DIRECTOR's REPORT
Page 11 of 12
13
Director Bond announced that the Puget Sound Regional Council officially certified Port
Orchard's comprehensive plan about a month ago. He noted that only about 25% of jurisdictions
had received certification at that time, and Port Orchard's early approval reflects the team's strong
efforts and proactive approach, especially regarding housing issues. He emphasized that the city
faced fewer challenges and less community pushbacks than others, in part because they had
addressed key issues earlier than many peer jurisdictions. He concluded by congratulating
everyone on a job well done.
ADJOURN: Commissioner McKlosky adjourned the meeting at 7:57 pm.
Tyler McKlosky, Chair
Nick Bond, Community Development Director
Page 12 of 12
14
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
Planning Commission Minutes
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
Phone: (360) 874-5533 • Fax: (360) 876-4980
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 3, 2025
Hybrid Meeting — Council Chambers/Zoom Teleconference
COMMISSIONERS:
Present: Tyler McKlosky (Chair), Annette Stewart (Vice Chair), Stephanie Bailey, Paul Fontenot, Joe
Morrison, Tiffiny Mitchell
Absent: Wayne Wright
STAFF:
Community Development Director Nick Bond, Principal Planner Jim Fisk, Associate Planner Connor
Dahlquist
1. CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner McKlosky called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
2. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There was one member of the public present in the chamber and three attending
remotely. No comment was given on items not on the agenda.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MAY 6, 2025: The May 6, 2025 minutes will be prepared for approval
at the July 2025 meeting due to technical difficulties in recording at the May meeting.
5. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARING: 2025 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Public Comments are summarized and not transcribed verbatim. The minutes reflect the general substance of the
comments made and are not intended to be a word-for-word account. Full comment details can be listened to from the
published video recording.
Commissioner Stewart recused herself from the agenda item and vacated the room due to conflict
of interest.
Principal Planner Fisk presented the continued discussion on the proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan as a part of the 2025 update cycle. The public hearing originally was open at
the May Planning Commission meeting and kept it open through the June Planning Commission
meeting to allow for additional public comment and consideration. One written comment was
provided by Bill Palmer before publication of the June 3rd Planning Commission packet. Two
additional written comments were provided since then to Commissioners via email prior to the
close of business on June 3rd, 2025. Hard copies were provided to commissioners at their seats for
tonight's meeting. The post -packet publication comments raised concerns with potential
development impacts associated with residential development.
15
Fisk reminded Commissioners that it is the Planning Commission's role to evaluate the proposed
changes to the comprehensive plan's land use designations and to not review or approve project
specific development proposals. Impacts such as traffic, critical area protections, and infrastructure
capacity are regulated and mitigated through subsequent development review processes in
accordance with the Port Orchard Municipal Code.
Fisk informed the Commission that, to date, none of the proposed amendments have been revised
since their initial presentation. The 2025 amendment docket includes two city -initiated text
amendments and three applicant -initiated amendments. Two items that were initially proposed
have been removed from consideration including the Sherman Stormwater Park and the Hull
Avenue rezone which will be reviewed as a site -specific rezone. The remaining items before the
commission include two city -initiated amendments: one to the capital facilities element, the water
expenditures table, and the second to the transportation improvement program. The applicant -
initiated amendments, also in conjunction with the city's amendment, deals with the capital
facilities element, specifically the water expenditures table. The fourth item is a map amendment
which proposes to redesignate 13 parcels southwest of SW Old Clifton Road and Lloyd Parkway
from Industrial to Medium Residential and a legislative rezone from Light Industrial to Residential
3. The area is environmentally constrained and not suitable for industrial development. Residential
use is likely more consistent with the site's characteristics and existing infrastructure capacity. The
Commission was asked to reopen the public hearing and take any final oral testimony and then
close the public hearing, deliberate, and provide a recommendation to the city council on the full
package of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. The City Council meeting is
tentatively scheduled to consider the commission's recommendation at its June 10th meeting
following the completion of the required 60 -day Department of Commerce review.
In -person audience member and applicant Mike Diaz provided comment to the Commission. Diaz
shared that two concerns were brought up at the May 6th, 2025 public hearing. Diaz spoke with
residents on Durfey Lane and decided to propose primary access for future development to a point
off SW Old Clifton Rd instead of Durfey Lane. Diaz also addressed concerns about apartments
being built if the rezone was approved and expressed that it was not of interest to him. Diaz shared
that a consideration for R2 instead of R3 is welcome as that would not allow for the option of the
apartment building -type.
William (Bill) Palmer provided comment remotely on Zoom as the applicant's representative.
Palmer emphasized the unsuitable nature of the parcels for industrial development and that nobody
has pursued it as an industrial site for those reasons. Palmer stated that the criteria set forth by the
city for rezones has been met by this proposal. Palmer reminded that details of access and project
specifics are resolved during development -related application reviews and public hearings. Palmer
reiterated Diaz's comments on only being interested in residential subdivision development and
not apartments.
John Medlock of 1740 SW Durfey Lane provided comment remotely on Zoom. Medlock
expressed their continued concerns with only reviewing the proposal as a land use change and not
considering project -specific impacts. Access through Durfey Lane would bring significant negative
impact to current residents. Concerns about utility changes were also made and that existing water
Page 2 of 5
16
and sewer access conditions are ideal for them. Medlock shared that keeping it zoned as industrial
will allow for no impact to happen and to keep it consistent with current undeveloped conditions.
Commissioner McKlosky closed the public hearing and opened it up to Commissioners for
discussion.
Commissioner Mitchell thanked those who participated and engaged in the public comment period.
Mitchell also thanked the applicant and applicant representative for engaging the members of the
impact who would be directly impacted.
Commissioner Bailey shared their gratitude to the Commission for extending the public comment
period which allowed for additional conversations between the applicant and property owners to
find an access solution.
Commissioner Fontenot shared their thoughts of concerns including the dismissive attitude toward
the little possibility of future industrial development if it remained as -is, noting that such
assumptions have proven incorrect in other communities. Fontenot acknowledged Diaz's efforts to
explore alternate access routes but noted that no definitive plans have been made. He also shared
the broader concern of simply relocating the development to another rural area, potentially causing
similar community opposition. While the current decision is only a rezoning from industrial to R3
(residential), Fontenot noted conflicting views on the type of development proposed. He personally
supports multifamily development over single-family housing, despite hearing some public
concerns that the area already has enough apartments.
A motion to recommend the amendments by Commissioner Morrison was moved. Commissioner
Mitchell seconded.
Motion: To recommend that the city council adopt an ordinance approving the 2025
comprehensive plan amendment including updates to the capital facilities element the
transportation improvement program and amendments to the comprehensive plan map and
legislative zoning map as presented
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Abstentions: 1 (Stewart)
Motion passed.
B. Discussion: Middle Housing Grant Deliverables
Before introducing the middle housing material, Principal Planner Fisk shared an overview of the
city's work to date under the middle housing grant provided by the Washington State Department
of Commerce in 2023 and 2024. The work responds to new state legislation (HB 1110, SB 2321,
HB 1337) requiring cities to allow a wider range of housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, and
townhomes in areas traditionally zoned for single-family use. The City entered a grant agreement
with the Department of Commerce to establish deliverables for this effort.
Page 3 of 5
17
Some milestones included the submission of an initial memorandum in June 2024 meeting Year 1
grant requirements, preparation of two technical memos (Design Standards Evaluation and
Municipal Code Evaluation) developed with Planning Department's consultant AHBL, proposed
amendments to R1, R2, and R3 zones to allow at least two units per lot, avoiding the need to repeal
the R1 zone and ensuring compliance with Tier 3 requirements based on the city's current
population, and consideration of future Tier 2 compliance strategies.
These documents informed the draft Middle Housing Ordinance under review. Final adoption is
required by June 30 to prevent the state's model code from overriding local regulations. No action
was requested at this time but staff wanted to acknowledge the work that was done up to this point.
Commissioners Fontenot expressed support for the middle housing ordinance, noting appreciation
for the work completed over the past year. He emphasized his backing of increased multifamily
housing and greater housing diversity, stating this ordinance is a positive step forward and that he
is fully supportive of it.
C. PUBLIC HEARING: Middle Housing Model Ordinance Development Regulations Principal
Planner Fisk presented the topic of the public hearing, Middle Housing Ordinance, which is
required in response to the new state legislation (HB 1110, SB 2321, HB 1337) requiring cities to
allow a wider range of housing types.
No members of the public were present in the chambers or online to provide comments.
A motion to recommend the ordinance by Commissioner Morrison was moved. Commissioner
Fontenot seconded.
Motion: To recommend that the city council adopt an ordinance approving the proposed
amendments to Port Orchard Municipal Code Title 20 collectively known as the middle housing
ordinance as presented.
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Abstentions: 0
Motion passed.
D. DISCUSSION: DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Bond provided an update on the city's newly launched Pre -Approved ADU (Accessory
Dwelling Unit) Program, which has been in development for the past nine months. The program
went live the previous Friday and has already generated significant community interest, becoming
the city's second most -shared Facebook post of the year. The program currently features four pre -
approved ADU models, ranging in size from 480 to 800 square feet, with options for both single -
and two-story layouts. Two additional models, a 1,000 square foot rambler and a flexible carriage
Page 4 of 5
18
house unit, are in development and expected to be available later this year. It aims to simplify the
process for homeowners to add housing units by offering pre -approved plans, a detailed guide, and
an online request form. While building plans are pre -approved, site -specific review and permits are
still required. The program has received strong public interest and is part of a broader countywide
effort to expand housing options with minimal neighborhood impact. Public outreach, including a
farmers market booth, is underway.
Commissioner Fontenot expressed strong support for the new ADU designs, highlighting public
enthusiasm and noting their practicality and appeal. Speaking from personal experience as
someone who lives in an ADU, Fontenot emphasized the importance of recognizing ADUs as
legitimate housing, not just secondary family -only units. He praised the designs for helping to
modernize traditional single-family neighborhoods and for contributing meaningfully to middle
housing solutions, calling them a valuable and well -suited option for those seeking smaller, more
efficient homes.
ADJOURN: Commissioner McKlosky adjourned the meeting at 6:31 pm.
Tyler McKlosky, Chair
Nick Bond, Community Development Director
Page 5 of 5
19
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
Ph.: (360) 874-5533 • FAX: (360) 876-4980
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No: 5(a) Meeting Date: July 1, 2025
POMC 20.162 - Critical Areas Prepared by: Nick Bond, AICP, Development
Subject: Ordinance Amendments Director
Issue: As part of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update implementation, the City proposes to
amend Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.162, the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), to ensure compliance with
the Growth Management Act (GMA) and integrate Best Available Science (BAS) in protecting critical areas
within the City of Port Orchard.
At the December, January, and February Planning Commission meetings, staff presented proposed
amendments to POMC 20.162. At the February Planning Commission meeting, a comment matrix was
presented to the Commission based on the comments received. The comment matrix has been refreshed
with additional work completed by staff, but for the most part remains unchanged since last
presentation.020. The refreshed matrix is included in the Planning Commission packet for this meeting. The
matrix identifies public comments, their location in the draft, the commenter, and staff's disposition to the
comment. Comments that have been incorporated are shown in green, comments still under discussion are
marked in yellow, and comments that will not be incorporated are identified in red.
The most significant edits since the February meeting appear in draft POMC 20.162. These proposed edits
introduce a process for critical areas review and approval. Currently, the City of Port Orchard does not have
a mechanism to provide critical areas review outside of a development activity application. This can prove
to be challenging for property owners that may be considering development as without a verification
process, feasibility studies and site planning are solely based on the report prepared by a property owner's
consultant without consensus from the City. This verification process, as drafted, does not create a path for
property owners to have the City prepare reports, but rather provides a service to potential developers and
property owners. Additionally, these draft amendments create a critical areas approval process when
associated with a development activity application such as a preliminary plat or building permit. This
process should be nested within the overall review process of the associated development activity permit
application.
The proposed amendments to the CAO continue to align with the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies
by protecting natural resources, maintaining ecological functions, and safeguarding public health and
safety. These updates are required under the GMA (RCW 36.70A), which mandates periodic updates to
development regulations protecting critical areas. Critical areas defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5) include:
20
• Wetlands
• Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water
• Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
• Frequently flooded areas
• Geologically hazardous areas
Protecting critical areas helps preserve ecological functions, mitigate risks such as landslides and flooding,
and avoid the lasting environmental, economic, and social impacts of degraded critical areas. Consistent
with the GMA, the proposed amendments incorporate BAS and include special measures to protect
anadromous fisheries, such as salmonids, which are ecologically, culturally, and economically significant.
The draft ordinance includes several updates intended to ensure compliance with state law, integrate BAS,
and improve usability:
• Code Reorganization: Sections of the ordinance have been reorganized to streamline the review
process and enhance usability.
• Wetland Buffers: Buffer standards have been updated to align with the Department of Ecology's
latest recommendations.
• Wetland Mitigation Hierarchy: The updated ordinance reflects the current mitigation hierarchy,
emphasizing preferred approaches such as mitigation banking and other programmatic solutions.
Onsite mitigation remains an option where programmatic approaches are not feasible, ensuring
flexibility for project applicants.
• Stream Buffer Terminology: The term "stream buffer" has been replaced with "Riparian
Management Zone" (RMZ) to align with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
standards and BAS.
• Riparian Management Zones (RMZs): RMZ standards have been updated to meet or exceed
WDFW's minimum requirements, enhancing protection for critical habitats.
Staff has included a redline of POMC 20.162 in tonight's packet, which include all proposed revisions
including those made since the last meeting. These updates provide clarity and context for review by
Planning Commissioners. The proposed amendments are designed to ensure compliance with state and
federal requirements, integrate BAS, and balance environmental protection with development needs.
Attachments: Draft Critical Areas Ordinance - POMC 20.162 REDLINE, Comment Matrix 20250617
2
21
Chapter 20.162
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Sections:
Article I. Critical Areas
20.162.010 Title.
20.162.012 Purpose.
20.162.014 Applicability.
20.162.016 Relationship to other regulations.
20.162.018 Inventory provisions.
20.162.020 Administration — Generally.
20.162.022 Application requirements — Generally.
20.162.024 Application requirements — Mitigation sequencing.
20.162.026 Application requirements — Review criteria.
20.162.028 Bonds.
20.162.030 Notice to title.
20.162.032 Exemptions.
20.162.034 Exceptions.
20.162.036 Variances.
20.162.038 Nonconforming — Existing structures.
20.162.040 Enforcement — Violation — Penalty.
20.162.042 Liability.
Article II. Definitions
20.162.044 Definitions — Genera
Article III. Wetlands
20.162.046 Purpose.
20.162.048 Wetland categories.
20.162.050 Exempt wetlands.
20.162.052 Development standards.
20.162.054 Regulated uses and activities.
20.162.056 Additional development standards for regulated uses.
20.162.058 Application requirements.
20.162.060 Determination of wetland boundaries.
20.162.062 Wetland mitigation requirements.
20.162.064 Incentives for wetlands protection.
Article IV. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
20.162.068 Purpose.
20.162.070 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area categories classification.
1
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
22
20.162.072 Develoament standards.
Article V. Geologically Hazardous Areas
20.162.074 Purpose.
20.162.076 Geologically hazardous area categories.
20.162.078 Develoament standards.
Article VI. Frequently Flooded Areas
20.162.080 Purpose and requirements.
Article VII. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
20.162.082 Purpose.
20.162.084 Critical aquifer recharge area categories.
20.162.086 Development standards.
Article VIII. Special Reports
20.162.088 Purpose.
20.162.090 When required.
20.162.092 Special reports — Responsibility for completion.
20.162.094 Qualifications of professionals.
20.162.096 Wetland report/wetland mitigation plan.
20.162.098 Habitat management plan content.
20.162.100 Geotechnical report contents.
20.162.102 Hydrogeological report content.
Article XII. Mitigation R quit mcnts
Article XIII. Attachments
20.162.106 Attachments.
2
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
23
Article I. Critical Areas
20.162.010 Title.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the city of Port Orchard's "critical areas ordinance" or
"CAO." (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.012 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to implement the goals, policies, guidelines, and requirements of the city's
comprehensive plan and the Washington State Growth Management Act to protect critical areas, the
environment, human life, and property from harm and degradation in accordance with the Growth
Management Act through the application of best available science, as determined according to WAC
365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and RCW 36.70A.172, and in consultation with state and federal
agencies and other qualified professionals. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.014 Applicability.
No person. company. agency. or applicant shall alter a critical area or buffer except as consistent with
the requirements of this Title, whether or not a permit is required.
Except as provided for otherwise herein, the provisions of this chapter shall apply to all persons and
agencies, public or private, engaging in land uses, building, and/or development activity in the city of
Port Orchard that requires city approval. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
(1) Critical Areas Review. All development in critical areas and their buffers, whether on public or
private property. shall comply with the requirements of this chapter. The critical areas ordinance
applies to all uses and activities within areas or adjacent areas designated as regulated critical areas
and/or their buffers that are within 300 feet of a site unless identified as exempt in Section
20.162.032. Regulated uses and activities include, but not limited to:
(a) Removing, excavating, disturbing, or dredging soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter, or
materials of any kind;
(b) Dumping, discharging, or filling with any material:
(c) Draining, flooding, or disturbing the water level or water table:
d) Driving pilings or placing obstructions:
3
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
24
(e) Constructing, demolishing, or altering the size of any structure or infrastructure that results in
disturbance of a critical area or the addition of any impervious surface coverage to a site that results
in disturbance of a critical area:
(f) Destroying or altering vegetation through clearing, grading, harvesting, shading, or planting
vegetation that would alter the character of a critical area:
g) Activities that result in significant changes in water temperature and physical or chemical
characteristics of water sources, including quantity and pollutants; and
(h) Any other activity that has a potential to significantly adversely impact or alter a critical area or
established buffer not otherwise exempt from the provisions of this chapter.
20.162.016 Relationship to other regulations.
(1) Nothing in this chapter in any way limits, or may be construed to limit, the authority of the city under
any other applicable law, nor in any way decreases the responsibility of the applicant to comply with all
other applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations.
(2) These critical areas regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition to land use, development,
building, and other regulations adopted by the city.
(3) When any provision of any other chapter of the POMC conflicts with this chapter or when the
provisions of this chapter are in conflict, that provision which provides more protection to
environmentally critical areas shall apply unless specifically provided otherwise in this chapter or unless
such provision conflicts with federal or state laws or regulations.
(4) Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not constitute compliance with other federal,
state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required. The applicant is responsible
for complying with these requirements, apart from the regulations established in this chapter.
(5) Where critical areas occur within the city's shoreline jurisdiction as established by the city's shoreline
master program (Chapter 20.164 POMC), they are regulated under the regulations and provisions of the
shoreline master program. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.018 Inventory provisions.
(1) The approximate location and extent of mapped critical areas within the city are shown on the maps
adopted as part of this chapter, and incorporated herein by this reference. These maps shall be used
only as a general guide for the assistance of the department and the public; for a specific development
or use proposal, the type, extent and boundaries shall be determined in the field by a qualified specialist
or staff person according to the requirements of this chapter. In the event of a conflict between a critical
area location shown on the city's maps and that of an on -site determination, the on -site determination
shall apply.
4
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
25
(2) Future Inventory Provisions. The city will review map inventory information of all critical areas as it
becomes available or on an annual basis. Mapping will include critical areas that are identified through
site -specific analysis by local, state and federal agencies, tribal governments, site -specific environmental
reports and other sources. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.020 Administration — Generally.
(1) The director, or his/her authorized designee, shall administer and interpret the provisions of this
chapter, except as otherwise specifically provided. The director shall determine whether building,
development, platting, or alteration of vegetation, trees, or habitat is subject to this chapter. The
director may also consult with other city departments and state and federal agencies as necessary to
obtain additional technical and environmental review assistance. The director is authorized to adopt
such administrative rules and regulations as are necessary and appropriate to implement the provisions
of this chapter.
(2) This chapter is to be administered with flexibility and attention to site -specific characteristics. It is
not the intent of this chapter to make a parcel of property unusable by denying its owner reasonable
economic use of the property nor to prevent the provision of public facilities and services necessary to
support existing development.
(3) The approvals granted under this chapter shall be valid for the same time period as the underlying
permit (e.g., preliminary plat, building permit, etc.). If the underlying permit does not contain a specified
expiration date, then approvals granted under this chapter shall be valid for a period of three years from
the date of issue, unless a longer or shorter period is specified by the director or by
a development agreement authorized by Chapter 36.70B RCW and consistent with POMC Chaster 20.26.
(4) If an activity is subject to this chapter but is not subject to any established city permit or approval,
the proponent shall obtain written authorization from the director prior to commencement to ensure
compliance with this chapter. Such authorization shall be processed as a Type I land use decision
pursuant to Chapter 20.22 POMC.
(5) Nothing in this chapter in any way limits, or may be construed to limit, the authority of the city under
any other applicable law, nor in any way decreases the responsibility of the applicant to comply with all
other applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.020 Application Types.
This chapter establishes two types of critical area permit applications subject to City review and
arDiDroval. The two types of permits are as follows:
1) Critical Areas Verification. An applicant may request verification of the presence. absence. or
boundary of a wetland or a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area located on, or within 300 feet of,
the subject property independent of any specific development proposal. A verification request shall
provide the applicable special reports. as defined in Article VIII and required by the department. An
approved critical area verification is valid for five years and is limited to the boundary of those identified
features. Wetland ratings and categories area not valid for the approved verification period.
5
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
26
(2) Critical Areas Development Permit. A critical areas development permit is required when the
department determines that a proposal may result in regulated alterations to a critical area or its buffer.
20.162.022 Application requirements — Generally.
(1) Where not otherwise required, all applicants are encouraged to meet with the department prior to
submitting an application subject to this title. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the city's zoning
and applicable critical area requirements, to review any conceptual site plans prepared by the applicant
and to identify potential impacts and mitigation measures. Such conference shall be for the convenience
of the applicant and any recommendations shall not be binding on the applicant or the city.
(2) To expedite the City permit review process, the community development department shall be the
lead agencydepartment on all work related to critical areas. Development may be prohibited in a
proposed development activity based on criteria set forth in this chapter; the applicant should first
determine whether this is the case before applying for permits from the department.
(3) Application for development proposals, reasonable use exceptions, or variances regulated by this
chapter, or for review of special environmental reports, shall be made with the department by the
property owner, lessee, contract purchaser, other person entitled to possession of the property, or by
an authorized agent.
(4) All site plan applications for development proposals subject to this chapter shall include a site plan
drawn to scale identifying locations of critical areas and any associated buffers, location of proposed
structures and activities, including clearing and grading and general topographic information as required
by the department. If the department determines that additional critical areas are found on the subject
property, the applicant shall amend the site plan to identify the location of the critical area.
(5) A fee in an amount established by the city's fee schedule shall be paid at the time an application for a
permit relating to a critical area or a special report review is filed. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
(6) Application Procedures for regulated uses and activities. Any regulated use or activities containing a
regulated critical area or its buffer, or within 300 feet of a critical area, shall provide the aapplicable
special reports. as defined in Article VIII and required by the department. prior to any development
authorization by the city. If an environmentally sensitive area is within 300 feet of the parcel but not on
the parcel. every effort should be made to obtain the required information. These efforts may include.
but are not limited to. visually assessing the feature from publicly accessible areas and utilizing available
databases to obtain the required information to prepare any applicable special reports. The department
may require additional reports or information to further identify potential impacts to any part of the
environment which may include the following:
(a) Erosion and sedimentation control measures and/or a stormwater or land disturbing activity
permit as required by the city's stormwater management regulations. (Ord. 010-18 § 28: Ord. 019-
17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
C.
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
27
20.162.024 Application requirements — Mitigation sequencing:
(1) Mitigation sequencing. Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined
with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas. When alteration to a critical area or
modification to its buffer is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated in
the following order of preference:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by
using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or
timing, to avoid or reduce impacts;
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the
conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project;
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the action;
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments; and
(f) Monitoring the impact and the compensation project and taking appropriate corrective measures
when necessary. Monitoring shall occur for a minimum of five years. or until the department
determines that the mitigation project has achieved success. Certain types of habitat communities
require additional time for establishment and may require monitoring for 10 or more years
depending on the site -specific circumstances and the scope of the mitigation project.
(2) Mitigation measures may be required to address potential impacts that are identified through the
sequencing listed above. Mitigation shall be consistent with the requirements of Article
chapter. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.026 General mitigation requirements.
Unless otherwise provided in this chapter, if alteration to a critical area or its buffer is unavoidable, all
adverse impacts resulting from a development proposal or alteration shall be mitigated using the best
available science so as to result in no net loss of critical area functions and values, as provided below.
(1) In making a determination as to whether such a requirement will be imposed, and if so. the degree
to which it would be required, the director shall consider the following:
(a) The long-term and short-term effects of the action and the reversible or irreversible nature of
the impairment to or loss of the critical area:
b) The location, size. and type of and benefit provided by the original and altered critical area:
7
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
28
c) The effect the proposed work may have upon any remaining critical area or associated aquatic
systems;
d) The cost and likely success of the compensation measures in relation to the magnitude of the
proposed project or violation:
(e) The observed or predicted trend with regard to the gains or losses of the specific type of critical
area; and
(f) The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated a good faith effort to incorporate measures
to minimize and avoid impacts within the project.
(2) Mitigation projects shall not result in adverse impacts to adjacent property owners.
3) Mitigation shall be in kind and on site, when possible. and sufficient to maintain the functions and
values of the critical area.
(4) Mitigation shall not be implemented until after permit approval of the director and shall be in
accordance with all reports and representations made therein.
(5) Mitigation Sequencing. When an alteration to a critical area or its buffer is proposed, an applicant
shall sufficiently demonstrate mitigation sequencing as defined in POMC 20.162.024 .
6) Mitigation for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation shall address the functions
affected by the proposed project or alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement and
shall provide similar critical area or buffer functions as those lost, except when:
(a) The lost critical area or buffer provides minimal functions as determined by a site -specific
functional assessment. and the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or
greater functions or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through the
appropriate analysis: or
(b) Out of kind replacement of critical area type or functions will best meet watershed goals formally
identified by the city, such as replacement of historically diminished critical areas.
7) Type and Location of Mitigation. Unless it is demonstrated that a higher level of ecological
functioning would result from an alternative approach or required under Article III of this chapter.
compensatory mitigation for ecological functions shall be either in kind and on site. or in kind and within
the same subbasin, basin.-ef watershed. or service area of a certified mitigation bank. Mitigation actions
shall be conducted within the same sub -drainage basin and on the site of the alteration except when all
of the following apply:
(a) There are no reasonable on -site or in subdrainage basin opportunities (e.g.. on -site options
would require elimination of high functioning upland habitat), or on -site and in subdrainage basin
o portunities do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the natural
capacity of the site to compensate for impacts. Considerations should include: anticipated
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
29
mitigation ratios for the identified critical area(s), buffer conditions and proposed widths, available
water to maintain anticipated hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands, or streams when restored,
proposed flood storage capacity, potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife impacts (such as
connectivity):
b) Off -site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved critical area functions
than the impacted critical area; and
(c) Off -site locations shall be in the same sub -drainage basin unless established watershed goals for
water quality, flood storage or conveyance, habitat, or other functions have been established by the
city and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site.
(8) Mitigation Banks.
(a) Credits from a mitigation bank may be approved for use as compensation for unavoidable
impacts to critical areas when:
(i) The bank is certified under state rules:
(ii) The director determines that the mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation for the
authorized impacts; and
(iii) The proposed use of credits shall be consistent with terms and conditions of the bank's
certification.
(b) Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be consistent with replacement ratios
specified in the bank's certification.
(c) Credits from a certified mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within
the service area specified in the bank's certification. In some cases, the service area of the bank may
include portions of more than one adiaccnt drainage basin for specific habitat functions.
(9) In -Lieu Fee. To aid in the implementation of off -site mitigation, the city may develop a program
which prioritizes critical areas for use as mitigation and/or allows payment in lieu of providing mitigation
on a development site. This program shall be developed and approved through a public process and be
consistent with state and federal rules. The program should address:
(a) The identification of sites within the city that are suitable for use as off -site mitigation. Site
suitability shall take into account critical area functions. potential for critical area degradation, and
potential for urban growth and service expansion, and
(b) The use of fees for mitigation on available sites that have been identified as suitable and
prioritized.
(10) Timing of Compensatory Mitigation. It is preferred that compensation projects will be completed
prior to activities that will disturb the on -site critical area. If not completed prior to disturbance.
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
30
compensatory mitigation shall be completed immediately following the disturbance and prior to the
issuance of final certificate of occupancy. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce
impacts to existing fisheries. wildlife, and flora. The director may authorize a one-time temporary delay
in completing construction or installation of the compensatory mitigation when the applicant provides a
written explanation from a qualified professional as to the rationale for the delay (i.e., seasonal planting
requirements. fisheries window).
(11) Critical Area and Buffer Enhancement as Mitigation. Impacts to critical area or buffer functions may
be mitigated by enhancement of existing significantly degraded critical area or buffers, but should be
used in conjunction with restoration and/or creation where possible. Applicants proposing to enhance
critical areas or their buffers must include in a report how the enhancement will increase the functions
of the degraded critical area or buffer and how this increase will adequately mitigate for the loss of
critical area and function at the impact site. An enhancement proposal must also show whether any
existing critical area functions will be reduced by the enhancement action. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.028 Application requirements — Review criteria.
(1) Applications for any development proposal subject to the critical areas ordinance shall be reviewed
by the director or designee for completeness and consistency or inconsistency with this chapter.
(2) The director may withhold, condition, or deny land use, building, and/or development permits or
activity approvals to ensure that the proposed action is consistent with this chapter. In evaluating a
request for a development proposal regulated by this chapter, it shall be the responsibility of the
director to determine the following:
(a) The nature and type of critical area and the adequacy of any special reports required in
applicable sections of this chapter;
(b) Whether the development proposal is consistent with this chapter, by granting, denying, or
conditioning projects;
(c) Whether proposed alterations to critical areas are appropriate under the standards contained in
this chapter, or whether it is necessary for the applicant to seek a variance or other exception; and
(d) If the protection mechanisms and the mitigation and monitoring plans and bonding measures
proposed by the applicant are sufficient to protect the public health, safety and welfare consistent
with the purpose and regulations contained in this chapter, and if so, condition the permit or
approval accordingly.
(3) At every stage of the application process, the burden of demonstrating that any proposed
development is consistent with this chapter is upon the applicant. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.A28030 Bonds.
Mitigation required pursuant to a development proposal must be completed prior to the City's granting
of final approval of the development proposal. If the applicant demonstrates that seasonal
10
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
31
requirements or other circumstances beyond its control prevent completion of the mitigation prior to
final approval, the City may permit the applicant to post a performance bond or other security
instrument in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the Director, which guarantees that all
required mitigation measures will be completed no later than the time established by the department in
accordance with this chapter.
(1) All bonds and acceptable securities guaranteeing compliance with this chapter shall be set in the
amount of 150 percent of the average expected value of the project. The value of the bond shall be
based on the engineer's estimate of the subject work. If the applicant and director do not agree to the
engineer's estimate, thcn thc bond shall bc based on thc overage of thrcc contract bids that establish all
costs of compensation, including costs relative to performance, monitoring, maintenance, and provision
for contingency plans.
(2) Performance Bonds. Except for public agencies, applicants receiving a land use, development, or
building permit or approval subject to the provisions of this chapter are required to post a cash
performance bond or other acceptable security to guarantee compliance with this chapter prior to
beginning any site work. The surety shall guarantee that work and materials used in construction are
free from defects. All bonds shall be approved by the city attorney. The surety or bonds cannot be
terminated or canceled without written approval. The director shall release the bond after documented
proof that all structures and improvements have been shown to meet the requirements of this chapter
and that a maintenance bond has been posted, if required.
(3) Maintenance Bonds. Except for public agencies, an applicant shall be required to post a cash
maintenance bond or other acceptable security guaranteeing that structures and improvements
required by this chapter will perform satisfactorily for a minimum of three years after they have been
constructed and approved. All bonds shall be on a form approved by the city attorney. Without written
release, the bond cannot be canceled or terminated. The director shall release the bond after
determination that the performance standards established for measuring the effectiveness and success
of the project have been met. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
4. Monitoring Bonds. For projects that require ongoing monitoring in accordance with this chapter,
applicants shall provide a maintenance/monitoring bond or other security instrument in a form and
amount determined sufficient by the Department to guarantee satisfactory workmanship, materials,
and performance of structures and improvements allowed or required by this Title for a period up to ten
(10) years. unless otherwise specified. The duration of maintenance/monitoring obligations, including
financial guarantees, shall be established by the Director after consideration of the nature of the
proposed mitigation and likelihood and expense of correcting mitigation failures. ^^rformance bonds for
monitorinr...cork as follows:
I. � .!�! � f!.. .l�LIRLT_lf7.T.l�P!►�TlFiS7T.
11
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
W,
� � . .�:t�l�T�: • � . 37. _ .I�CIR�T[f9l�Ll�.rIIZTlRS7T.
20.162.039032 Notice to title.
The director shall require an applicant to file a "critical area and buffer notice to title" on a form
approved by the city with the Kitsap County auditor for all properties included in land use and
development proposals subject to the provisions of this chapter and containing critical areas and/or
their buffers. Such notice shall be a covenant that runs with the land in perpetuity and include
identification of the boundaries of the critical areas and/or their buffers and any permanent conditions
imposed by the city. The covenant shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any permit or at the time a
short plat or final plat is recorded. This notice shall serve as an official notice to subsequent landowners
that the land owner is responsible for complying with existing conditions for development or use as
established by this chapter and any city, state, or federal permits or other approvals, and shall accept
sole responsibility for any risk associated with the land's identified critical area. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh.
1)).
20.162.03-2034 Exemptions.
(1) An exemption means that an activity is fully exempt from critical areas review and not subject to the
provisions of this chapter. An exemption from this chapter is not an endorsement to degrade a critical
area; ignore risk from natural hazards; or otherwise limit the ability of the director to identify and abate
such actions that may cause degradation to a critical area. All exempted activities shall use best
management practices to the greatest possible extent to avoid potential impacts to critical areas. Any
incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area or its buffer that is not a necessary and unavoidable
outcome of the exempted activity shall be mitigated through restoration, rehabilitation and/or
replacement at the responsible party's expense.
(2) The proponent of the activity shall submit a written request for exemption to the director that
describes the activity and states the exemption listed in this section that applies. The director shall
review the request to verify that it complies with this chapter and approve or deny the exemption as a
Type I administrative determination pursuant to Chapter 20.22 POMC.
(3) The following land use, development, building activities, and associated uses shall be exempt:
(a) Emergencies. Emergency activities are those activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat
to public health, safety, or welfare, or that pose an immediate risk of damage to property and that
require remedial or preventative action in a short time frame. The person or agency undertaking
such action shall notify the city and the director shall determine if the action taken is within the
scope of the emergency action allowed in this section. After the emergency, the person or agency
shall fully restore and/or mitigate any impacts to the critical areas and buffers resulting from the
action in accordance with an approved critical area report and mitigation plan.
(b) Operation Maintenance or Repair. Operation maintenance or repair of existing structures not
requiring permits or city approval, only if the activity does not further alter or increase the impact to
critical areas or their buffers.
12
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
33
(c) Passive Outdoor Activities. Recreation, education, and scientific research activities that do not
degrade the critical area.
(d) Forest Practices. Forest practices regulated and conducted in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 76.09 RCW and forest practices regulations, WAC Title 222. When a proposed forest activity
has been classified as a Class IV forest practice for a conversion of forest land to another use, or
when a forest activity requiring a forest practices application is located within the city's urban
growth area, it shall be subject to the regulations and provisions of this chapter.
(e) Existing Infrastructure Maintenance and Repair. Maintenance, operation. repair, or replacement
of legally existing roads, utilities, infrastructure, and associated facilities, structures;: provided that
reconstruction of any such structures does not extend outside of any designated easement or right-
of-way. Any existing infrastructure maintenance or repair that expands outside of the existing
improved area is subject to the mitigation sequencing requirements of this chapter.
(f) Activities within an opened or improved Right -of -Way. Construction of new utility facilities,
improvements, or upgrades to existing utility facilities that take place within existing improved
rights -of -way or existing impervious surfaces that do not increase the amount of impervious surface.
(Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
(g) Activities within an improved City Park. Construction of new utility facilities, improvements, or
upgrades to existing utility facilities that take place within existing improved rights -of -way or
existing substantially developed areas that do not increase the amount of impervious surface or
substantially developed areas.
(h) Activities within an improvcdsubstantially developed public school facilities and grounds.
}j. Maintenance of an existing golf course provided that work is not performed to expand the course,
driving range boundary, or substantially developed areas
j. Normal maintenance, and reconstruction of legally permitted structures; provided, that
reconstruction may not extend beyond existing footprint.
k. Noxious and Invasive species removal and maintenance, provided the following apply:
i) Undertaken by manual methods. including handheld mechanical tools and integrated pest
management practices:
(ii) Vegetation removed appears on the current Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board
list and must be handled and disposed of in accordance with the best management practices
appropriate for that species and approved by the City:
13
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
34
(iii) Noxious and invasive vegetation removal and maintenance is limited to wetland buffers and
riparian management zones only:
(iv) An approved supplemental planting plan shall be implemented upon completion of any
vegetation removal and shall be monitored according to the monitoring requirements outlined in
this Chapter.
I) Removal of hazardous tree(s) can be completed under the following conditions:
(i) Requires a qualified arborist to evaluate the tree(s) and submit a request for hazardous tree
removal;
(ii) The request includes removal methods to avoid and minimize damage to adjacent trees and
other vegetation:
i'ii) The request adequately demonstrates no adverse impacts will occur to the critical area or
associated buffer and/or riparian management zone.
20.162.0-34036 Exceptions.
An exception means that an activity is subject to the provisions of this chapter and must undergo full
critical areas review but may receive special consideration and relief from certain provisions of this
chapter. Exceptions applications must address mitigation sequencing. The following are identified
exceptions to the provisions of this chapter:
(1) Public Agencies. Public agencies may make an application for exception to the director for
construction of items such as new roads, utilities, infrastructure, buildings, and associated facilities. The
application shall include critical area identification; a critical area report, including a mitigation plan if
necessary; and any other related project documents such as environmental documents pursuant to
SEPA, Chapter 43.21C RCW. The decision whether to grant the public agency utility exception from
provisions of this chapter shall be processed as a Type 14411 land use decision per Chapter 20.22 POMC
pursuant to the following review criteria:
(a) There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the
critical areas; and
(b) The application of this chapter would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide services to the
public.
(c) The application attempts to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area functions and values
consistent with best available science; and
(d) the application is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards of this chapter.
(2) Reasonable Use. An applicant may apply for a reasonable use exception if it can be demonstrated
that application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the subject property. The application
14
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
35
shall include critical areas identification; a critical areas report including a mitigation plan, if necessary;
and any other related project documents such as environmental documents and special studies. The
decision whether to grant the reasonable use exception shall be processed as a Type III land use decision
per Chapter 20.22 POMC pursuant to the following review criteria:
(a) The application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property;
(b) No other reasonable use of the property has less impact on the critical area;
(c) Any alteration is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property; and
(d) The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions
by the applicant after the effective date of this chapter or its predecessor. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh.
1)).
20.162.036038 Critical Areas Variances.
(1) Except when application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property, an applicant
who seeks an exception from the standards and requirements of the CAO shall pursue relief by means of
a critical areas variance as provided for in this section.
(2) A variance in the application of the regulations, standards, or use prohibitions of this chapter to a
particular property may be granted by the director when it can be shown that the application meets all
of the following criteria:
(a) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property. including size. shape. or
topography. the strict application of this chapter is found to deprive subject property of rights and
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity: provided, however, the fact that those
surrounding properties have been developed under regulations in force prior to the adoption of this
chapter shall not be the sole basis for the granting of a variance:
b) The special circumstances referred to in subsection (2)(a) of this section are not the result of the
actions of the current or previous owner(s):
(c) The granting of the variance will not result in substantial detrimental impacts to the critical area,
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and area in which the
property is situated or contrary to the goals, policies and purpose of this chapter;
(d) The granting of the variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the permitted use;
(e) No other practicable or reasonable alternative exists; and
15
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
36
(f) Mitigation sequencing as defined in this chapter shall be demonstrated to show that all
reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical
areas.
(3) A variance application under this chapter shall be processed as a Type III land use decision pursuant
to Chapter 20.22 POMC.
(4) Requests for variances shall include the requirements of Articles VIII and IX of this chapter regarding
critical areas reports and habitat plans, as applicable to the proposed activity or use.
(5) The department shall review variances based on the criteria and standards referenced in this chapter
and the procedures in Subtitle II of this title, Permitting and Development Approval.
(b) The proposed utility activity does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or
welfare on or off the development proposal site;
(7) The applicant for a variance is responsible for complying with all state and federal regulations that
may apply to the proposed activity, whether or not a variance for CAO requirements is granted by the
city. State and federal permits will be required for certain activities in critical areas, including but not
limited to in -water or wetland work. All other relevant city permit and regulatory requirements shall
also be met for the proposed activity. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.0380340 Nonconforming — Existing structures.
{RExisting development within a property that containsi. a critical area which was lawfully
constructed, approved or established prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this
chapter, but which does not conform to present regulations or standards, may continue as follows:
16
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
37
11 Existing Structures. A legally established structure that has been made nonconforming due to the
adoption of this ordinance may be remodeled or reconstructed so long as all of the following provisions
are met:
(a) The property owner shall adequately demonstrate that the remodel or reconstruction shall not
increase existing nonconforming uses and/or structures, and introduce any new, or expand existing.
impacts to a critical area unless such impacts are fully mitigated as required under POMC
20.162.024; and
(b) All other standards and requirements contained in the Port Orchard Municipal Code are met.
(2) Where mitigation is required in subsection (1)(a) of this section, the applicant shall provide
mitigation measures to reduce historic impacts on the critical area.
t3) Whcrc projccts hove bccn permittcd (and thc permits havc not cxpircd) or constructed with
conditions to protect critical areas under previous protection policies in effect prior to the adoption of
this chapter, those conditions will apply unless and until an alteration, expansion or other change in
development or use will result in a detrimental impact to a critical area or its buffer. The provisions of
this chapter shall also apply in cases where the department determines, based on review of current
information, that the prior conditions will result in a detrimental impact to a critical area or its buffer.
(Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.040042 Enforcement — Violation — Penalty.
(1) Enforcement — Violation.
(a) No regulated activity under this chapter shall be conducted without a permit or written approval
and without full compliance with this chapter. All activities not allowed or conditionally approved
shall be prohibited.
(b) The director shall have authority to enforce this chapter, issue delineation verifications, permits,
and violation notices, and process violations through the use of administrative orders and/or civil
and criminal actions as provided for herein, and as provided for in Chapter 2.64 POMC.
(c) In the event of violation, the city shall have the authority to order and establish a scope and
reasonable timeline for restoration, enhancement, or creation measures to compensate for the
destroyed or degraded critical area. All development work shall remain stopped until a
plan is the applicable special reports. as defined in Article VIII and required by the department, are
prepared at the expense of the owner or violator and reviewed and approved by the city. The plan
shall be prepared by a qualified professional using the best available science and shall describe how
the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in this chapter. The director may,
at the owner or violator's expense, seek a third party review and expert advice in determining the
adequacy of the plan. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the owner or violator for revision and
resubmittal. at the owner or violator's expense. If work is not completed +on athereasonable
timeline established by the City following the order, the city may take further enforcement actions
as set out in this Title. implement a process to restore or enhance the affected site. This includes
17
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
38
(d) The enforcement provisions of this chapter apply to all activities exempted under this chapter.
The director's determination that a violation exists is not limited by determinations made by other
city agencies or public agencies.
(e) Failure to comply with an administrative order of the director under this chapter shall constitute
a violation subject to enforcement pursuant to this chapter Title and/or Chapter 2.61 POMC
(3) Penalties.
(a) In addition to the penalties set forth in this Title. Any violation of any provision of this chapter
constitutes a public nuisance civil violation under Chapter 2.64 POMC for which a monetary penalty
may be assessed and abatement and/or enforcement may be required as provided therein.
(b) In addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty provided in this chapter or by law, any
person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor pursuant to
Chapter 2.64 POMC. Each day, or a portion thereof, during which a violation occurs shall constitute a
separate violation.
(4) Imminent and Substantial Dangers. Notwithstanding any provisions of these regulations, the director
may take immediate action to prevent an imminent and substantial danger to the public health, welfare,
safety or the environment by the violation of any provision of this chapter.
(5) Other Legal or Equitable Relief. Notwithstanding the existence or use of any other remedy, the
director may seek legal or equitable relief to enjoin any acts or practices or abate any conditions which
constitute or will constitute a violation of the provisions of the critical areas ordinance. (Ord. 019-17
§ 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.A4�044 Liability.
(1) The city is not liable for any damage resulting from land use, building, or development activities
within environmentally critical areas. Prior to issuance of any land use, building, and/or development
permit or approval, the applicant may be required to enter into an agreement with the city, in a form
acceptable to the city attorney, releasing and indemnifying the city from and for any damage or liability
resulting from any development activity on the subject property that is related to the physical condition
of the critical area. This agreement shall be recorded with the Kitsap County recorder's office at the
applicant's expense and shall run with the property.
(2) In addition to all other applicable requirements of the POMC. 4the city may also require the
applicant to obtain insurance coverage for damage to city or private property and/or city liability related
to any such development activity. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
:3
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
39
20.162.044046 Definitions — Generally.
All words used in this chapter shall have their common definition, as used in context, unless a specific
definition is set forth herein. The definitions set forth in this chapter shall control, followed by
definitions in Chapter 20.12 POMC, and then the common definition.
Adjacent. For the purpose of the critical areas ordinance, "adjacent" is defined as the area within 300
feet of a critical area.
"Agricultural practices" means activities related to vegetation and soil management, such as tilling of
soil, control of weeds, control of plant diseases and insect pests, soil maintenance and fertilization as
well as animal husbandry.
"Alteration" means any human -induced action that changes the existing condition of a critical area.
Alterations include but are not limited to grading; filling; grubbing; dredging; draining; channelizing;
cutting; pruning; limbing or topping; clearing, relocating or removing vegetation, except noxious weeds
identified by the Washington Department of Agriculture or the Kitsap County cooperative extension;
applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants, excepting
stormwater; grazing domestic animals; paving; construction; application of gravel; modifying for surface
water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing vegetation,
hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat. Alteration does not include walking, passive recreation, fishing or
other similar activities.
"Anadromous fish" means fish whose life cycle includes time spent in both fresh and salt water.
"Aquaculture practices" means the harvest, culture or farming of food fish, shellfish, or other aquatic
plants and animals including fisheries enhancement and the mechanical harvesting of shellfish and
hatchery culture.
"Aquifer" means a saturated body of rock, sand, gravel or other geologic material that is capable of
storing, transmitting and yielding water to a well.
"Aquifer recharge" means the process by which water is added to an aquifer. It may occur naturally by
the percolation (infiltration) of surface water, precipitation, or snowmelt from the ground surface to a
depth where the earth materials are saturated with water. The aquifer recharge can be augmented by
"artificial" means through the addition of surface water (e.g., land application of wastewater or
stormwater) or by the injection of water into the underground environment (e.g., drainfields and
drywells).
"Aquifer recharge area" means those areas overlying aquifer(s) where natural or artificial sources of
water can move downward to an aquifer(s).
"Aquifer susceptibility" means the ability of the natural system to transmit contaminants to and through
the groundwater system.
19
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
40
"Aquifer vulnerability" means the likelihood that the natural system will transmit contaminants to and
through a groundwater system, based on natural geological and hydrogeological characteristics and land
use practices.
"Bank stabilization" means lake or stream modification including vegetation enhancement, used for the
purpose of retarding erosion, protecting channels, and retaining uplands.
"Bench (geologic)" means a relatively flat and wide landform along a valley wall.
"Best available science" means scientifically valid information in accordance with WAC 365-195-905, as
now or hereafter amended, that is used to develop and implement critical areas policies or regulations.
"Best management practices" means conservation practices (physical, structural and/or managerial) or
systems of practices and management measures that:
(1) Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, pathogens, bacteria, toxic
substances, pesticides, oil and grease, and sediment; and
(2) Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater flow, circulation patterns, and to the
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of critical areas.
"Bog" means a low -nutrient, acidic wetland with organic soils and characteristic bog plants, as described
in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State
Department of Ecology Publication No. 14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014).
"Candidate species (state listed)" means species under review by the Department of Fish and Wildlife
for possible listing as endangered, threatened or sensitive. A species will be considered for state
candidate designation if sufficient scientific evidence suggests that its status may meet criteria defined
for endangered, threatened, or sensitive in WAC 232-12-297. Currently listed state threatened or state
sensitive species may also be designated as a state candidate species if their status is in question. State
candidate species will be managed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, as needed, to ensure the
long-term survival of populations in Washington. They are listed in WDFW Policy 4802.See the current
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species list for Kitsap County for all listed and candidate species.
"City" means the city of Port Orchard.
"City council" means the city council of the city of Port Orchard.
"Clearing" means the destruction, disturbance or removal of vegetation by physical, mechanical,
chemical or other means.
"Compensation" means replacement of project -induced critical area (e.g., wetland) losses of acreage or
functions, including, but not limited to, restoration, creation, or enhancement.
Conversion Option Harvest Plan (COHP). (This definition relates to types of forest practices.) "Conversion
option harvest plan (COHP)" means a plan for landowners who want to harvest their land but wish to
20
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
41
maintain the option for conversion pursuant to WAC 222-20-050. "Conversion" to a use other than
commercial timber operation shall mean a bona fide conversion to an active use which is incompatible
with timber growing.
"Creation" means actions performed to intentionally establish a critical area at a site where it did not
formerly exist.
"Critical aquifer recharge areas" means those land areas which contain hydrogeologic conditions which
facilitate aquifer recharge and/or transmitting contaminants to an underlying aquifer.
"Critical area buffer" means an area of protection around a critical area.
"Critical area protection easement" means an agreement conveyed through a notice to title, or shown
on the face of a plat or site plan, for the purpose of perpetual or long-term conservation.
"Critical areas" includes the following areas and ecosystems, as provided in RCW 36.70A.030: (a)
wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas.
"Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas" does not include such artificial features or constructs as
irrigation delivery systems, irrigation infrastructure, irrigation canals, or drainage ditches that lie within
the boundaries of and are maintained by a port district or an irrigation district or company.
"Critical areas ordinance" or "CAO" means this chapter.
"Danger trees" means any tree of any height, dead or alive, that presents a hazard to the public because
of rot, root stem or limb damage, lean or any other observable condition created by natural process or
manmade activity consistent with WAC 296-54-529(28).
Debris. See "refuse."
"Development proposal site" means, for purposes of the critical areas ordinance, the legal boundaries of
the parcel or parcels of land on which an applicant has applied for authority from the city of Port
Orchard to carry out a development proposal.
"Draining (related to wetland)" means any human activity that diverts or reduces wetland groundwater
and/or surface water sources.
"Easement" or "critical area protection easement" for purposes of this chapter means an agreement
conveyed through a deed, or shown on the face of a plat or site plan for the purpose of perpetual or
long-term conservation.
"Endangered species (state listed)" means a species native to the state of Washington that is seriously
threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the state.
Endangered species are legally designated in WAC 232-12-014.
21
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
42
"Erosion hazard areas" means land characterized by any of the soil types identified by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service as "highly erodible land." This designation pertains to water erosion and
not wind erosion. These areas may not be highly erodible until or unless the soil is disturbed by activities
such as clearing or grading.
"Excavation" means removal of earth material.
"Existing and ongoing agriculture" means those activities conducted within the last five years on lands
defined in RCW 84.34.020(2) or defined as agricultural practices in this chapter. For example, the
operation and maintenance of existing farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches, operation and
maintenance of ditches, irrigation systems including irrigation laterals, canals, or irrigation drainage
ditches, changes between agricultural activities, such as rotating crops or grasses used for grazing, and
normal maintenance, repair, or operation of existing serviceable structures, facilities, or improved areas;
provided, that alteration of the contour of wetlands or streams by leveling or filling other than that
which results from normal cultivation or draining of wetlands shall not be considered normal or
necessary farming or ranching activities. Activities that bring an area into agricultural use shall not be
considered part of an ongoing activity.
"Exotic" means any species of plant or animal that is not indigenous (native) to an area.
"Extraordinary hardship" means where the strict application of this chapter and/or other programs
adopted to implement the critical areas ordinance by the regulatory authority would prevent all
reasonable use of the parcel.
"Farm and agricultural conservation land" means:
(1) Land that was previously classified under RCW 84.34.020(2) ("Farm and agricultural land") that no
longer meets the criteria of said subsection (2) and that is reclassified under RCW 84.34.020(1) ("Open
space land"); or
(2) Land that is traditional farmland that is not classified under Chapter 84.33 or 84.34 RCW that has not
been irrevocably devoted to a use inconsistent with agricultural uses, and that has a high potential of
returning to commercial agriculture.
"Farm pond" means an open -water habitat of less than five acres and not contiguous with a stream,
river, lake or marine water created from a nonwetland site in connection with agricultural activities.
"Filling" or "fill" means a deposit of earth or other natural or manmade material placed by artificial
means, including, but not limited to, soil materials, debris, or dredged sediments.
"Floodplain" means the floodway and associated special flood hazard areas having the potential to flood
once every 100 years, or having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.
"Floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be
reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface
elevation more than one foot.
22
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
43
"Forage fish" means anchovy, herring, sand lance and smelt.
"Frequently flooded areas" means all Kitsap County lands, shorelands and waters which are within the
100 -year floodplain (floodway) as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in flood
insurance rate and boundary maps (FIRM).
"Geologic hazard areas" means areas that, because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake,
or other geological events, are not suited to siting commercial, residential or industrial development
consistent with public health or safety concerns. Source: WAC 365-190-030(8).
"Geotechnical report and geological report" means a study of potential site development impacts
related to retention of natural vegetation, soil characteristics, geology, drainage, groundwater
discharge, and engineering recommendations relating to slope and structural stability. The geotechnical
report shall be prepared by or in conjunction with a licensed geotechnical engineer meeting the
minimum qualifications as defined by this chapter. Geological reports may contain the above
information with the exception of engineering recommendations, and may be prepared by a geologist
(see Article VIII of this chapter, Special Reports, for minimum qualifications).
"Habitat" means the specific areas or environments in which a particular type of plant or animal lives.
An organism's primary and secondary habitat provides all the basic requirements for life of the
organism.
"Habitat management plan" means a report prepared by a professional wildlife biologist or fisheries
biologist which discusses and evaluates critical fish and wildlife habitat functions and evaluates the
measures necessary to maintain, enhance and improve habitat conservation on a proposed
development site.
"Habitat of local importance" means a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has
a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and
reproduce over the long term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness,
breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of
limited availability or areas of high vulnerability to alteration, such as cliffs, talus, and wetlands.
"Hazardous substance(s)" means any liquid, solid, gas or sludge, including any materials, substance,
product, commodity or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits any of the characteristics or criteria
of hazardous waste, including waste oil and petroleum products.
"Hazardous tree" means a tree that poses a threat to life, property. or public safety.
"Hydric soils" means a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough
during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.
"Hydrologist" or "hydrogeologist" means a person who has a bachelor of science degree in geologic
sciences with an emphasis in hydrogeology or related field from an accredited college or university and
has a minimum of five years' experience in groundwater investigations, modeling and remediation.
23
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
44
"Hydrophytes" means those plants capable of growing in water or on a substrate that is at least
periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. Source: WAC 173-22-030.
"Infiltration rate" means a general description of how quickly or slowly water travels through a
particular soil type.
"Investigation" means work necessary for land use application submittals such as surveys, soil logs,
percolation tests or other related activities.
"Landslide hazard areas" means areas potentially subject to risk of mass movement due to a
combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors.
"Liquefaction" means a process in which a water -saturated soil, upon shaking, suddenly loses strength
and behaves as a fluid (see Article III of this chapter, Wetlands).
"Lot" means a fractional part of legally divided lands having fixed boundaries, being of sufficient area
and dimension to meet minimum zoning requirements for width and area. The term shall include tracts
or parcels. For purposes of this code. adjoining lots under common ownership. which were created
without subdivision or short subdivision approval from applicable city or county governments, shall be
considered as one lot and subject to the regulations contained herein. The terms of this section shall
apply regardless of whether the individual adioinine lot meets current zoning reauirements."l of n
wetlands shall not count towards the total number of lots allowed; provided they are not meant or used
f building.
"Low impact activities" means activities that do not require a development permit and/or do not result
in any alteration of hydrology or adversely impact the environment.
"Major new development" means any new development, as defined in below, within or within 300 feet
of a critical area:
(1) Subdivisions of land;
(2) Clearing, grading or filling one acre or greater in area;
(3) Any new commercial development in excess of 750 square feet in area authorized in the city of Port
Orchard zoning code;
(4) Development requiring conditional use or special use permits required under the city of Port Orchard
zoning code;
(5) Planned residential developments authorized under the city of Port Orchard zoning code;
24
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
45
(6) Any structure footprint in excess of 4,000 square feet in area, except for single-family residences;
(7) Any residential development except as exempted in POMC 20.162.032.
"Minor new development" means any new development, as defined below, within or within 300 feet of
a critical area:
(1) Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident,
fire or the elements;
(2) Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements;
(3) Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities,
including agricultural service roads and utilities, construction of an agricultural building less than 3,000
square feet in size used exclusively for agricultural activities and the construction and maintenance of
irrigation structures including but not limited to head gates, pumping facilities and irrigation channels;
provided, that a feedlot of any size, all processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature,
alteration of the contour of wetlands or streams by leveling or filling other than that which results from
normal cultivation shall not be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching activities;
(4) Construction of one single-family residence and normal appurtenances necessarily connected to the
use and enjoyment of a single-family residence and may include a garage; deck; driveway; utilities;
fences; grading less than one acre in area; and home occupations pursuant to the city of Port Orchard
zoning code, as now or hereafter amended;
(5) Construction of a dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the
owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family residence;
(6) Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities which legally
existed prior to the date of adoption of the critical areas ordinance, and which were created, developed,
or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system;
(7) Development authorized by POMC 20.162.032, Exemptions, and/or by POMC 20.162.038,
Nonconforming — Existing structures.
"Mitigation" means avoiding, minimizing or compensating for adverse critical area impacts. Mitigation
includes the following specific categories:
(1) Mitigation, compensatory: replacing project -induced critical area losses or impacts, including, but not
limited to, restoration, creation, or enhancement.
(2) Mitigation, creation: mitigation performed to intentionally establish a critical area (e.g., wetland) at a
site where it does not currently exist.
(3) Mitigation, enhancement: mitigation performed to improve the condition of existing degraded
critical areas (e.g., wetlands) so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality.
25
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
46
(4) Mitigation, restoration: mitigation performed to reestablish a critical area (e.g., wetland), or its
functional characteristics and processes, which have been lost by alterations, activities or catastrophic
events within an area which no longer meets the definition of a critical area.
All mitigation shall be consistent with Article XII of this chapter.
"Native vegetation" means vegetation indigenous to the Puget Sound coastal lowlands.
"Nonconforming use or structure" means a use of land or structure which was lawfully established or
built and which has been lawfully continued but which does not conform to the current regulations of
the zone in which it is located as established by the city of Port Orchard zoning code relating to repair of
damaged structures, this chapter, or amendments thereto.
"Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse or cessation from a lawfully
established condition. Normal maintenance includes removing debris from and cutting or manual
removal of vegetation in crossing and bridge areas. Normal maintenance does not include:
(1) Use of fertilizer or pesticide application in wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, or
their buffers;
(2) Redigging ditches in wetlands or their buffers to expand the depth and width beyond the original
ditch dimensions;
(3) Redigging existing drainage ditches in order to drain wetlands on lands not classified as existing and
ongoing agriculture under POMC 20.162.032, Exemptions.
"Open space" is land used for outdoor recreation, critical area or resource land protection, amenity,
safety or buffer, including structures incidental to these open space uses, but excluding yards required
by this chapter and land occupied by dwellings or impervious surfaces not related to the open space
uses.
"Ordinary high water mark" means that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and
ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued
in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in
respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or
as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a local government or the department;
provided, that in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water
mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark
adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water.
"Organic debris" includes, but is not limited to, stumps, logs, branches, leaves and other organic
materials.
"Out -of -kind compensation" means to replace a critical area (e.g., wetland) with a substitute critical area
(e.g., wetland) whose characteristics do not closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a
26
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
47
regulated activity. It does not refer to replacement "out -of -category," such as replacement of wetland
loss with new stream segments.
"Park" means a site designed or developed for recreational use by the public, including but not limited
to: indoor facilities, such as gymnasiums, swimming pools, or activity centers: and outdoor facilities.
such as playfields. swimming pools, courts. playgrounds. fishing and boating access areas. or picnicking
and other group activity areas. and areas and trails for hikers. equestrians, or bicyclists. Also see POMC
20.39.315 and 20.39.340."Park" ...
"Permit" means any development, variance, conditional use permit, or revision authorized under
Chapter 90.58 RCW or city regulations.
"Planned residential development (PRD)" means development specifically approved by the city and
characterized by comprehensive planning of the total project, though it may contain a variety of
individual lots and/or uses. This type of project may include clustering of structures and preservation of
open space with a number of flexible and customized design features specific to the natural features of
the property and the uses sought to be implemented. Specific lot area and setback requirements are
reduced or deleted in order to allow maximization of open space, critical areas and other components of
the project.
"Piped Stream" means those sections of streams as defined in this chapter that have been legally piped
during past land use activities. Piped streams do not include those sections of piped infrastructure that
conveys water from irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices or other artificial
watercourses unless they are used by fish or used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to
construction.
"Practicable alternative" means an alternative that is available and capable of being carried out after
taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes, and
having less impacts to critical areas. It may include an area not owned by the applicant, which could
reasonably have been or be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the basic
purpose of the proposed activity.
"Priority habitat" means a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary
association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and
reproduce over the long term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness;
breeding, nesting, feeding, foraging, and migratory habitat; winter range, movement corridors; and/or
habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration. Priority habitats are established
by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife within their priority habitats and species
database. Where possible, priority habitats and other wetland and fish and wildlife habitat areas should
be connected with wildlife corridors. Priority habitats shall be confirmed by a qualified biologist in a
special report in accordance with Article VIII of this chapter.
"Priority species" include those which are state listed endangered, threatened, sensitive, candidate and
monitored species as well as priority game and nongame species. Priority species are established, in
part. by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife within their priority habitats and species
database.
27
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
48
"Public facilities" means facilities which are owned, operated and maintained by a public agency.
"Public project of significant importance" means a project funded by a public agency, department or
jurisdiction which is found to be in the best interests of the citizens of the city of Port Orchard and is so
declared by the Port Orchard city council.
"Public utility" means a business or service, either governmental or having appropriate approval from
the state, which is engaged in regularly supplying the public with some commodity or service which is of
public consequence and need, such as electricity, gas, sewer and/or wastewater, water, transportation
or communications.
"Ravine" means a v -shaped landform generally having little to no floodplain and normally containing
steep slopes, which is deeper than 10 vertical feet as measured from the centerline of the ravine to the
top of the slope. Ravines are typically created by the wearing action of streams.
"Reasonable alternative" means an activity that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's
objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation.
"Reasonable Use. A property is deprived of all "reasonable use" when the owner can realize no
reasonable return on the property or make any productive use of the property. "Reasonable return"
does not mean a reduction in value of the land, or a lack of a profit on the purchase and sale of the
property, but rather, where there can be no beneficial use of the property; and which is attributable to
the implementation of the critical areas ordinance.
"Reasonable use exception" means the process by which the city determines allowable use of a property
which cannot conform to the requirements set forth in this chapter, including the variance criteria. See
POMC 20.162.034 for reasonable use exception procedures.
"Refuse" means material placed in a critical area or its buffer without permission from any legal
authority. Refuse includes, but is not limited to, stumps, wood and other organic debris, as well as tires,
automobiles, construction and household refuse. This does not include large woody debris used with an
approved enhancement plan.
"Regulated use or activity" means any development proposal which includes or directly affects a critical
area or its buffer or occurs within 300 feet of a critical area.
"Rehabilitation" means the manipulation of the physical, chemical or biological characteristics of a site
with the goal of repairing natural or historical functions and processes of a degraded wetland. Activities
could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain, restoring tidal influence to a
wetland, or breaking drain tiles and plugging drainage ditches.
"Restoration" means the return of a critical area (e.g., stream or wetland) to a state in which its
functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as possible.
"Right-of-way" or "ROW" means a strip of land platted. dedicated. condemned or established by
prescription, or otherwise legally established, for the use of pedestrians, vehicles or utilities.
144
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
49
"Riparian arca" mcans an arca that includcs thc land which supports riparian vcgctation and may
^clude somc upland, depending on tc conditions."Riparian management zone" means the designated
buffer area contiguous or adjacent to a stream that is required for the continued maintenance, function.
and structural stability of the stream. Functions of the buffer include shading, uptake of nutrients.
stabilization of banks, protection from intrusion, large wood delivery, pollution removal, or maintenance
of wildlife. These generally occur adjacent to water bodies where specific measures are needed to
protect fish and wildlife habitat needs and watershed functions.
"Salmonid" means a member of the fish family Salmonidae. This family includes chinook, coho, chum,
sockeye and pink salmon; rainbow, steelhead, cutthroat, brook and brown trout; and Dolly Varden char,
kokanee, and whitefish.
"Sensitive species (state listed)" means a species, native to the state of Washington, that is vulnerable or
declining and is likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range within
the state without cooperative management or the removal of threats. Sensitive species are legally
designated in WAC 232-12-011.
"Single-family dwelling" means a building or structure which is intended or designed to be used, rented,
leased, let or hired out to be occupied for living purposes by one family and including accessory
structures and improvements.
"Special flood hazard areas" means the area adjoining the floodway which is subject to a one percent or
greater chance of flooding in any year, as determined by engineering studies acceptable to the city of
Port Orchard. The coastal high hazard areas are included within special flood hazard areas.
"Species of concern" means species that have been classified as endangered, threatened, sensitive,
candidate, or monitored by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
"State Environmental Policy Act" or "SEPA" means the state environmental law (Chapter 43.21C RCW)
and rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC) as implemented by the city of Port Orchard.
"Streams" means those areas in the city of Port Orchard where the surface water flow is sufficient to
produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is an area which demonstrates clear
evidence of the passage of water and includes but is not limited to bedrock channels, gravel beds, sand
and silt beds and defined channel swales. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. This
definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices or
other artificial watercourses unless they are used by fish or used to convey streams naturally occurring
prior to construction.
"Susceptibility (groundwater)" means the potential an aquifer has for groundwater contamination,
based on factors which include but are not limited to depth of aquifer, soil permeability, topography,
hydraulic gradient and conductivity, and precipitation.
"Swale" means a shallow drainage conveyance with relatively gentle side slopes, generally with flow
depths less than one foot.
29
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
50
"Threatened species (state listed)" means a species, native to the state of Washington, that is likely to
become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range within the
state without cooperative management or the removal of threats. Threatened species are legally
designated in WAC 232-12-011.
"Toe of slope" means a distinct topographic break in a slope. Where no distinct break exists, this point
shall be the lowermost limit of the landslide hazard area as defined and classified in this section.
"Top of slope" means a distinct topographic break in a slope. Where no distinct break in a slope exists,
this point shall be the uppermost limit of the geologically hazardous area as defined and classified in this
section.
"Unavoidable and necessary impacts" means impacts to a critical area that remain after an applicant
proposing to alter such an area has demonstrated that no alternative exists for the proposed project.
"Utilities" means facilities and/or structures which produce or carry electric power, gas, sewage, water,
communications, oil, publicly maintained stormwater facilities, etc.
"Utility corridor" means areas identified in the comprehensive plan for utility lines, including electric,
gas, sewer, water lines; and public right-of-way and other dedicated utility right-of-way on which one or
more utility lines are currently located. The term "other dedicated utility right-of-way" means
ownership, easements, permits, licenses or other authorizations affording utilities the right to operate
and maintain utility facilities on private property.
"Vulnerability (groundwater)" means the likelihood that an aquifer could be contaminated, based on
both susceptibility and land use. High vulnerability generally means an aquifer, which has high
susceptibility to contamination, and is located in a land use area conducive to contamination, such as
industrial or residential. High vulnerability includes high potential areas for overdrafting and/or
saltwater intrusion.
"Wetland" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support. a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps.
estuaries, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands
intentionally created from non -wetland sites. including, but not limited to. irrigation and drainage
ditches. grass -lined swales. canals, detention facilities. wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds. and
landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1. 1990. that were unintentionally created as a
result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands
intentionally created from non -wetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands.
"Wetland determination" means an on -site determination as to whether a wetland exists on a specific
parcel, conditioned by either a wetland specialist as defined in this Chapter, or the department. A
wetland determination does not require a formal delineation.
"Wetland edge" means the line delineating the outer edge of a wetland established in Article III of this
chapter.
30
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
51
"Wetlands, isolated" means a wetland that is based on its geographic isolation, ecological isolation, or
hydrologic isolation. Isolated wetlands are defined by a very specific type of hydrologic isolation — they
do not have a surface outlet by which water leaves the wetland, even seasonally, to another water
body. Isolated wetlands can also be sloped wetlands where surface water, if present, reenters the
shallow groundwater zone at the base of the wetland and is not linked via surface flows to a
downstream water body. Any project involving filling or altering a wetland that meets this definition of
isolated wetland is subject to regulation by the State Department of Ecology under the Water Pollution
Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW), in addition to the provisions in this chapter. An isolated wetland may
also be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act. Dredge or fill of a
federally regulated wetland is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act
and altering a federally regulated wetland may require federal review.
"Wetlands of regional significance" means those regulated wetlands determined by the department, or
otherwise determined by the State or another governing body with jurisdiction, to have characteristics
of exceptional resource value which should be afforded the highest levels of protection.
"Wetlands report" means a wetland delineation, characterization, rating and analysis of potential
impacts to wetlands consistent with applicable provisions of Article III of this chapter.
"Wetlands specialist" means a person who has earned a bachelor's degree in biological sciences with
specific course work concerning the functions and values of wetlands from an accredited college or
university with a minimum of two years of related work experience; or a qualified consultant or
professional person who has equivalent education and training or with equivalent experience
acceptable to the department.
"Wetpond" means an artificial water body constructed as a part of a surface water management system.
"Wildlife biologist" means a person who has earned a minimum of a bachelor's degree in wildlife biology
or related field of study and has a minimum of five years of field experience in wildlife biology and
habitat evaluation.
"Wildlife corridor" means a relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide, protected
through a conservation easement or other legal instrument, that connects a protected wetland or fish
and wildlife habitat area with a priority habitat as defined in this section.
"Wildlife nesting structure" means a structure erected for the sole purpose of providing a wildlife
nesting site. (Ord. 020-22 § 2; Ord. 010-18 §§ 26, 27; Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
Article Ill. Wetlands
20.162.046048 Wetlands — Purpose.
This article applies to all regulated uses within or adjacent to areas designated as wetlands, as
categorized below. The intent of this article is to:
31
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
52
(1) Achieve no net loss and increase the quality and function of wetland acreage, functions and values
within the city.
(2) Provide mitigation measures where necessary, as conditions of permits, that have a reasonable
expectation of success.
(3) Protect t#evalued public cxpcnditurc resources that could arise from improper wetland uses and
activities;
(5) Preserve natural flood control, stormwater storage and drainage ortrcom swetland hydrology
patterns; and
(6) Prevent turbidity and pollution of wetlands, and fish or shellfish bearing waters to maintain the
wildlife habitat. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.050 Determination of wetland boundaries.
1) The determination of the wetland edge or boundary shall be done in accordance with the delineation
methodology specified in the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional
supplements. All areas within the city meeting the wetland designation criteria as determined by that
procedure are designated as critical areas and are subject to the provisions and regulations of this
chapter. Wetland delineations are valid for five years.
(2) The applicant shall be responsible for hiring a qualified wetland specialist to determine the wetland
boundaries through a field survey. This specialist shall stake or flag the wetland boundary. For all new
development, as required by the department. this line shall be surveyed by a professional land surveyor
licensed in the state of Washington. The regulated wetland boundary and regulated wetland buffer shall
be identified on all grading, landscaping. site, on -site septic system designs (BSAs). utility or other
development plans submitted in support of the project.
(3) Where the applicant has provided a delineation of a wetland boundary, the department or its
consultant may verify the wetland boundary at the cost of the applicant and may request that
adjustments to the boundary be made by a wetland specialist. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).048
20.162.052 Wetland categories.
32
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
53
-2 -)-The city uses the Department of Ecology's Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update -Version 2 (Ecology Publication No. 23-06-009), or as amended hereafter to
categorize wetlands for the purposes of establishing wetland buffer widths, wetland uses and
replacement ratios for wetlands. This system consists of four wetland categories (see Article XIII of this
chapter, Attachment A, for wetland categories). (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.0-50054 Exempt wetlands.
(1) All wetlands within the city meeting the definition in POMC 20.162.046 are regulated. The following
wetlands may be exempt from the requirement to ovoid impactsavoidance and minimization
requirements of mitigation sequencing, and they may be filled if the impacts are fully mitigated based
on the requirements of this chapter. If available, impacts should be mitigated through the purchase of
credits from an in -lieu fee program or mitigation bank, consistent with the terms and conditions of the
program or bank. In order to verify the following conditions, a critical area report for wetlands meeting
the requirements of this chapter must be submitted.
(a) All isolated Category IV wetlands less than 4,000 square feet that:
(i) Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers.
(ii) Are not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated buffers.
(iii) Are not part of a wetland mosaic.
(iv) Do not score five or more points for habitat function based on the Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029, or as
revised as approved by Ecology).
(v) Do not contain a priority habitat or a priority area for a priority species identified by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, do not contain federally listed species or their critical
habitat, or species of local importance.
(b) Wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that meet the above criteria and do not contain federally
listed species or their critical habitat are exempt from the buffer provisions contained in this
chapter. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)-)-
20.162.051 Regulated uc ndzictivitic. S
33
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
54
Major and minor new development activities on properties containing regulated wetlands and buffers
arc subject to thc development standards in this chaptcr, as permittcd in the underlying zoning
designation. All authorized uses and activitics in a rcgulated wetland or its buffer shall bc subject to
conditions established by thc department and may bc subject to mitigation as required by this chapter.
056 20.'� Wetland Development standards.
For the purpose of the provisions of the critical areas ordinance, a regulated wetland and its buffer is a
critical area.
(1) Unless specifically exempt under POMC 20.162.932-034, all regulated uses and activities in a wetland
and/or its buffer shall be regulated pursuant to the requirements of this chapter.
(2) Wetland Buffers. The buffer shall be measured perpendicular from the wetland edge as delineated
and marked using the approved federal delineation manual and applicable regional supplement. Buffers
shall consist of native vegetation adequate to provide the necessary protection. Those buffer areas that
do not contain a well vegetated native plant community shall be enhanced. Wetland delineations are
vplid for five year:. Except through exemption, exception, or variance, buffers shall remain undisturbed
natural vegetation areas except where the buffer can be enhanced to improve its functional attributes.
Any buffer enhancement and/or limited view clearing activity must be reviewed and approved by the
department. No refuse shall be placed in the buffer.
(3) Buffer Widths. All regulated wetlands shall be surrounded by a buffer zone as follows based on the
category of wetland and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (in accordance with
Department of Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029)-
(a) For wetlands that score six points or more for habitat function, the buffers in Table 1 can be used if
both of the following criteria are met:
(i) A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide is protected between the
wetland and any other priority habitats as defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife. The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland and the
priority habitat by some type of legal protection such as a conservation easement. Presence or
absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a qualified biologist. If no option for providing a
corridor is available, Table 1 may be used with the required measures in Table 2 alone.
(ii) The measures in Table 2 are implemented, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the
adjacent land uses.
(b) For wetlands that score three to five habitat points, only the measures in Table 2 are required for
the use of Table 1.
(c) If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in Table 2, or is unable to provide a
protected corridor where available, then Table 3 must be used.
34
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
55
(d) The buffer widths in Table 1 and Table 3 assume that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant
community appropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated,
or vegetated with invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either
be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer should be widened to ensure
that adequate functions of the buffer are provided.
(-eel Reduced buffer widths associated with Table 1 shall not be used in conjunction with other
reductions or variances outlined in this chapter.
L4) Interrupted Buffer. Where a legally established developed roadway or permanent substantial
improvement transects a wetland buffer, the director may approve a modification of the minimum
required buffer to the edge of the roadway or substantial improvement. The permanent substantial
development must serve to eliminate or greatly reduce buffer function.
Tables of Wetland Development Standards
Table 1 —Wetland Buffer Requirements If Table 2
Is Implemented and a Wildlife Corridor Is Provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category r3 —
e Scan — 9Buffer width
5
Score -56 — 7 Score 6--�8 — 9 based on special
characteristics
Category I:
75 110 345225 2NJA
Based on total score
Category I:
WN A 225 190
Bogs and wetlands of high —1-
conservation value
Category I:
N/A 150
CortIEstuarine and
wetlands in coastal lagoons
Category I:
-WA 225 N/A
Interdunal
Category I:
75 110 15225
Forested
CategoryT (buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Est
c
35
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
56
Table 1 —Wetland Buffer Requirements If Table 2
Is Implemented and a Wildlife Corridor Is Provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category
Score Score -56-7 Score
3-5
Category II:
Based on score
Category II:
Interdunal wetlands
Category II:
Estuarine and wetlands in
Category III (all)
Category IV (all)
Disturbance
Lights
Noise
75 110 3225
449N A 36 110
N/A
60 11 110 11 X5225
based on special
characteristics
N A
X5110
110 (Huff r width not
scorc )110
40 IL
Table 2— Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands
Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
• Direct lights away from wetland
• Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland
• If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to
noise source
• For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as
certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10 feet heavily vegetated
buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer
Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not
dewatered
• Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetland
1I• Apply integrated pest management
Stormwater • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent
runoff development
• Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer
• Use low intensity development techniques (for more information refer to the drainage
ordinance and manual)
36
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
57
Table 2 — Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands
Disturbance
Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Change in water
• Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious
regime
surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human
• Use privacy fencing or plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to
disturbance
discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion
• Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation
easement
Dust
• Use best management practices to control dust
Table 3 —Wetland Buffer Requirements If Table 2
Is Not Implemented or a Wildlife Corridor Is Not Provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category Score 8-9Buffer width
Score Score 6 — 7 Score 6-349 based on special
3-5
characteristics
Category I:
100 150 x&300 AON A
Based on total score
Category I:
300 250
Bogs and wetlands of high-
conservation value
Category I:
N/A
200
Coa lEstuarine and wetlands
in coastal lagoons
Category I:
N/A
300
N/A
Interdunal
Category I:
100
440-150
20-300
3Q NIA
Forested
CategoryT 700 (buffer width not h- 2d on habitat scores)
rrc
L
___________________ ___________________
Category II:
_______________________
100 150 x&300
OONIA
Based on score
Category II:
N/A
150
Interdunal wetlands
37
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
58
Table 3 — Wetland Buffer Requirements If Table 2
Is Not Implemented or a Wildlife Corridor Is Not Provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category
Scor��Buffer width
Score
Score 6 — 7
Score 678 — 9
based on special
3-5
characteristics
Category II:
150 (buffer width not
based on habitat
N/A
scores) 150
Estuarine and wetlands in
coastal lagoons
Category III (all)
80
Ix&300
3JA9IL
Category IV (all)
50
N/A
(4) Wetland Buffer Measurement. All buffers shall be measured on a horizontal plane from the
regulated wetland edge as marked in the field.
(5) Wetland Buffer Alterations
A quantitative alteration, in which the boundaries of the wetland buffer area are altered, can occur
through buffer averaging efor through a buffer reduction. Buffer averaging shall not be used in
conjunction with a buffer reduction.
The buffers defined in Table 1 shall not be used in conjunction with a proposed wetland buffer
alteration.
a. Wetland Buffer Averaging. Standard buffer widths may be modified by averaging buffer widths. The
total area contained within the buffer after averaging shall be no less than that contained within the
standard buffer prior to averaging. The buffer shall not be reduced by more than 25 percent of the
standard buffer width at any point. The department may allow wetland buffer averaging where it
can be demonstrated that such averaging can clearly provide equivalent or greater functions and
values as would be provided under the standard buffer requirement.
Prior to approval of buffer averaging, a critical areas report for wetland(s) meeting the requirements in
this chapter must be submitted and reviewed for consistency with the requirements of this Chapter.
Averaging of buffer widths may be allowed where the applicant demonstrates the following:
(i) Thc wetland contains variations in scnsitivity duc to cxisting physical characteristics; and
(i) The buffer is increased adjacent to higher functioning areas of or more sensitive portions of the
wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower function or less sensitive portions: and
(ii) Averaging is necessary to avoid an extraordinary hardship to the applicant caused by
circumstances peculiar to the property and the applicant has demonstrated all avoidance and
minimization measures have been considered.
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
59
(b) Wetland Buffer Reduction. Buffer width reductions shall be considered on a case -by -case basis when
an applicant demonstrates to the department that the mitigation measures outlined in Table 2 are
not applicable to utilize the reduced buffer widths defined in Table 1 and the proposed reduction
would not adversely affect the wetland in question. A buffer reduction may not be reduced to less
than 75 percent of the standard buffer width.
Decision Criteria. Prior to approval, an applicant shall demonstrate that a buffer reduction proposal
meets all of the decision criteria listed below.
(i) dcmonstratcDemonstrate all avoidance and minimization efforts have been considered for
compliance with POMC 20.162.024;
ii It will not adversely impact the wetland(s) in question;
iii It will not lead to adverse water quality protection, unstable earth conditions, or create an
erosion hazard;
iv As part of the buffer reduction request, an applicant shall submit a buffer enhancement plan
consistent with Article X11Vffl of this Chapter.
(6) Increased Wetland Buffer Provisions. The department may increase buffer zone widths for a
development project on a case -by -case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland
functions and values. Such determination shall be based on site -specific and project related conditions,
which include, but are not limited to:
(a) Wetland sites with known locations of endangered or threatened species for which a habitat
management plan indicates a larger buffer is necessary to protect habitat values for such species;
(b) The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion control measures alone will not
effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts;
(c) The adjacent land on the development proposal site has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater
than 30 percent; or
(7) Wetland Fencing and Signs. This subsection applies to those wetlands and their buffers that are
within 300 feet of regulated development activities.
(a) Wetland buffers shall be temporarily fenced or otherwise suitably marked, as required by the
department, between the area where the construction activity occurs and the buffer. Fences shall be
made of a durable protective barrier and shall be highly visible. Silt fences and plastic construction
fences may be used to prevent encroachment on wetlands or their buffers by construction. Temporary
fencing shall be removed after the site work has been completed and the site is fully stabilized per city
approval.
39
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
60
(b) The department shall require permanent signs and/or split -rail fencing to be placed on the common
boundary between a wetland buffer and the adjacent land. Signs must be posted at an interval of one
per lot if the lot is less than 50 feet wide, or every 50 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by
the property owner in perpetuity. The signs shall be worded as follows or with alternative language
approved by the department:
Protected Wetland Area
Do Not Disturb
Contact City of Port Orchard
Regarding Uses, Restrictions, and Opportunities for Stewardship
The department may approve an alternate method of wetland and buffer identification, if the
alternative method provides adequate protection to the wetland and buffer.
(8) Building or Hard Surface Setback Lines. A building or hard surface setback line of 15 feet is required
from the edge of any wetland buffer. Minor structural or hard surface intrusions into the areas of the
setback may be permitted if the department determines that such intrusions will not adversely impact
the wetland. The setback shall be identified on a site plan and filed as an attachment to the notice to
title as required by POMC 20.162.000032, Notice to title. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.0058 Additional development standards for regulated uses.
In addition to meeting the development standards in this article, those regulated uses identified below
shall also comply with the standards of this section and other applicable state, federal and local
ordinances.
(-a) Agricultural Restrictions. In all development proposals which would permit introduction of
agricultural uses, damage to regulated wetlands shall be avoided. Wetlands shall be avoided by one of
the following methods:
(a) Implementation of a farm conservation plan agreed upon by the conservation district and the
applicant to protect and enhance the water quality of the wetland; and/or
(b) Fencing located not closer than the outer buffer edge.
40
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
61
�4) Land Divisions and Land Use Permits. All proposed divisions of land and land uses (including but not
limited to the following: boundary or lot line adjustments, short plats, large lot subdivisions, master
planned resorts, planned residential developments, conditional use permits, site plan reviews, binding
site plans) which include regulated wetlands shall comply with the following procedures and
development standards:
(a) Regulated wetlands, except the area with permanent open water, and wetland buffers may be
included in the calculation of minimum lot area for proposed lots; provided, that other standards,
including subsection (§3)(c) of this section, are met.
(b) Land division approvals shall be conditioned to require that regulated wetlands and regulated
wetland buffers be dedicated as open space tracts, or an easement or covenant encumbering the
Lot with the wetland and wetland buffer. Such dedication, easement or covenant shall be recorded
together with the land division and represented on the final plat, short plat or binding site plan, and
title.
(d) After preliminary approval and prior to final land division approval, the department shall require
the common boundary between a regulated wetland or associated buffer and the adjacent land be
identified using permanent signs and/or fencing. In lieu of signs and/or fencing, alternative methods
of wetland and buffer identification may be approved when such methods are determined by the
department to provide adequate protection to the wetland and buffer.
(§3) Stormwater Management Facilities. A wetland or its buffer can be physically or hydrologically
altered to meet the requirements of an LID, runoff treatment or flow control BMP if all of the following
criteria are met:
(a) The wetland is classified as a Category IV or a Category III wetland with a habitat score of 3 to 45
points; and
(b) There will be "no net loss" of functions and values of the wetland; and
(c) The wetland does not contain a breeding population of any native amphibian species; and
(d) The hydrologic functions of the wetland can be improved as outlined in questions 3, 4, 5 of Chart
4 and questions 2, 3, 4 of Chart 5 in the Department of Ecology's "Guide for Selecting Mitigation
Sites Using a Watershed Approach"; or the wetland is part of a priority restoration plan that
achieves restoration goals identified in a shoreline master program or other local or regional
watershed plan; and
(e) The wetland lies in the natural routing of the runoff, and the discharge follows the natural
routing; and
41
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
62
(f) All regulations regarding stormwater and wetland management are followed, including but not
limited to local and state wetland and stormwater codes, manuals, and permits; and
(g) Modifications that alter the structure of a wetland or its soils will require permits. Existing
functions and values that are lost would have to be compensated/replaced.
Stormwater LID BMPs required as part of new and redevelopment projects can be considered within
wetlands and their buffers. A site -specific characterization is required to determine if an LID BMP is
feasible at the project site.
(-GA wetland hydrology monitoring plan prepared by a qualified wetland shall be required when a
wetland is physically or hydrologically altered. The plan shall provide an analysis to demonstrate the
baseline hydrologic conditions within the wetland, provide monitoring methods, provide a monitoring
program to evaluate the hydrologic conditions post construction. and provide a reporting schedule for
submitting monitoring reports to the city. The wetland hydrology monitoring plan shall be verified
through peer review.
j4) Trails and Trail -Related Facilities. Construction of public and private trails and trail -related facilities,
such as benches and viewing platforms, may be allowed in wetlands or wetland buffers pursuant to the
following guidelines:
(a) Trails and related facilities shall, to the extent feasible, be placed on existing road grades, utility
corridors, or any other previously disturbed areas.
(b) Trails and related facilities shall be planned to minimize removal of trees, soil disturbance and
existing hydrological characteristics, shrubs, snags and important wildlife habitat.
(c) Viewing platforms and benches, and access to them, shall be designed and located to minimize
disturbance of wildlife habitat and/or critical characteristics of the affected wetland.
(d) Trails and related facilities shall generally be located outside required buffers. Where trails are
permitted within buffers they shall be located in the outer 25 percent of the buffer and a minimum
of 25 feet from the wetland edge, except where wetland crossings or viewing areas have been
approved.
(e) Trails shall generally be limited to pedestrian use and pervious surfaces no more than five feet in
width, unless other more intensive uses, such as bike or horse trails, have been specifically allowed
and mitigation has been provided.
(f) Circular (loop) trails are discouraged, as they have the potential to encircle critical areas and cut
off habitat connectivity for smaller species.
(75) Utilities in Wetlands or Wetland Buffers.
(a) Construction of new utilities outside the road right-of-way or existing utility corridors may be
permitted in wetlands or wetland buffers, only when no reasonable alternative location is available
42
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
63
and the utility corridor meets the requirements for installation, replacement of vegetation and
maintenance outlined below, and as required in the filing and approval of applicable permits and
special reports required by this chapter.
(b) Sewer or On -Site Sewage Utility. Construction of sewer lines or on -site sewage systems may be
permitted in regulated wetland buffers only when:
(i) The applicant demonstrates it is necessary to meet state and/or local health code minimum
design standards (not requiring a variance for either horizontal setback or vertical separation):
and/or
(ii)
e}ee sThe applicant sufficiently demonstrates the mitigation sequencing requirements efdefined in
this sectiernChapter so show all avoidance and minimization measures have been considered. Joint
use of the sewer utility corridor by other utilities may be allowed.
(c) New utility corridors shall not be allowed when the regulated wetland or buffer has known
locations of federal or state listed endangered, threatened or sensitive species, heron rookeries or
nesting sites of raptors which are listed as state candidate or state monitor, except in those
circumstances where an approved habitat management plan indicates that the utility corridor will
not significantly impact the wetland or wetland buffer.
(d) New utility corridor construction and maintenance shall protect the regulated wetland and
buffer environment by utilizing the following methods:
(i) New utility corridors shall be aligned when possible, to avoid cutting trees greater than 12
inches in diameter at breast height (four and one-half feet), measured on the uphill side.
(ii) New utility corridors shall be revegetated with appropriate native vegetation at
preconstruction densities or greater, immediately upon completion of construction, or as soon
thereafter as possible, if due to seasonal growing constraints. The utility shall ensure that such
vegetation survives.
(iii) Any additional utility corridor access for maintenance shall be provided as much as possible
at specific points, rather than by parallel roads. If parallel roads are necessary, they shall be of a
minimum width but no greater than 15 feet; and shall be contiguous to the location of the utility
corridor on the side away from the wetland. Mitigation will be required for any additional access
through restoration of vegetation in disturbed areas.
(iv) The department may require other additional mitigation measures.
(e) Utility corridor maintenance shall include the following measures to protect the regulated
wetland and buffer environment:
43
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
64
(i) Where feasible, painting of utility equipment such as power towers shall not be sprayed or
sandblasted, nor should lead -based paints be used.
(ii) No pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers may be used in wetland areas or their buffers except those
approved by the EPA and Ecology. Where approved, herbicides must be applied by a licensed
applicator in accordance with the safe application practices on the label. Within wetlands, the
applicator must be licensed to use aquatic herbicides.
(f) For utility work in wetlands or in -water, it shall be the applicant's responsibility to obtain all
necessary state and federal approvals before beginning work. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.060 Determination of wetland boundaries.
44
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
65
20 062 Wetland mitigation requirements.
(1) Mitigation Sequence. Projects permitted under this article will be reviewed in accordance with the
mitigation sequencing requirement in POMC 20.162494024.
(2) Mitigation Plan Requirements. Any applicant required to perform compensatory wetland mitigation
as a condition of approval for a development project or under an enforcement action shall submit a
wetlands mitigation plan to the department in accordance with POMC 20.162.096 and
2O.' X04.20.162.026 and 20.162.096. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be consistent with
Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans — Version 1 (Ecology
Publication No. 06-06-011b or as revised), and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed
Approach (Western Washington) (Ecology Publication No. 09-06-32), and with amended Appendix 8-C to
Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2 — Protecting and Managing Wetlands (Ecology Publication 05-
06-008 or as revised).
(3) Wetland Replacement Ratios. The following ratios, as well as consideration of the factors listed in
this section, and Table 4, shall be used to determine the appropriate amounts of restored, rehabilitated,
created, or enhanced wetland that will be required to replace impacted wetlands. The first number
specifies the amount of wetland area requiring replacement and the second specifies the amount of
wetland area altered.
Table 4 — Wetland Replacement Ratios
Category and Type of Restoration or Rehabilitation Enhancement Only
Impact Wetland Creation
Category I: Not considered Case -by -case Case -by -case
possible
Bog, natural heritage
site
Category I: 6:1 12:1 24:1
Mature forested
Category I: 4:1 8:1 16:1
45
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
Table 4 — Wetland Replacement Ratios
Category and Type of Restoration or Rehabilitation
Enhancement Only
Impact Wetland Creation
(All others)
Category 11
13:1
16:1
12:1
Category III
2:1
4:1
8:1
Category IV
11.5:1
13:1
6:1
(a) Open water may be enhanced by replacing structures that may have been removed in the past
(large woody material, rocks, reefs, etc.).
(b) The department may increase the ratios based on one or more of the following:
(i) The probable success of the proposed restoration or enhancement;
(ii) The period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions;
(iii) Projected losses in functions and value;
(iv) Replacement as a result of an illegal action.
(4) -Alternative Mitigation Ratios. The department may approve different mitigation ratios when the
applicant proposes a combination of wetland creation, restoration, rehabilitation, and/or enhancement;
provided, that federal and state resource agencies approve the mitigation plan and the plan achieves no
net loss of wetland functions and values. Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the
credit/debit tool described in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of
Western Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication No. 10-06-011, or as revised) if approved by the
director.
-(5) Type and Location of Mitigation.
Applicants have two options for meeting comDensatory wetland mitigation reauirements defined in this
chapter. The options generally fall into two categories: = programmatic approaches and permittee-
responsible approaches. Programmatic approaches refer to compensatory mitigation done by a third -
party sponsor. The two programmatic approaches currently being used in Washington are wetland
mitigation banking and in -lieu fee mitigation. Permittee-responsible mitigation is an approach where
the applicant retains full responsibility to successfully compensate for unavoidable impacts. The order
of preference for the type of mitigation approaches is a programmatic approach followed by a
ermittee-responsible approach.
(a) Wetland Mitigation Banks. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved for use as
compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when:
(i) The bank is certified under state and/or federal rule:
46
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
67
(ii) The director determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation
for the authorized impacts:
(iii) The proposed use of credits shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of the mitigation
bank's certification:
(iv) Replacement ratios for project using bank credits shall be consistent with the replacement ratios
specified in the mitigation bank's certification: and
(v) Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located
within the service area specified in the wetland bank's certification. In some cases, the service area
of the bank may include portions of more than adjacent drainage basin for specific wetland
functions.
(b) In -Lieu Fee. Credits from an approved in -lieu fee program may be used when all of the following
aply:
(vi) the approval authority determines that the use of the program would provide environmentally
appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts;
vii) the proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the approved in -lieu
fee program instrument:
(viii) projects using in -lieu fee credits shall have debits associated with the proposed impacts
calculated by the applicant's qualified specialist using the credit assessment method specified in the
approved instrument of the in -lieu fee program: and
(ix) the impacts are located within the service area specified in the approved in -lieu fee program
instrument.
(c) Mitigation under the watershed approach. When it is demonstrated that a programmatic approach is
not available to compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands. compensatory wetland mitigation
shall use the water shed approach using the guidance defined in the Department of Ecology's Selecting
Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington) (Ecology Publication No.
09-06-32), or as amended.
(d) Alternative Mitigation. The department may approve an alternative mitigation plan based on best
available science and if is demonstrated that a high level of ecological function would result from an in -
kind and on -site or in -kind and off -site compensatory wetland mitigation approach. Alternative
mitigation proposals shall use the guidance in the Department of Ecology's Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State — Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans — Version 1 (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-
011b), or as revised.
(e) Innovative Mitigation. The Director may approve innovative mitigation projects that are based on
best available science including but not limited to activities such as advance mitigation and preferred
environmental alternatives. Innovative mitigation proposals must offer an equivalent or better level of
protection of critical area functions and values than would be provided by the strict application of this
chapter. Such mitigation proposals must demonstrate special consideration for conservation and
protection measures for anadromous fisheries. The Director shall consider the following for approval of
an innovative mitigation proposal:
(i). Creation or enhancement of a larger system of natural areas and open space is preferable to the
preservation of many individual habitat areas:
47
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
68
(ii). The applicant demonstrates that long-term protection and management of the habitat area will
be provided;
(iii). There is clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the proposed mitigation site:
(iv). Mitigation according to POMC 20.162.060 5(a) through 5(d) is not feasible due to site
constraints such as parcel size. stream type. wetland category. or excessive costs:
(v). A wetland of a different type is justified based on regional needs or functions and values:
vi). The replacement ratios are not reduced or eliminated; unless the reduction results in a
preferred environmental alternative; and
(vii). Public entity cooperative preservation agreements such as conservation easements are
applied.
[6) Monitoring Requirements. The city shall require monitoring reports on an annual basis for a
minimum of five years, or until the department determines that the mitigation project has achieved
success. Certain types of wetland communities, such as scrub -shrub or forested wetland, require
additional time for establishment and may require monitoring for 10 or more years depending on the
site -specific circumstances and the scope of the mitigation project. The wetlands mitigation plan shall
provide specific criteria for monitoring the mitigation project. Criteria shall be project -specific and a
scientifically acceptable means to aid the department in evaluating whether or not the project has
achieved success according to the wetland mitigation performance standards in this chapter. (Ord. 019-
17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.064062 Incentives for wetlands protection.
The city of Port Orchard recognizes that property owners wish to gain economic benefits from their
land. The city encourages such mechanisms as the open space tax program, conservation easements
and donations to land trusts, in order to provide taxation relief upon compliance with the regulations in
the provisions of the critical areas ordinance. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
Article IV. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
20.162.068064 Purpose.
This article applies to all regulated uses included in the critical areas ordinance, or uses within 300 feet
of areas designated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, as categorized in POMC
20.162.97-0066. The intent of this article is to:
(1) Preserve natural flood control, stormwater storage and drainage or stream flow patterns;
(2) Control siltation, protect nutrient reserves and maintain stream flows and stream quality for fish,__
wildlife, and marine shellfish;
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
(3) Prevent turbidity and pollution of streams and fish or shellfish bearing waters;
(4) Preserve and protect habitat adequate to support viable populations of native wildlife in both the
city and Kitsap County; and
(5) Encourage nonregulatory methods of habitat retention whenever practical, through education and
the open space tax program. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.A�A066 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area categories classification.
The following categories shall be used in classifying fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas that are located within the city's shoreline jurisdiction according to
the city's shoreline master program are regulated through the provisions of this chapter.
(1) Streams. All streams which meet the criteria for Type F7L2, Np/3, Ns/4 5 waters as set forth in the
DNR water rating system- as defined in WAC 222-16-030 (see Table 5).
(2) Lakes Less Than 20 Acres in Surface Area. Those lakes which meet the criteria for Type 2 3, 4 and 5
waters as set forth in WAC 222-16-030, as now or hereafter amended. This includes lakes and ponds less
than 20 acres in surface area and their submerged aquatic beds, and lakes and ponds planted with game
fish by a governmental or tribal authority.
44f) Habitats recognized by federal or state agencies for federal and/or state listed endangered,
threatened and sensitive species documented in maps or databases available to Kitsap County and
which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long
term.
(-i4) Areas targeted for preservation by the federal, state and/or local government which provide fish
and wildlife habitat benefits, such as important waterfowl areas identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
(#5) Areas that contain priority habitats or priority species.
j) Areas that contain habitats and species of local importance.
4 7) Habitats for state listed candidate and monitored species documented in maps or databases
available to Kitsap County and its citizens, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the
species will maintain and reproduce over the long term.
49
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
70
(48) Habitats which include attributes such as comparatively high wildlife density; high wildlife species
richness; significant wildlife breeding habitat, seasonal ranges, wildlife corridors, or movement corridors
of limited availability and/or high vulnerability. These habitats may include caves, cliffs, islands,
meadows, old-growth/mature forest, snag -rich areas, talus slopes, and urban natural open space. (Ord.
019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.0068 Development standards.
Those regulated uses identified below within designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
shall comply with the performance standards outlined in this section. Potential impacts to fish and
wildlifc habitat conscrvation areas or thcir buffcrs shall bc appropriatcly idcntificd and mitigated
consistcnt with Articic XII of this chaptcr. For all rcgulatcd activities proposcd on a site which contains
or is within 300 fcct of a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, a habitat management plan
consistcnt nrticic IV of this chapter shall ben prepared.
(1) Buffer and Building Setback Requirements. Buffers „r 1) Habitat Assessment Report and
Management Plan. For all regulated uses and activity proposed on a site which contains or is within 300
feet of fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. a habitat assessment shall be prepared by a qualified
wildlife biologist. The habitat assessment shall identify of all fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
and its buffer. an analysis of species or habitats known or suspected. and assessment of project impact
or effect on the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or its riparian management zone. If it is
determined that a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or its riparian management zone does not
occur on or within 300 feet of the site. or if it is demonstrated that the project will comply with the
standard riparian management zone width and building setback requirements, the project may proceed
without any additional requirements under this section. If it is determined that a fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area does occur on or within 300 feet of the site. and there will be potential temporary or
permanent impacts to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or a modification to the riparian
management zone width and/or building setback is proposed. a habitat management plan according to
Article VIII of this chapter shall be prepared.
2) Riparian Management Zones and Building Setback Reauirements. Riparian management zones (RMZ
and setbacks shall be maintained along the perimeter of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, as
listed in Table 5. Distances shall be measured from the edge of the channel migration zone (CMZ). where
identified, or the ordinary high water mark (OHM) or from the top of the bank where the OHM cannot
he identified. R..ffer. OHWM). whichever is greater. Riparian management zones shall be retained in
their natural condition.it is acceptable, however, to enhance the except where the buffer byplanting
indigenous vegetation, as approved by the departmen*can be enhanced to improve its functional
attributes. Riparian management zones do not apply to those segments of stream that are piped.
a. Alteration of buffer areas may be allowed for water dependent and water related activities subject
to the city's shoreline master program (Chapter 20.164 POMC), and for development authorized by
POMC 20.162.032, Exemptions, POMC 20.162.034, Exceptions, POMC 20.162.036, Variances,
ROMz20.162 039, Nonconforming— Existing structures.
-a. The bufferriDarian management zone width shall be increased to include streamside wetlands which
provide overflow storage for stormwaters, feed water back to the stream during low flows or
50
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
71
provide shelter and food for fish. In braided channels, the ordinary high water Mark
... ...cOHWM or top of
bank shall be defined so as to include the entire stream feature. Refuse shall not be placed in
bufffer a riparian management zone.
e b. Where a legally established substantial improvement or development transects a buffcrriDarian
management zone, the director may approve a modification of the minimum required bufferRMZ to
the edge of the substantial improvement or development if the part of the bufferriparian
management zone on the other side of said feature does not provide any buffer functions to protect
the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area in question.
c. An additional building setback of 15 feet is required from the edge of all fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas.
i. Minor structural impervious surface intrusions into the building setback may be permitted
on a case -by -case basis when an applicant demonstrates to the department that the
proposed intrusion would not adversely affect buffer function.
d. Standard buffers and building setbacks for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas shall be
required for all regulated uses and activities as per Table 5 of this Article.
e. If the riparian management zone includes a geologically hazardous area(s), the standard riparian
management zone width is greater than the extent of the geologically hazardous area or the riparian
management zone extends to the top of slope of the geologically hazardous areas, the applicable
riparian management zone will be whichever width is greater.
3) Riparian Management Zone Interruptions. Where a legally established developed roadway or
permanent substantial improvement transects a critical fish and wildlife habitat conservation area
riparian management zone. the director may approve a modification of the minimum required riparian
management zone to the edge of the roadway or substantial improvement. The permanent substantial
development must serve to eliminate or greatly reduce function of the riparian management zone.
Table 5
CATEGORY
BUFFERRIPARIAN MANAGEMENT ZONE WIDTH
STANDARD
Streams
Water Type
F
150 feet
Np
-59100 feet
Ns
19100 feet
Lakes — Less Than 20 Acres (Non -Type 1 Waters of the State)
Zoning Designation
Community
Facilities
50 feet
Commercial,
Mixed Use
50 feet-.
Employment
50 feet
51
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
72
Table 5
CATEGORY Q"�RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT ZONE WIDTH
STANDARD
Greenbelt,
35 feet
Residential
Wildlife Habitat Co ti„n Areas
Class I �treugh
uffcr widths and setbacks will he determined
mandatory habit-,+ plan.
Class µ Site specific conditions will determine theneed for
then ration of a habitat plan for buffer widths
and setbacks.
(Ord. 033-20 § 14; Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
LLBuffer Reductions. Buffer width reductions shall be considered on a case by case basis
4
when an applicant demonstrates to Specific Riparian Management Zone Development Standards.
Riparian management zones are a critical area and have the department that the proposed
reduction would not adversely affect the potential to provide ecosystem functions for bank
stability, shade, pollution removal, recruitment of large woody debris, and wildlife habitat.
Development is prohibited in the RMZ, except as follows:
(a) Mitigation sequencing is demonstrated as defined in Article I of this Chapter and included an
approved habitat management plan;
(b) Any permanent impacts occur in the outer 25 percent of the RMZ:
-a-}(c) It will result in no net loss of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or riparian
management zone in question. A buffer reduction may not be reduced to less than 75 percent
o€the standard buffer width.
{ tdLlt will not lead to adverse adversely affect water qualityprotection,, lead to unstable earth
conditions, or create an erosion hazard;
(e) Meets the exemptions or exception requirements defined under Title I of this Chapter.
{.e} BAs part of the buffer reduction re^ estany proposal, an applicant shall submit a buffer
enhancement plan consistent with Article VIII of this Chapter.
52
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
73
(5) Stream Crossings. Any private or public road expansion or construction which is allowed and must
cross streams classified within this chapter shall comply with the following minimum development
standards:
(a) Bridges or bottomless culverts shall be required for all streams which support fish life, unless a
habitat management plan is submitted which demonstrates that other alternatives would not result in
significant impacts to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area and as determined appropriate
through the Hydraulic Project Approval process administered by the Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife:
b) Crossings shall not occur in salmonid spawning areas unless no other feasible crossing site exists. For
new development proposals; if existing crossings are determined to adversely impact salmon spawning
or passage areas, new or upgraded crossings shall be located as determined necessary through
coordination with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife;
(c) Bridge piers or abutments shall not be placed in either the floodway or between the ordinary high
water marks unless no other feasible alternative placement exists;
(d) Crossings shall not diminish flood -carrying capacity:
(e) Crossings shall serve multiple properties whenever possible:
(f) Publicly owned or maintained road or street crossing shall provide for other purposes, such as utility
crossing, pedestrian or bicycle easements, viewing points, whenever possible:
g) Where there is no reasonable alternative to providing a conventional culvert, the culvert shall be the
minimum length necessary to accommodate the permitted activity. If located on a stream containing
fish and wildlife habitat per WAC 222-16-030. the culvert shall be designed in accordance with the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's 2013 Water Crossing Guidelines (or as amended).
(6) Stream Relocations. Stream relocations for the purpose of flood protection and/or fisheries
restoration shall only be permitted when adhering to the following minimum performance standards
and when consistent with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife's Hydraulic Project
Approval, and any other local, state or federal permits:
(a) The channel, bank and buffer should be replanted with native vegetation that replicates a natural.
undisturbed riparian condition;
b) For those shorelands and waters prone to flooding, a professional engineer licensed in the state of
Washington shall provide information demonstrating that the equivalent base flood storage volume and
function will be maintained:
53
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
74
c) Relocated stream channels shall be designed to meet or exceed the functions and values of the
stream to be relocated; and
d) Relocation proposal shall include an evaluation report addressing potential downstream impacts to
public and private properties. critical areas and listed species; changes to hydroperiod. water quality,
flooding frequency or severity: and any necessary downstream stormwater facility improvements
associated with the relocation.
(7) Incentives for stream restoration. The city of Port Orchard encourages efforts to daylight a piped
segment of a naturally occurring stream to restore historical functions and values those features
provided. In support of davlighting a stream the city recognizes this type of restoration effort will
require a project to establish a stream buffer. The city will allow for a 75 percent buffer reduction of the
applicable stream buffer as defined in Table 5. Pending approval, an applicant shall demonstrate that a
proposed davlighting proposal meets all of the decision criteria listed below.
(a) The proposed restoration is not associated with compensatory mitigation of a specific development
rp oject:
(b) Any proposed stream restoration shall prepare a habitat management plan consistent with the
requirements defined in Article VIII of this Chapter:
(c) No Net Loss. An analysis shall be prepared to demonstrate how the proposed stream restoration will
improve riparian habitat and demonstrate how buffer functions of the reduced buffer will provide
functions similar to the standard buffer to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes:
(d) Stream bed shall consist of a suitable substrate material consistent with WDFW's guidelines;
e) The stream buffer shall be planted with an assortment of native vegetation and shall comply with the
applicable mitigation reporting monitoring requirements defined in 20.162.096 and 20.162.056068 of
this chapter;
(f) The applicant shall demonstrate to the city that all other applicable state and federal permits have
been obtained.(6) Streambank stabilization to protect structures from future channel migration is
achieved through bioengineering, soft armoring, or recommended techniques in accordance with an
a proved habitat management plan and the guidance of WDFW's Washington State Integrated
Streambank Protection Guidance (2002. as amended).
20.162.070 Additional development standards for regulated uses.
In addition to meeting the development standards in this article, those regulated uses identified below
shall also comply with the standards of this section and other applicable state, federal and local
ordinances.
54
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
75
-2(1) Agricultural Restrictions. In all development proposals which would permit introduction of
agricultural uses, damage to regulated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas shall be avoided. Fish
and wildlife habitat conservation areas shall be avoided by one of the following methods:
(a) Implementation of a farm conservation plan agreed upon by the conservation district and
the applicant to protect and enhance the water quality of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area;
and/or
(b) Fencing located not closer than the outer buffer edge.
-4j2) Land Divisions and Land Use Permits. All proposed divisions of land and land uses (including but not
limited to the following: boundary or lot line adjustments, short plats, large lot subdivisions, master
planned resorts, planned residential developments, conditional use permits, site plan reviews, binding
site plans) which include regulated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas shall comply with the
following procedures and development standards:
(a) Regulated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, except the area with permanent open
water, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation area buffers may be included in the calculation of
minimum lot area for proposed lots; provided, that other standards, including bs^ction (5)(c) of this
cction, are met.
(b) Land division approvals shall be conditioned to require that regulated fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas and regulated fish and wildlife habitat conservation area buffers be
dedicated as open space tracts, or an easement or covenant encumbering the resultant Lott with the
fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and fish and wildlife habitat conservation area buffer. Such
dedication, easement or covenant shall be recorded together with the land division and represented on
the final plat, short plat, unit lot subdivision or binding site plan, and title.
(d) After preliminary approval and prior to final land division approval, the department shall
require the common boundary between a regulated fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or
associated buffer and the adjacent land be identified using permanent signs and/or fencing. In lieu of
signs and/or fencing, alternative methods of fish and wildlife habitat conservation area and buffer
55
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
76
identification may be approved when such methods are determined by the department to provide
adequate protection to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area and buffer.
(§3) Trails and Trail -Related Facilities. Construction of public and private trails and trail -related facilities,
such as benches and viewing platforms, may be allowed in fish and wildlife habitat conservation area
buffers pursuant to the following guidelines:
(a) Trails and related facilities shall, to the extent feasible, be placed on existing road grades,
utility corridors, or any other previously disturbed areas.
(b) Trails and related facilities shall be planned to minimize removal of trees, soil disturbance
and existing hydrological characteristics, shrubs, snags and important wildlife habitat.
(c) Viewing platforms and benches, and access to them, shall be designed and located to
minimize disturbance of wildlife habitat and/or critical characteristics of the affected fish and wildlife
habitat conservation area.
(d) Trails and related facilities shall generally be located outside required buffers. Where trails
are permitted within buffers they shall be located in the outer 25 percent of the buffer and a minimum
of 25 feet from the fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas edge, except where stream crossings
have been approved.
(e) Trails shall generally be limited to pedestrian use and pervious surfaces no more than five
feet in width, unless other more intensive uses, such as bike or horse trails, have been specifically
allowed and mitigation has been provided.
(f) Circular (loop) trails are discouraged, as they have the potential to encircle critical areas and
cut off habitat connectivity for smaller species.
(-74) Utilities in fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or ` ctl-,nd Buffcrstheir buffers.
(a) Construction of new utilities outside the road right-of-way or existing utility corridors may be
permitted in fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or wetland buffers, only when no reasonable
alternative location is available and the utility corridor meets the requirements for installation,
replacement of vegetation and maintenance outlined below, and as required in the filing and approval
of applicable permits and special reports required by this chapter.
(b) Sewer or On -Site Sewage Utility. Construction of sewer lines or on -site sewage systems may be
permitted in regulated fish -nd wildlife habitat , otion orco buff^rsri arian management zones
only when:
56
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
77
(i) The applicant demonstrates it is necessary to meet state and/or local health code minimum
design standards (not requiring a variance for either horizontal setback or vertical separation); and/or
(ii)
e}eet-sThe applicant sufficiently demonstrates the mitigation sequencing requirements
efdefined in this s^�.Chapter to show all avoidance and minimization measures have been
considered. Joint use of the sewer utility corridor by other utilities may be allowed.
(iii) New utility corridors shall be aligned, when possible, to avoid cutting trees greater than 12
inches in diameter at breast height (four and one-half feet), measured on the uphill side.
(iv) On -site sewage systems shall be located in the outer 25 percent of the riparian management
zone.
(c) New utility corridors shall not be allowed when the regulated fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area or buffer has known locations of federal or state listed endangered, threatened or
sensitive species, heron rookeries or nesting sites of raptors which are listed as state candidate or state
monitor, except in those circumstances where an approved habitat management plan indicates that
the utility corridor will not significantly impact the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, buffer,
or species.
(d) New utility corridor construction and maintenance shall protect the regulated fish and wildlife
habitat conservation area and hri arian management zone environment by utilizing the following
methods:
(i) New utility corridors shall be aligned when possible to avoid cutting trees greater than 12
inches in diameter at breast height (four and one-half feet), measured on the uphill side.
(ii) New utility corridors shall be revegetated with appropriate native vegetation at
preconstruction densities or greater, immediately upon completion of construction, or as soon
thereafter as possible, if due to seasonal growing constraints. The utility shall ensure that such
vegetation survives.
(iii) Any additional utility corridor access for maintenance shall be provided as much as possible
at specific points, rather than by parallel roads. If parallel roads are necessary, they shall be of a
minimum width but no greater than 15 feet; and shall be contiguous to the location of the utility
corridor on the side away from the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. Mitigation will be
required for any additional access through restoration of vegetation in disturbed areas.
(iv) The department may require other additional mitigation measures.
(e) Utility corridor maintenance shall include the following measures to protect the regulated fish
and wildlife habitat conservation area and buffer environment:
(i) Where feasible, painting of utility equipment such as power towers shall not be sprayed or
sandblasted, nor should lead -based paints be used.
57
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
78
(ii) No pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers may be used in fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas or their buffers except those approved by the EPA and Ecology. Where approved, herbicides must
be applied by a licensed applicator in accordance with the safe application practices on the label. Within
fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, the applicator must be licensed to use aquatic herbicides.
(f) For utility work in fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or in -water, it shall be the applicant's
responsibility to obtain all necessary state and federal approvals before beginning work. (Ord. 019-17
§ 18 (Exh. 1)).
Article V. Geologically Hazardous Areas
20.162.074072 Purpose.
This chapter applies to all regulated uses included in the critical areas ordinance within 300 feet of areas
designated as geologically hazardous areas, as categorized in POMC 20.162.076. The intent of this
chapter is to:
(1) Provide standards to protect human life and property from potential risks;
(2) Control erosion, siltation, and water quality to protect fish and marine shellfish;
(3) Provide controls to minimize erosion caused by human activity;
(4) Use innovative site planning by placing geologically hazardous areas and buffers in open space and
transferring density to more suitable areas on the site. (Ord. 010-18 § 29; Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.074074 Geologically hazardous area categories.
The following categories shall be used in classifying geologically hazardous areas:
(1) Geologically Hazardous Areas.
(a) Areas with slopes greater than 30 percent and mapped by the Coastal Zone Atlas or spatial
GIS data provided by the Washington Geologic Information Portal! as unstable (U), unstable old land
slides (UOS) or unstable recent slides (URS).
(b) Areas with slopes greater than 30 percent in grade and deemed by a qualified geologist or
geotechnical engineer to meet the criteria of U, UOS, or URS.
(2) Areas of Geologic Concern.
(a) Areas designated U, UOS, or URS in the Coastal Zone Atlas or spatial GIS data provided by the
Washington Geologic Information, with slopes less than 30 percent; or areas found by a qualified
geologist to meet the criteria for U, URS, and UOS with slopes less than 30 percent; or
F :3
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
79
(b) Slopes identified as intermediate (I) in the Coastal Zone Atlas or spatial GIS data provided by
the Washington Geologic Information, or areas found by a qualified geologist to meet the criteria of I; or
(c) Slopes 15 percent or greater, not classified as I, U, UOS, or URS, with soils classified by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service as "highly erodible" or "potentially highly erodible"; or
(d) Slopes of 15 percent or greater with springs or groundwater seepage not identified in
subsection (2)(a), (b), or (c) of this section; or
(e) Seismic areas subject to liquefaction from earthquakes (seismic hazard areas) such as hydric
soils as identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and areas that have been filled to
make a site more suitable. Seismic areas may include former wetlands, which have been covered with
fill; or
(f) Areas with any indications of earth movement such as debris slides, earthflows, slumps and
rock falls; or
(g) Areas with artificial oversteepened or unengineered slopes, i.e., cuts or fills; or
(h) Areas oversteepened or otherwise unstable as a result of stream incision, stream bank
erosion, and undercutting by wave action.
(3) Site -Specific Determination — Geological and Geotechnical Report Provisions. Should the applicant
question the information the city must rely on to determine whether a location contains a geologically
hazardous area or area of geologic concern, the city may ask the applicant to submit the appropriate
geotechnical or geologic report to confirm or modify the existing information known about the area. The
requirements for these reports are contained in Articles VIII and X of this chapter.
The intent of this provision is to allow obviously nongeologically hazardous sites to be determined as
such. Where there is any ambiguity about the potential for geologic hazards whatsoever, the
department will require a geotechnical or geological report, rather than make a nongeologically
hazardous determination. (Ord. 010-18 § 30; Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.078076 Development standards.
This chapter applies to all regulated uses in this chapter or within 300 feet of areas designated as
geologically hazardous or areas of concern. Permit applications include submittals for clearing, grading
and building on property containing geologically hazardous areas. Submittal documents prepared by a
licensed engineer may also be required by the department, pursuant to the city's stormwater
regulations.
(1) Geologically Hazardous Areas and Areas of Geologic Concern.
(a) Approval. Where applicable the department will approve, approve with conditions or deny
the development proposal based on the department's evaluation of specific site conditions. The
59
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
80
department will also consider any proposed mitigation measures included in a geotechnical report, if
one is submitted.
(b) Public Works Requirements. The applicant shall submit a land disturbing activity permit
application to the department. The application and supporting documents shall be completed by a
professional engineer licensed in the state of Washington. The submittal documents shall be determined
on a site -specific basis. The documents may include any combination of, but not be limited to,
construction plans, details and specifications for clearing, grading, erosion and sedimentation control,
and stormwater drainage and detailed hydrological, geotechnical, soils, and drainage reports and
analyses.
(c) Minimum Buffer Requirement. The buffer for all geologically hazardous areas and areas of
geologic concern shall include native vegetation from the toe of the slope to 25 feet beyond the top of
the slope unless otherwise allowed -supported through a geological report or a site -specific
determination and designed accordingly.
(d) Building/Impervious Surface Setback Requirements.
(i) Geologically Hazardous Areas. The minimum building and impervious surface setback from
the top of slope shall be equal to the height of the slope (1:1 horizontal to vertical) plus the greater of
one-third of the vertical slope height or 25 feet.
(ii) Areas of Geologic Concern. A minimum 40 -foot building and impervious surface setback shall
be maintained from the top of slope. As required in subsection (1)(c) of this section, the 25 feet adjacent
to the top of the slope shall be retained as a native vegetation buffer, with an additional minimum 15 -
foot building and impervious surface setback. The department may decrease the setback when such a
setback would result in a greater than 1:1 slope setback or as may be allowed supported through a
geological report or a site -specific determination.
(iii) Toe of Slope Building Setback. A geotechnical report may be required for any new
construction within 2-90300 feet of a geologically hazardous area. The department will make a
determination based on slope height and stability indicators. Where slope hazard indicators are not
identified, the requirements of the International Building Code Section 1805 or Section R403 will apply.
(e) Buffer and Building Setback Modifications — Report Recommendations. The minimum native
vegetation buffer and/or building setback requirement may be decreased if a geotechnical report
demonstrates that a lesser distance, through design and engineering solutions, will adequately protect
both the proposed development and the erosion hazard and/or landslide hazard area (see Articles VIII
and X of this chapter for geological and geotechnical report requirements). Should the geotechnical
report indicate that a greater buffer and/or building setback is required than specified in this section,
the greater buffer and/or building setback shall be required. The department may determine through a
site visit, a special report or mapping, that an increased buffer and/or building setback is required from
the critical area.
(f) Time Limitations. For major new development, and where required for minor new development,
clearing, and grading, shall be limited to the period between May 1st to October 1st, unless the
60
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
81
applicant provides an erosion and sedimentation control plan prepared by a professional engineer
licensed in the state of Washington that specifically and realistically identifies methods of erosion
control for wet weather conditions.
(g) Field Marking Requirements. For major new development, the proposed clearing for the project and
all critical area buffers shall be marked in the field for inspection and approval by the department prior
to beginning work. Field marking requirements for minor new development will be determined on a
case -by -case basis by the department. The field marking of all buffers shall remain in place until
construction is completed and final approval is granted by the department. Permanent marking may be
required as determined necessary to protect critical areas or their buffers.
(h) Cut and Fill Slopes. The faces of all cut and fill slopes shall be protected to prevent erosion as
required by the engineered erosion and sedimentation control plan.
(i) Development Impact Standards. All discharge of runoff from the development site shall be of like
quality, flow rate, and velocity as that which flowed from the site prior to development. In addition, all
stormwater flows shall be accepted onto, and shall be discharged from, the development site at the
natural or otherwise legally existing locations. The proposed development shall not decrease the slope
stability of any area within 200 feet300 feet of the property boundary.
(j) Development Risk Standard. In cases where a special report indicates a significant risk to public
health, safety and welfare, the department shall deny or require revision of the site development
proposal.
(k) Additional Clearing Standards.
(i) Only the clearing necessary to install temporary erosion control measures will be allowed prior to the
clearing for roads and utilities construction.
(ii) Clearing for roads and utilities shall be the minimum necessary and shall remain within marked
construction limits.
(iii) Clearing for overhead power lines shall be the minimum necessary for construction and will provide
the required minimum clearances of the serving utility.
(I) Existing Logging Roads. Where existing logging roads occur in geologically hazardous areas or areas of
geologic concern, a geological or geotechnical report may be required prior to use as a temporary haul
road or permanent access road under a conversion or COHP forest practices application.
(n) Vegetation Enhancement. The department may require enhancement of buffer vegetation to
increase protection to geologically hazardous areas or areas of geologic concern.
(o) Seismic Hazard Area Development Standards.
61
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
82
(i) Proposed new development within a seismic hazard area shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Cede (UBC) Earthquake Design Stems for Seismic Risk Zone 3 of Washington State. Building
Code as adopted in POMC 20.200.
(ii) Applicants for public and commercial building proposals within seismic hazard areas shall submit a
geotechnical report addressing any fill or grading that has occurred on the subject parcel. Any fill placed
for such development shall have documented construction monitoring as required by the International
Building Code.
(iii) All major new development in seismic hazard areas shall require a geotechnical report. Minor new
development may also require a geotechnical report, as determined by the department.
(iv) The development proposal may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on the
department's evaluation of the proposed mitigation measures to reduce seismic risk.
(2) Prohibitions.
(a) Critical facilities, as defined in Article II of this chapter, are prohibited in geologically hazardous areas.
(b) In geologically hazardous areas with slopes greater than 80 percent, no development will be allowed
either on or within the defined buffer area, unless approved by the department after review of a
geotechnical report. The defined buffer zone for geologically hazardous areas is defined in subsection
(1)(d) of this section.
(c) On -site sewage disposal should be avoided in geologically hazardous areas and their buffers. In cases
where such areas cannot be avoided, review by a geologist or a geotechnical engineer licensed in the
state of Washington will be required in coordination with the Bremerton-Kitsap County health district.
(Ord. 010-18 § 31; Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
Article VI. Frequently Flooded Areas
20.162.080078 Purpose and requirements.
The purpose of this article is to protect the public health, safety and welfare from harm caused by
flooding. It is also the intent to prevent damage and/or loss to both public and private property.
Pursuant to this purpose, the city uses Chapter 20.170 POMC, Flood Damage Prevention, adopted by
reference, which designates special flood hazard areas and establishes permit requirements for these
areas.
In addition, the Kitsap County GIS database for critical drainage areas of the stormwater management
regulations will be included for areas of review under frequently flooded areas. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh.
1)).
Article VII. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
20.162.08080 Purpose.
62
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
83
The intent of this article is to provide water quality protection associated with aquifer recharge areas
through the regulation of land use activities that pose a potential contaminant threat or could increase
the vulnerability of the aquifer. It is the policy of the city to accomplish the following:
(1) Identify, preserve and protect aquifer recharge areas and prevent degradation of the quality of
potable groundwater;
(2) Recognize the relationship between surface and groundwater resources; and
(3) Balance competing needs for water while preserving essential natural functions/processes. (Ord.
019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.084082 Critical aquifer recharge area categories.
A critical aquifer recharge area is a geographical area which provides the recharge to an aquifer(s) which
is a current or potential potable water source and, due to its geological properties, is highly susceptible
to the introduction of pollutants, or because of special circumstances, has been designated as a critical
aquifer recharge area in accordance with WAC 365-190-080 by the city. Critical aquifer recharge areas
under this chapter may be established based on general criteria or specifically designated due to special
circumstances.
(1) Category I — Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. The following general criterion is established to
designate critical aquifer recharge areas: wellhead protection zones around Group A water system
supply wells:
(a) Areas inside the one-year time of travel zone for Group A water system wells, calculated in
accordance with the Washington State Well Head Protection Program.
(b) Five-year time of travel zones in wellhead protection areas are included as critical aquifer
recharge areas under the following condition: The five-year time of travel zone is included when the well
draws its water from an aquifer that is at or above sea level and is overlain by permeable soils listed in
subsection (2)(a) of this section without an underlying protective impermeable layer (see below).
(2) Category II — Aquifer Recharge Areas of Concern. Areas which provide recharge to aquifers that
provide current or potential potable water supplies and are vulnerable to contamination, and meet any
one of the following general criteria:
(a) Highly Permeable Soils — Locations Where Surface Soil Layers Are Highly Permeable. Soils
that have relatively high permeability and high infiltration potential may provide for groundwater
recharge, but also may enhance transfer of contaminants from the surface to groundwater. For these
reasons the locations where surface soils are highly permeable are considered aquifer recharge areas of
concern.
The general location and characteristics of soils in Kitsap County and the city is given in the Soil Survey of
Kitsap County by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (SCS). The
soil survey information is available on the Kitsap County geographic information system (GIS). The
63
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
84
following soil types are considered to have relatively high permeability and are aquifer recharge areas of
concern.
The following soils have relatively high infiltration:
SCS Soil Name
SCS Soil Map Units
G rove
11, 12, 13
Indianola
18, 19, 20, 21
Neilton
34, 35, 36
Norma
37, 38
Poulsbo/Ragnar
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47
(b) Areas Above Shallow Principal Aquifers. Surface areas above shallow principal aquifer(s) which are
not separated from the underlying aquifers by an impermeable layer that provides adequate protections
to preclude the proposed land use from contaminating the shallow aquifer(s) below are considered
aquifer recharge areas of concern. This generally includes principal aquifers in subsurface hydrogeologic
units Og1, Ogla, Og2 and portions of Og3 that are within 300 feet of the ground surface. (Ord. 019-17
§ 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.086084 Development standards.
Standards for development shall be in accordance with the provisions below and the requirements of
the underlying zoning:
(1) A hydrogeological report will be required on sites that have been identified as having characteristics
with high infiltration rates, or having a high aquifer recharge or infiltration potential for land uses
identified in Table 20.162.086, unless determined unnecessary upon coordination with agencies with
jurisdiction (Bremerton-Kitsap County health district and/or affected water purveyors). This evaluation
shall apply to impacts on both groundwater and surface water, as it relates to recharge areas (see
requirements in Article VIII of this chapter, Special Reports).
(2) Affected water purveyors will be notified and requested to comment during the preliminary phases
of the city's review process on the proposed land use and potential impacts. The purveyor may
recommend appropriate mitigation to reduce potential impacts. The department will consider these
recommendations to develop appropriate permit conditions.
(3) This section shall not affect any right to use or appropriate water as allowed under state or federal
law. In addition, these requirements do not apply to those activities which have potential contaminant
sources below threshold amounts as set forth in applicable state RCWs or local regulations.
In addition to the general standards above, the following will apply:
(a) Category I — Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Land uses identified in Table 20.162.086 are
prohibited in critical aquifer recharge areas. Requests for waivers shall include a hydrogeological report,
which includes a detailed risk -benefit analysis that considers credible, worst -case scenarios. The waiver
64
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
85
will be evaluated and treated as a special use review, similar to the review process in Article VIII of this
chapter, Special Reports, by the review department, the health district, and the affected water
purveyors.
(b) Category II — Aquifer Recharge Areas of Concern. Applicants proposing operations that pose
a potential threat to groundwater as defined in Table 20.162.086 in aquifer recharge areas of concern
may be required to submit a hydrogeological report. The scope of the report shall be based on site -
specific conditions. The need for additional information will be determined by the department, the
health district and the affected water purveyor. Based on the results of the report, controls, mitigation,
and/or other requirements will be established as a prerequisite for the development proposal being
approved.
(c) The department will also notify the health district and affected water purveyors through the
environmental review process when those development activities listed in Table 20.162.086 are
proposed outside the areas designated critical aquifer recharge areas and aquifer recharge areas of
concern.
Table 20.162.086: Operations with Potential
Threat to Groundwater
A. Above and below ground storage tanks
1. Hazardous and industrial waste
treatment
2. Hazardous and industrial waste storage
3. Hazardous material storage
B. Animal feedlots
C. Commercial operations
*1.
Gas stations/service stations/truck
terminals
2.
Petroleum distributors/storage
*3.
Auto body repair shops/rust proofers
4.
Auto chemical supply stores/retailers
*5.
Truck, automobile, and combustion
engine repair shops
*6.
Dry cleaners
*7.
Photo processors
*8.
Auto washes
*9.
Laundromats
*10. Beauty salons
11. Research or chemical testing laboratories
which handle significant quantities of
hazardous materials
12. Food processors/meat packers/slaughter
houses
65
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
86
13. Airport-maintenance/fueling operation
areas
14. Junk and salvage yards
15. Storing or processing manure, feed, or
other agriculture by-products by
commercially permitted businesses
*16. Large scale storage or use of pesticides,
insecticides, herbicides, or fertilizer by
commercial or agricultural operations
D. Deep injection wells
1. Wastewater disposal wells
2. Oil and gas activity disposal wells
3. Mineral extraction disposal wells
E. De-icing salts storage piles
F. Industrial operations
*1. Furniture strippers/painters/finishers
2. Concrete/asphalt/tar/coal companies
3. Industrial manufacturers: chemicals,
pesticides/herbicides, paper, leather
products, textiles, rubber,
plastic/fiberglass, silicone/glass,
pharmaceuticals, electrical equipment
4. Metal platers/heat treaters/smelters/
annealers/descalers
5. Wood preserves
6. Chemical reclamation facilities
*7. Boat refinishers
G. Land application
1. Wastewater application (spray irrigation)
2. Wastewater byproduct (sludge)
application
3. Petroleum refining waste application
4. Hazardous waste applications
H. Landfills
1. Industrial hazardous and nonhazardous
landfill
2. Municipal sanitary landfill
I. Material transfer operations
1. Hazardous and industrial waste transfers
2. Hazardous material transfers
J. Materials stockpiles
K. Mining and mine drainage
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
87
L. On -site septic systems (LOSS category) of
greater than 14,500 G.P.D. capacity without
pretreatment
M. Pipelines
1. Hazardous and industrial waste transfer
2. Hazardous material transfer
N. Radioactive disposal sites
0. Sand and gravel mining operations
*P. Marina
*If not on a sewer system with a treatment plant.
(Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
Article VIII. Special Reports
20.162.088086 Purpose.
The following special reports may be required to provide environmental information and to present
proposed strategies for maintaining, protecting and/or mitigating critical areas:
1 (4}Wetland report/wctland mitigation
(2) Mitigation plan;
(-2} 3aHabitat management plan;
(44) Geotechnical report/geological report;
(45) Hydrogeological report. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.090088 When required.
Special reports shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the department for regulated uses
when required by the Director. pursuant to this Title, and chaptcr for the protection of a critical area.
(Ord. 019-17 § 18
(Exh. 1)).
20.162.092090 Special reports — Responsibility for completion.
The applicant shall pay for or reimburse the city for the costs incurred in the preparation of special
reports or tests and for the costs incurred by the city to engage technical consultants or staff for review
and interpretation of data and findings submitted by or on behalf of the applicant. The applicant shall
pay permit fees or technical assistance fees as required by the city. In such circumstances where a
M
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
conflict in the findings of a special report and the findings of the city in review of the special report
exists, the applicant or affected party may appeal such decisions of the city pursuant to the appeal
procedures as provided in this title. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.094092 Qualifications of professionals.
Any special report prepared by a professional as described in this article shall include his or her resume,
or other list of qualifications, to aid the department in assessing these qualifications. (Ord. 019-17 § 18
(Exh. 1)).
20.162.096094 Wetland report wetland mitigation plan.
(1) Wetland Delineation Report. A wetland report shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the
following:
(a) Vicinity map;
(b) When available, a copy of a National Wetland Inventory Map (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
and/or a wetland inventory map, as approved by the city, identifying the wetlands on or within 300 feet
of the site;
(c) A site map setting forth all of the following:
(i) Surveyed wetland boundaries based upon delineation by a wetland specialist;
(ii) Site boundary property lines and roads;
(iii) Internal property lines, right-of-way, easements, etc.;
(iv) Existing physical features of the site including buildings, fences, and other structures,
roads, parking lots, utilities, water bodies, etc.;
(v) Contours at the smallest readily available intervals, preferably at two -foot intervals;
(vi) Hydrologic mapping showing patterns of surface water movement and known
subsurface water movement into, through, and out of the site area;
(vii) Location of all test holes and vegetation sample sites, numbered to correspond with
flagging in the field and field data sheets;
(viii) The department may require an air photo with overlays displaying the site
boundaries and wetland delineation;
(d) A report which includes the following:
(i) Location information (legal description, parcel number and address);
68
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
89
(ii) Delineation report. The wetland boundaries on the site established by the
delineation shall be staked and flagged in the field. If the wetland extends outside the site, the
delineation report shall discuss all wetland areas within 150300 feet of the site, but need only
delineate those wetland boundaries within the site;
(iii) General site conditions including topography, acreage, and surface areas of all
wetlands identified in the Kitsap County wetland atlas and water bodies within one -quarter mile
of the subject wetland(s);
(iv) Hydrological analysis, including topography, of existing surface and known
significant subsurface flows into and out of the subject wetland(s);
(v) Analysis of functional values of existing wetlands, including vegetative, fauna, and
hydrologic conditions;
(e) A summary of proposed activity and potential impacts to the wetland(s);
(f) Recommended wetland category, including rationale for the recommendation;
(g) Recommended buffer boundaries, including rationale for boundary locations;
(h) Site plan of proposed activity, including location of all parcels, tracts, easements, roads,
structures, and other modifications to the existing site. The location of all wetlands and buffers shall be
identified on the site plan.
(2) Administrative Wetland Boundary and Ranking Evaluation.
(a) An informal determination of the regulated wetland boundary and an evaluation of any
unranked regulated wetland may be completed by the department for any minor new development
project listed in Article II of this chapter, unless the applicant wishes to employ a qualified wetland
biologist at the applicant's expense, or if such a report is required by the department. Fees may be
collected for this determination and evaluation.
(b) Methodology for delineation of the regulated wetland boundary shall be the plant
community assessment procedure, which is described in the Washington Statc `^'^+'ands ldcntification
and Dclin^ati^n Manual, March 1997, or as amcndcd hereafter a proved federal wetland delineation
manual and applicable regional supplements.
(c) The wetland boundary shall be field staked and this line shall be depicted on the building site
plan application.
(d) The regulated wetland boundary and regulated wetland buffer shall be identified on all
grading, building site, utility or other development plans submitted on the project.
X120.162.096 Mitigation °plan.
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
90
(a1) Whenever the department has determined that losses of regulated w^dscritical areas are
necessary and unavoidable, or a review of a regulated wetlondcritical area or its buffer is proposed, or
an exception to uses is allowed or a variance to standards is granted, a mitigation plan shall be prepared
which is considered in the following order of preference:
(+a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of actions. This may be
accomplished by selecting a reasonable alternative that does not involve wctlondscritical area or
,.,critical area impacts, applying reasonable mitigation measures, such as drainage and erosion
control, alternative site planning, and/or using best available technology. In reviewing development
proposals required to submit a wetlands mitigation plan, the department shall first determine if the
impact can be avoided (e.g., impacts cannot be avoided if denial of the development proposal or parts
thereof or mitigation measures would result in an extraordinary hardship and denial of reasonable use
of property).
(++b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce
impacts. This may be accomplished by selecting a reasonable alternative that avoids most
,.,critical area impacts, applying reasonable mitigation measures, such as drainage and erosion
control, alternative site planning, and/or using best available technology. In reviewing development
proposals required to submit a wetland mitigation plan, the department shall determine if the impact
can be first avoided and secondly minimized. Impacts cannot be avoided or minimized if denial of the
development proposal or parts thereof or mitigation measures would result in an extraordinary
hardship and denial of reasonable use of property.
(+++c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
This may be done by reestablishing wctlandcritical area and ,•,critical area buffer characteristics
on a site which have been lost by alterations or activities. Rectifying shall be accomplished in accordance
with a mitigation plan, which has been prepared in accordance with the requirements in subsection
(3)(d) of this section and has been approved by the department. In reviewing development proposals
required to submit a wetland mitigation plan, the department shall determine if the impact should be
rectified. Impacts can be rectified if mitigation measures would not result in an extraordinary hardship
and denial of reasonable use of the property.
(+vd) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments. Unless required elsewhere by this chapter, compensation shall occur on -site and be in -
kind. When it is adequately demonstrated that there is no feasible opportunity for on -site
compensation the director may approve an offsite compensatory approach. This may be done by
intentionally creating wetlands and wetland buffers at another location where none currently exist,
improving existing wetlandscritical areas and _wetland buffers at another location, or otherwise
providing a substitute wetlandcritical area resource at another location as compensation for any
unavoidable adverse wetland impacts. Compensating shall be accomplished in accordance with a
mitigation plan, which has been prepared in accordance with the requirements in subsection (2) 4lof
this section and has been approved by the department. In reviewing development proposals required to
submit a wed mitigation plan, the department shall determine if the impact should be compensated.
Impacts can be compensated if compensation and mitigation measures would not result in an
extraordinary hardship and denial of reasonable use of property. Compensation of ,.,critical area
70
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
91
impacts may be waived by the department for development authorized by POMC 20.162.0-34036,
Exceptions.
(b2) The overall goal of any mitigation plan shall be no net loss of regulated wetlondcritical area
functions and acreage.
(3) Those persons proposing weed compensatory mitigation projects shall show that the
compensation project is associated with an activity or development otherwise permitted and that the
restored, created, or enhanced wetlandcritical area will be as persistent as the wetlandfeature it
replaces by accomplishing the following:
(fa) Demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, supervisory capability, and financial resources to
carry out the project; and
(iib) Demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and for making corrections during this
period, if the project fails to meet projected goals; and
(fiic) Protect and manage or provide for the protection and management of the compensation
area to avoid further development or degradation.
(d) Wetland mitigation(4) Mitigation plans shall be implemented by the project applicant, and include
the following components:
(ia) Baseline Information. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the impacted
wetlandcritical area shall be produced by the applicant or applicant's consultant and shall include, at a
minimum: existing wetlandcritical area acreage; critical area functions; vegetative, faunal and hydrologic
characteristics; soil and substratchabitat conditions; and topographic elevations.
(++b) If the compensation site is off site from the impacted ,.,critical area site, baseline
information about it, in addition to the above information about the impacted wetlandcritical area, shall
be provided by the applicant and shall include all those items listed in subsection (3)(d)(i) of this section
and as well as: the relationship of the compensation site within the watershed and to existing water
bodies; existing and proposed existing compensation site conditions; buffers; and ownership.
(fife) Environmental Goals and Objectives. The report shall identify goals and objectives and
include:
(Al) The purposes of the compensation measures including a description of site selection
criteria, identification of compensation goals, identification of target evaluation species and
resource functions, dates for beginning and completion of compensation measures, and a
complete description of the structure and functional relationships sought iRat the mew
weld -mitigation site. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions of the original
wetlandcritical area or, if out -of -kind, the type of wetlandcritical area to be emulated; and
(ii) A review of the available literature and/or experience to date in restoring or
creating the type of wctlondhabitat proposed shall be provided. An analysis of the likelihood of
71
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
92
success of the compensation project at duplicating the original wctlandcritical area shall be
provided based on the experiences of comparable projects, if any. An analysis of the likelihood
of persistence of the created -e restored wctland. or enhanced critical area shall be provided
based on such factors as: s urfac^ and groundwatcr supply and flew pattcr^shabitat conditions;
dynamics of the wetland ecosystem; _sediment or pollutant influx and/or erosion; periodic
flooding and drought, etc.; presence of invasive flora or fauna; potential human or animal
disturbance; and previous comparable projects, if any.
(ivd) Performance Standards. Specific criteria shall be provided for evaluating whether or not
the goals and objectives of the mitigation plan are being achieved at various stages in the project and for
beginning remedial action or contingency measures. Such criteria may include water quality standards,
survival rates of planted vegetation, species abundance and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or
other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria.
(ve) Detailed Construction Plans. Written specifications and descriptions of compensation
techniques shall be provided including the proposed construction sequence, grading and excavation
details, erosion, sediment and stormwater recharge control features needed for wctlandjIe
construction and long-term survival, a planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size,
spacing, and density; the source of plant materials, propagules, or seeds; water and nutrient
requirements for planting; where appropriate, measures to protect plants from predation; specification
of substrate stockpiling techniques and planting instructions; descriptions of water control structures
and water -level maintenance practices needed to achieve the necessary hydrocycle/hydroperiod
characteristics; etcsufficient information to address anticipated sea level rise when applicable; etc.
These written specifications shall be accompanied by detailed site diagrams, scaled cross-sectional
drawings, topographic maps showing slope percentage and final grade elevations, and any other
drawings appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome. The plan shall
provide for elevations which are appropriate for the desired habitat type(s) and which provide sufficient
tidal prism and circulation data.
(v.if) Monitoring Program. A program outlining the approach for monitoring construction of the
compensation project and for assessing a completed project shall be provided. Monitoring must include
sufficient information to adequately assess the progress of a project. Monitoring may include, but is not
limited to:
(Ai) Establishing vegetation plots to track changes in plant species composition and
density over time;
(nii) Using photo stations to evaluate vegetation community response;
(&iii) Sampling surface and subsurface waters to determine pollutant loading and
changes from the natural variability of background conditions (pH, nutrients, heavy
metals);
(-Div) Measuring base flow rates and stormwater runoff to model and evaluate water
quantity predictions by a licensed engineer in the state of Washington, where required;
72
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
93
(€y_) Measuring sedimentation rates, if applicable; and
(vi) Sampling fish and wildlife populations to determine habitat utilization, species
abundance and diversity. A protocol shall be included outlining how the monitoring data will be
evaluated by agencies that are tracking the progress of the compensation project. A monitoring
report shall be submitted annually and, at a minimum, documenting milestones, successes,
problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall
be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met,
but not for a period of less than threefive years.
i4(vii) The city shall require monitoring reports on an annual basis for a minimum of
five years. Certain types of habitat communities require additional time for establishment and
may require monitoring for 10 or more years depending on the site -specific circumstances and
the scope of the mitigation proiect.
jg) Contingency Plan. Identification of potential courses of action, and any corrective measures
to be taken when monitoring or evaluating indicates project performance standards are not being met.
(4Uh) Permit Conditions. Any compensation project prepared pursuant to this section and
approved by the department shall become part of the application for the permit.
(e5) Performance Bonds and Demonstration of Competence. A demonstration of financial resources,
administrative, supervisory, and technical competence and scientific expertise of sufficient standing to
successfully execute the compensation project shall be provided. A compensation project manager shall
be named, and the qualifications of each team member involved in preparing the mitigation plan and
implementing and supervising the project shall be provided, including educational background and areas
of expertise, training and experience with comparable projects. In addition, in certain conditions the City
may permit bonds ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring program, and any
contingency measure sh-a11to be posted in the amount of 150 percent of the expected cost of
compensation and shall be effective for a period of no less than three years and no greater than 10
years after completion of the mitigation plan, at the discretion of the City.
(f6) Waiver. The department may waive portions of this report if, in his or her opinion, there is adequate
information available on the site to determine its impacts and appropriate measures.
(g7) List of Qualified Consultants. The department shall establish a list of qualified consultants to
prepare mitigation plans. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.098 Habitat management plant.
(1�A habitat management plan is a report sha"ryto provide an analysis and discussion on the
project's effects on a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area and to address how the dcvclopmcnt
impacts from the proposed project will be mitigated. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendations, dated May 1991, or bald eagle protection
73
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
94
-'^s outlined in `^'"'' 22' 12 29' as m
r hereafter amended, yand supplemental documents are
advised to serve as guidance for this report. The recommendation mA habitat management plan shall
contain, at a minimum, the Washington Department of and Wildlife, Priority Habitat and Species
Management Recommendations, dated May 1991, shall not serve as mandatory standards or policy of
this chapter, until such time as the Department of Fish and Wildlife holds public hearings on the
recommendations and the State Wildlife Commission endorses the recommendations following -#e
public hearings.
(21) The habitat management plan shall contain a map prepared at an easily readable scale, showing:
(a) The location of the proposed development site;
(b) The relationship of the site to surrounding topographic features, water features, and cultural
features;
(c) Proposed building locations and arrangements;
(d) A legend which includes a complete legal description, acreage of the parcel, scale, north
arrows, and date of map revision.
(32) The habitat management plan shall also contain a report, which describes:
(a) The nature and intensity of the proposed development;
(b) An analysis of the effect of the proposed development, activity or land use change upon the
wildlife species and habitat identified for protection; and
(-4f) Mitigation Sequencing. When an alteration to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or its
buffer is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following
order of preference.
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce
impacts.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments.
74
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
95
(f) Monitoring the required mitigation and taking remedial action where necessary. Monitoring
shall occur for a minimum of five years, or until the department determines that the mitigation proiect
has achieved success. Certain types of habitat communities require additional time for establishment
and may require monitoring for 10 or more years depending on the site -specific circumstances and the
scope of the mitigation proiect.
{5t4) A plan which identifies how the applicant proposes to mitigate any adverse impacts to wildlife
habitats created by the proposed development. (See mitigation plan requirements, Article VIII of this
chapter -){6
(5) Possible mitigation measures to be included in the report, or required by the department, could
include, but are not limited to:
(a) Establishment of buffer zones;
(b) Preservation of critically important plants and trees;
(c) Limitation of access to habitat areas;
(d) Seasonal restriction of construction activities; and
(e) Establishing phased development requirements and/or a timetable for periodic review of the
plan.
(76) This plan shall be prepared by a person who has been educated in this field and has professional
experience as a fish or wildlife biologist. Where this plan is required for the protection of an eagle
habitat, the eagle habitat management plan shall normally be prepared by the Department of Wildlife,
as required under the bald eagle management rules. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.100 Buffer enhancement plan.
(1) A buffer enhancement plan shall assess the habitat, water quality, storm water detention, ground
water recharge, shoreline protection. and erosion protection functions of the buffer and assess the
effects of the proposed modification on those functions. The buffer enhancement plan shall be prepared
by a qualified specialist or biologist andake provide the following:
a. A map locating the specific area of enhancement;
b. A planting plan that uses native plant species indigenous to this region including
groundcover, shrubs, and trees;
75
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
96
c. A set of performance standards shall be provided for evaluating whether or not the goals and
objectives of the plan are being achieved at various stages during the monitoring program. Such criteria
may include survival rates of planted vegetation, species abundance and diversity targets, or other
ecological, geological or hydrological criteria.
e —d. Provisions for monitoring and maintenance over the monitoring period. Monitoring shall occur for
a minimum of five years. or until the department determines that the mitigation project has achieved
success. Certain types of enhancement may require additional time for establishment and may require
monitoring for 10 or more years depending on the site -specific circumstances and the scope of the
mitigation project.
20.162.104 Geotechnical report _contents.
(1) A geotechnical report shall include a description of the site geology, conclusions and
recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed development, opinions
and recommendations of the adequacy of the site to be developed, the effects of groundwater
interception and infiltration, seepage, potential slip planes, and changes in soil bearing strength, and the
impacts of the proposed development and appropriate mitigating measures. A geotechnical report may
contain information obtained with subsurface investigative measures such as test pit digging, soil boring,
water well installation or Dutch Cone Penetrometer investigations. Reports containing engineering
design recommendations; i.e., recommendations for foundations (loading, sizing, depth, or settlement
estimates), pile or pier design, retaining structures, or recommendations for construction on slopes
steeper than 30 percent, must be prepared by or in conjunction with a licensed geotechnical engineer as
defined in subsection (2) of this section.
A geological report shall include the above, with the exception of engineering design recommendations,
and need not make use of subsurface investigative measures. As the report will not include engineering
recommendations, a geological report may be prepared by a geologist or engineering geologist as
defined in subsection (2) of this section.
(2) Geotechnical reports shall be prepared by a geotechnical engineer (a civil engineer licensed by the
state of Washington who is knowledgeable of regional geologic conditions and who has at least four
years' professional experience in landslide and/or seismic hazard evaluation). Geological reports may be
prepared by a geologist, engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer knowledgeable in regional
geologic conditions and having at least four years' professional experience in site evaluation and
development studies, and landslide and/or seismic hazard evaluation.
(3) Report recommendations for siting structures in high risk areas shall be based on existing site
conditions rather than measures that have not yet been successfully approved, designed or constructed
(e.g., slope recontouring, slope retaining walls, vegetation improvements, bulkheads, etc.). Shoreline
bulkheads and retaining walls may only be utilized as an engineering solution where it can be
demonstrated that an existing residential structure cannot be safely maintained without such measures,
and that the resulting retaining wall is the minimum necessary to provide a stable building area for the
structure. (Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
76
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
97
20.162.106 Hydrogeological reportR.
A hydrogeological report shall be required for certain proposed operations based on a consultation with
the appropriate local and state agencies. The report shall address the impact the proposed land use will
have on both the quality and quantity of the water transmitted to the aquifer. The report shall also
address the types of pesticides and herbicides and fertilizers that can safely be used for the care of
landscaping proposed by the applicant.
(1) The report shall be submitted to the reviewing authority and address, at a minimum, the following
criteria:
(a) Surficial soil type and geologic setting;
(b) Location and identification of wells within 1,000 feet of the site;
(c) Location and identification of surface water bodies and springs within 1,000 feet of the site
with recharge potential;
(d) Description of underlying aquifers and aquitards, including water level, gradients and flow
direction;
(e) Available surface water and groundwater quality data;
(f) Effects of the proposed development on water quality;
(g) Sampling schedules required to assure water quality;
(h) Discussion of the effects of the proposed development on the groundwater resource;
(i) Recommendations on appropriate BMPs (best management practices) or mitigation to assure
no significant degradation of groundwater quality; and
(j) Other information as required by the Bremerton-Kitsap County health district.
(2) The hydrogeologic report shall be prepared by a professional geologist/hydrologist or by a soil
scientist with a strong background in geology as demonstrated by course work from an accredited
college or university and/or has a minimum of five years' experience.
(3) Applications for development or operations with underground storage of petroleum products will be
processed using the appropriate procedure as specified in existing state regulations and city ordinances.
(4) Analysis for a specific parcel(s), using the criteria outlined below, will be employed to determine if
the soils present require a recharge area designation. Data collection will include, at a minimum: six soil
logs to a depth of 10 feet (or to a depth four feet below the lowest proposed excavation point
77
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
98
whichever is greater) for each acre in the parcel(s) being evaluated. At least one well which is 300 feet or
greater in depth with an adequate drilling report must be available within one mile. The associated data
shall be analyzed and included in the hydrogeologic report to determine the presence of highly
permeable soils with the recharge area designation.
For development proposals within aquifer recharge areas of concern, the hydrogeological report may be
based on quarter -quarter section basis locations where the number of wells within a half -mile radius is
36 or more, and are designated aquifer recharge areas. To facilitate computer analysis, the evaluation
may be done on a quarter -quarter section basis using the quarter -quarter section in which a parcel of
interest is located and all the surrounding quarter -quarter sections, in place of the half -mile circle. (Ord.
019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
20.162.1O4 General mitigation requirements.
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
99
79
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
100
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
101
20.162.106108 Attachments.
The purpose of the attachments is to provide supporting documentation to assist in the implementation
of this chapter:
(1) Attachment A — Washington State Wetlands Rating System Categories.
(2) Attachment B — Washington State DNR Stream Rating System.
(3) Attachment C — Kitsap County's GIS Database of Critical Areas Information.
(4) Attachment D — Site Development Figures.
(5) Attachment E — Port Orchard Critical Area and Buffer Notice.
(6) Attachment F — Kitsap County Shallow Principal Aquifer Listing.
Attachment A — Washington State Wetlands Rating System Categories
(A) Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system,
as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update
(Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions
and methods for determining whether the criteria below are met.
1. Category I. Category I wetlands are: (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre;
(2) wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural
Heritage Program/DNR; (3) bogs; (4) mature and old -growth forested wetlands larger than 1 acre; (5)
wetlands in coastal lagoons; (6) interdunal wetlands that score 8 or 9 habitat points and are larger than
1 acre; and (7) wetlands that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These wetlands:
(1) represent unique or rare wetland types; (2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands;
81
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
102
(3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a
human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of functions.
2. Category II. Category II wetlands are: (1) estuarine wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed
estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) interdunal wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a
mosaic of wetlands; or (3) wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 and
22 points).
3. Category Ill. Category Ill wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring
between 16 and 19 points); (2) can often be adequately replaced with a well -planned mitigation project;
and (3) interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1 acre. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 points
generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other
natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands.
4. Category IV. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points)
and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that we should be able to replace, or in some cases
to improve. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific
case. These wetlands may provide some important functions, and should be protected to some degree.
(B) Illegal modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications made by
the applicant or with the applicant's knowledge.
Attachment B — Washington State Department of Natural Resources Stream Typing System
Water Type Conversion Table
Permanent Water
Typing
Previous Water
Typing
Type F
Type 2 and 3
Type Np
Type 4
Type Ns
Type 5
(1) "Type F streams" are those surface waters which meet the criteria of the Washington Department of
Natural Resources, WAC 222-16-030(2) as now or hereafter amended, as Type F water. Type F streams
contain habitat for salmonid fish, game fish and other anadromous fish.
(2) "Type Np streams" are those surface waters which meet the criteria of the Washington Department
of Natural Resources, WAC 222-16-030(3) as now or hereafter amended, as Type Np water. Type Np
waters do not contain fish habitat.
(3) "Type Ns streams" are those surface waters which meet the criteria of the Washington Department
of Natural Resources, WAC 222-16-030(4) as now or hereafter amended, as a Type Ns water. These
streams are areas of perennial or intermittent seepage, ponds, and drainage ways having short periods
of spring or storm runoff. Type Ns waters do not contain fish.
Attachment C — Kitsap County GIS Database of Critical Areas Information
82
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
103
KITSAP
COUNTY'S GIS DATABASE OF CRITICAL AREAS INFORMATION
DATA SOURCE
National Wetlands Inventory U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
CRITICAL AREA*
Wetlands
Hydric Soils, Soil Survey of Kitsap County Area,
Washington
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service
Aquifers
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Kitsap PUD #1
Aquifer Recharge Areas of Concern
Kitsap PUD #1
Principal Aquifers
Kitsap PUD #1
Permeable Soils, Soil Survey of Kitsap County Area,
Washington
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service
Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation
Areas
National ^'Hands lnvcntor Salmonscape
database
State Department of Fish
and Wildlifee
Non Game andCurrent version of WDFW's Priority
HabitatHabitats and Species DatabacList and
Maps.
State Department of Fish
and Wildlife
State Department of Fish
and Wildlife
Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Area
Inventory
State Department of Health
Waters of the State
State Department of Natural
Resources
Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, Vol. Ten
State Department of Ecology
Frequently Flooded
Areas
Flood Insurance Rate Map
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Geologically Hazardous
Areas
Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, Vol. Ten
State Department of Ecology
Jerald Deeter, 1979
Quaternary Geology and Stratigraphy of Kitsap
County
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service
Soil Survey of Kitsap County Area, Washington
10997507.1 - 366922 - 0001
104
Attachment D — Site Development Figures
Percent Slope Cafrulatlon
e is calctelared by dividing she verrical dulwnce
1r horuantai dulunce, then multiplying the
it by 100, &sample.'
_rt+cpl Pittance of 20 fce6 = .?.,,100 = 2U7. al01e
iwntsl Ristanre a 100 fact
The 25 footminiaouar vegelaiedbutr
wrd byrlding sriback for slop ca vvrr J046. 8arilding
selbae+Fs are dctrrriiraed by rbe slope heeghr or
information from a georechxrkul report.
c4 HAur $ws Aws
84
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
105
1 }
1
F;J A
J\:i';
Attachment E — City of Port Orchard Critical Area and Buffer Notice
Return Address:
85
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
Co
106
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
CRITICAL AREA AND BUFFER NOTICE
Legal Description Sec: TWN: RGE:
Present Owner (Please Print):
Tax Account #:
NOTICE: The subject property contains a critical area and/or its buffer as defined by the City of Port
Orchard as Critical Area Ordinance. The property was the subject of a development proposal for
, filed on _
(type of permit) (application)
Restrictions on use or alteration of the critical area and/or its buffer may exist due to natural conditions
of the property and resulting regulations. Review of such application has provided information on the
location of the critical area and/or its buffer and restrictions on their use through setback areas. A copy
of the plan showing such setback areas is included in the above -referenced permit file. Any alterations
to the critical area and/or its buffer shall be subject to further review for compliance with the City of
Port Orchard Critical Areas Ordinance.
EXECUTED this day of
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
COUNTY OF KITSAP)
On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the
individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged
that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned.
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
107
GIVEN under my hand and official seal the day of
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington,
RESIDING AT
Notary Seal
KITSAP COUNTY
SHALLOW PRINCIPAL AQUIFER LISTING
The following is a list of shallow principal aquifers that have been designated by an overlay as "Aquifer
Recharge Areas of Concern."
Approximate
Elevations
Ogla
Hansville
+250
Gorst
+50
North Lake (McCormick Woods)
+350
Port Gamble
+100
Og2
Island Lake (upper) +150
Port Gamble South -50
Wilson Creek +150
Og3
Banger (upper)
+100
Clam Bay
0
Edgewater
+130
Island Lake
+150
Kinston (upper)
-25
Poulsbo
+225
Manette-Bremerton North
0
Seabeck
+100
Squamish-Miller Bay
0
Yukon
0
(Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1)).
!
10997507.1- 366922 - 0001
108
City of Port Orchard - Critical Areas Ordinance Update - Comment Matrix
This document is formatted to provide tracking for review comments received by the City so far on the CAO Update from the Planning Commission and from the public. City Staff actions on the comments are identified with details supporting Staff decision.
Comment Source I Comment Number
I Comment Section I
Section Title I Review Comment I Staff Action
I Action Details
This will identify the source of the comment.
Planning Commission comments should be noted as
"PC -[LAST NAME]" for easy tracking.
This section will identify where the review comment
This will codify how Staff is responding to the
Comment number in sequence as it is
applies to. If the comment is not specific to a
comment, in one of the following manners:
This will be copied from the comment This section will provide additional details following the
Comments from public providing names should be presented in the draft CAO update.
particular section, it will be marked as "general" or
CAO Section Title
received from the source.
applicable staff action:
N/A
(feel free to copy and paste from this section for
noted as "PUBLIC -[LAST NAME]"
formatting consistency)
Comments from agencies/companies/groups should
be named accordingly. Please see name key below.
Identify where in the section the comment will be incorporated.
Comment accepted and incorporated into the revis
Identify any text revisions to the comment as it is incorporated
draft element.
into the element
Identify the necessary next steps to determine feasibility of
Comment under additional consideration, identify
including the comment in the revised draft. Is there additional
next steps for analysis.
analysis necessary? Identify if the comment would be more
applicable to another section and/or element.
Comment will not be incorporated into the revise
Identify why the comment is not being incorporated into the
draft element,
revised draft.
Agency/Company/Group: Key
Waterman Mitigation Group: WMG
109
Critical Areas Ordinance Update (draft dated 11/26/24) - Comment Matrix
The following feedback was collected from Planning Commissioners and public comment throughout the Critical Areas Ordinance Update process
Comment
Comment
Comment Section
Section Title
Review Comment
Staff Action
Action Details
Source
Number
Application
"every effort" is not intended to suggest trespassing. Clarification was provided to
PC -Wright
1
20.162.022(6)
Requirements -
What is the intention of this? "every effort" is poorly or not defined. Trespassing on another property is not legal
Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element.
Idescribe that "every effort" is intended to visual assessments from public areas and using
General
even to obtain CAD data. Even flying a drone over another property is not legal without distinct permission.
remote databases to obtain the necessary information to prepare the applicable
documentation.
This section outline the steps a project needs to demonstrate compliance with the
Application
By what technical method will the Department use to make this determination? The City does not have a Natural
mitigation sequencing requirements. Per code, any compensatory mitigation is required
Resource Scientist on staff. This can become an arbitrary decision without proper skills and training. One option - I
to prepare a mitigation plan that meets the requirements defined in the CAO. These
PC -Wright
2
20.162.024.1(f)
Requirements -
recommend - to consider here is to make the applicant provide the data demonstrating that all the mitigation
Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element,
requirements include performance standards which requires supporting data to
Mitigation
goals and objectives and performance standards have been met and that the City will consult with an independent
demonstrate an action is meeting objectives. The intent of including this language is to
Sequencing
expert if deemed necessary to find the mitigation a success.
provide clarification of a minimum monitoring schedule and to give the City an
opportunity to require additional monitoring if needed.
PC -Wright
3
20.162.026.1(c)
General Mitigation
Spell Check: systems
Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element.
Updated.
Requirements
PC -Wright
4
20.162.026.1(d)
General Mitigation
I suggest handling violations in a separate manner. They will always have different legal demands.
Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element.
"violation" was removed and Section 20.162.042(c) was revised to provide clarity
Requirements
regarding the preparation of any required special reports
PC -Wright
5
20.162.026.6(b)
General Mitigation
What does "formally" mean? Does the City have a defined process for formally identifying out -of -kind mitigation
Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element.
Removed "formally" so it does not imply that the City has adopted or identified specific
Requirements
options?
watershed goals.
PC -Wright
6
20.162.026.7(c)
General Mitigation
See previous comment. Has the City made or defined these parameters? If not, this can be a pitfall.
Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis.
If the City does not have established watershed goals than an applicant would be required
Requirements
to have off -site mitigation within the same sub -basin.
This sub -section is intended to be general. If we would to name a specific bank that would
PC -Wright
7
20.162.026.8
General Mitigation
It would be MOST helpful here if we define any approved Mitigation Banks for the Port Orchard region by the COE
mment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element.
be similar to stating specific off -site mitigation opportunities. An applicant has specific
Requirements
and Ecology.
requirements that need to be demonstrate which includes identifying that an approved
bank serves an area where impacts occur.
Typically, well prepared mitigation plans include a detailed schedule for the mitigation construction, phasing, and
This language is intended to provide general mitigation requirements. Section 20.162.096
PC -Wright
8
20.162.026.10
General Mitigation
total timing. I suggest an edit that reflects that the mitigation timing will comply with the approved mitigation
mment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element,
provides specific mitigation plan requirements which includes detailed construction plans
Requirements
q
Ian. Small wetland mitigations are easily completed but planting is best delayed to match growing and plant
P g p y P
that shall include construction schedules.
survival conditions. Larger mitigations take several years to complete.
No net loss is a key goal of the CAD. This statement does not make it mandatory but does
imply that it should occur if possible to ensure no net loss. Omitting this language has the
PC -Wright
9
20.162.026.11
General Mitigation
I do not agree. I suggest this phrase be omitted. It is not necessary.
Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element.
potential to put the City in a situation where a more favorable concept to better achieve
Requirements
no net loss would not be considered or approved. For example, a degraded wetland may
areas that do not exhibit wetland conditions and restoring/creating wetlands in those area
in addition to enhancement would be more beneficial.
Should man-made wetlands/ponds be included as exemptions? Note about golf courses and the many
ponds/drainage that exists an each of them. Also farms have significant drainage and stock water ponds. Also, we
The definition of wetland in 20.162.046 addresses these concerns. These types of
PC -Wright
10
20.162.034
Exemptions
see man-made flooding from time to time that produces a "new" wetland - especially in fields or along roads that
mment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element,
examples are not defined as wetland and therefore should not be included in the
receive uncontrolled or mis-managed drainage. There are many examples of this in PO and South Kitsap County.
exemption section.
This requirement is necessary in support of removal of noxious and invasive species within
a critical area. While stewardship actions are encouraged, there still can be adverse
PC -Wright
11
20.162.034.3(1)
Exemptions
Same comment as above. Unless this action is in a critical area or it's undeveloped buffer, this is exempt. The way
Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element.
impacts if not executed correctly. For example, if a large thicket of blackberry is removed
this is written suggests it is not exempt and a lot of paperwork is necessary.
from a critical area buffer and replanting is not successful than that could result in erosion
and water quality issues. Having an appropriate planting and monitoring plan helps
ensure those types of impacts will not occur.
PC -Wright
12
20.162.036.1
Exceptions
RE -Type III: Not sure if this is correct. Please check.
Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis.
Need to verify with City staff.
PC -Wright
13
20.162.038
Critical Areas
This section is missing an introduction as to what a variance is and how it differs from exemptions and exceptions....
Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis.
Need to verify with City staff. The current intro is split into two subsections that describe
variance
applicability.
PC -Wright
14
20.162.046
Definitions
I have found that definitions work best when placed as an earlier chapter. The previous stuff would benefit from
Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis.
Need to discuss with City staff. The location of definitions is consistent with the current
placing definitions up front.
CAO.
VCnt
There does not appear to be a formatting issue. The provided comment is in a track
PC -Wright
15
20.162.044
Definitions
RE - Riparian Management Zone Definition: Formatting
will no orated into the revised dr
changes version which might not look like formatting is correct. The clean version states
"Riparian Management Zone"
110
This language describes that any approved proposal/project would be required to enhance
Wetland
a buffer it is degraded and would not provide the necessary protection. For example, a
PC -Wright
g
16
20.162.056.2
Development
p
This is confusing. Some buffers are degraded by many issues but unless there is a proposal to alter the buffer or
Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis.
p y
wetland buffer that primarily consists ofgrasses as a result ofpast land use
(pasture area)
wetland, there is no trigger to make these changes/improvements.
Standards
and land use changes with a proposal (high intensity) a grass buffer would not adequately
provide the necessary protection.
Wetland
RE - Table 1: The strike-throughs make this hard to decipher. Am I reading that Cat III wetlands have the same
PC -Wright
17
20.162.056
Development
buffer width requirements as Cat II wetlands??? That is not cool if so. Please check this table - what this one
mment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen .
The City utilizes Option 1 in Ecology's recommendations. Per that guidance, buffers based
on habitat function and not categories.
Standards
contains will affect every landowner in PO.
Wetland
PC -Wright
18
20.162.056
Development
RE - Table 2: Same comment as above. This shows Cat II and Cat III wetland having the same buffer.
Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element.
The City utilizes Option 1 in Ecology's recommendations. Per that guidance, buffers based
Standards
on habitat function and not categories.
PC -Wright
19
N/A
Application
RE - 20.162.058 Deletion: Is this to be deleted? Seems odd.
Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element.
The draft CAO was reorganized to provide a more uniform review process. This section
Requirements
was moved up to the front of the document so that general requirements are all together.
PC -Wright
20
N/A
Determination of
RE - 20.162.060 Deletion: Is this to be deleted. Seems odd to do so.
Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element.
This language was moved up to the front of Article III (Wetlands) for constancy.
Wetland Boundaries
This language is consistent with state and federal processes and consistent with BAS which
shows that banking is the preferred approach for compensatory wetland mitigation. This
PC -Wright
21
20.162.060.5
Wetland Mitigation
This is not consistent with previous entries about mitigation banks and in -lieu fees. This needs to be cross checked
Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis.
section has been drafted to update the CAO to be consistent with current wetland
Requirements
and made understandable to developers and land owners. THIS NEEDS A LOT OF CLEAN-UP.
mitigation BAS and contains language consistent with how things are outlined in
Ecology/USACE documents. Grette recommends no significant changes to this section.
PC -Wright
22
20.162.060.5(a)
Wetland Mitigation
Same comment as above. This is not consistent with previous sections about the same topic.
Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis.
Same response as above. This language is consistent with current BAS to approach
Requirements
compensatory wetland mitigation.
FWHCA
RE - Table5: Np and Ns streams with a 100 ft buffer may be extreme. You are doubling the previous CAO? What is
PC -Wright
23
20.162.068
Development
the justification? These streams can be intermittent and do not support fish species. This should be discussed and
ment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element.
These updates are based on WDFW's BAS.
Standards
evaluated.
Pretty excessive for an enhancement plan. This could cost the developer/landowner more than the wetland
These types of assessment are common practice when preparing an enhancement plan.
PC -Wright
24
20.162.100
Buffer Enhancement
delineation depending on the details desired by the City. This requirement would be quite punitive for small
ment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element.
An Enhancement plan shall generally include summary of baseline conditions and post -
Plan
wetlands that need minor adjustments to the buffer to make a project fit on a site. I suggest making this a bit more
enhancement conditions to demonstrate that enhancement is occurring.
generic.
WMP
1
20.162.020.2
Admin. - General
This is an important general statement as it supports the important concepts such as buffer width averaging, buffer
Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element.
Noted.
and habitat enhancement proposals, habitat management plans, and innovative mitigation
"every effort" is not intended to suggest trespassing. Clarification was provided to
Application
"Every effort" is difficult standard to ask for as adjacent property owners might not be local and/or might hold
describe that "every effort" is intended to visual assessments from public areas and using
WMP
2
20.162.022.6
Requirements -
Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element.
biases towards the development project and thus not cooperate with data gathering.
remote databases to obtain the necessary information to prepare the applicable
General
documentation.
Onsite mitigation is not necessarily the best way to promote no -net -loss of habitat functions and long-term
This language for general mitigation requirements. Grette agrees with this comment
General Mitigation
regarding wetland and FWHCAs; however, the CAO includes other types of critical areas
WMP
3
20.162.026.3
ecological success. Suggested edit: "When appropriate and when success is likely, otherwise off -site mitigation
Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis.
Requirements
and/or mitigation credit purchase from a permitted mitigation bank will be encouraged"
where onsite mitigation is preferred. The CAO includes language that provides
opportunities for an applicants to propose off -site mitigation.
General Mitigation
WMP
4
20.162.026.7
Add "or service area of a permitted mitigation bank"
Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element.
Added "or service area of a certified mitigation bank".
Requirements
Remove "adjacent" as the service area could include many drainage basins that might not necessarily be adjacent
General Mitigation
WMP
5
20.162.026.8
to each other but ultimately support the larger system. The unique topography of the Kitsap Peninsula creates the
Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element.
Requirements
need for "flexibly and attention to site -specific characteristics" (20.162.020-2)
Noted. Removed "adjacent".
Section 20.162.026 is intended to outline potential options to address mitigation. Similar
to Subsections 8 (mitigation banks) and 9 (In -Lieu Fee), Subsection 11 is intended to
This idea deserves further development (perhaps as a separate section of the CAO) in conjunction with other ideas
provide another example to address impacts. This subsection has been updated to include
like buffer enhancements, critical area stewardship plans, integrated/naturalized stormwater systems, adaptive
the term " buffer" to provide more clarity, including an additional subsection to include
General Mitigation
management of critical areas. There should be incentives for applicants and developers to enhance and/or create
WMG's suggestions of including stewardship plans and integrating stormwater systems
WMP
6
20.162.026.11
Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis.
Requirements
habitats, be they wetlands, buffers, or important upland features. Win -win incentives can attend to ecology and
would need additional consideration. These types of options could introduce conflicts.
economy simultaneously. Local experts and professionals can help with outlining these incentives and creating the
For example, is an engineered stormwater feature is also designed to provide
templates and standards,
compensatory mitigation for permanent wetland impacts that seems to be a double dip
situation and conflict with the City's definition of wetland. Per the City's wetland
definition, wetlands do not include manmade stormwater features.
111
Agreed that manual removal limits any incentives; however, this section appears to be
Limiting noxious weed removal to manual methods and handheld tools is extremely limiting and often completely
intended to address exemptions that includes minor activities that view to not result in
WMP
7
20.162.034.4(k)
Exemptions
impractical. This de-incentivizes the removal or management of invasive plants. Perhaps reword: "methods of
Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis.
adverse impacts. Including mechanical methods under an exemption introduces high level
minimal disturbance whenever possible."
risks of adverse impacts at scale. If a property owner wants to implement large scale
stewardship actions, such as enhancement, an approved buffer enhancement plan
(20.162.100) should be followed.
The City's definition of "wetland" already addresses this comment and this section of code
WMP
8
20.162.054
Exempt Wetlands
Other CAOs from other jurisdictions consider wetlands inadvertently created due to the construction of roads as
Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme
specifically states "those wetlands within the city meeting the definition in POMC
exempt as well. Agricultural ditches should also be exempt wetlands.
20.162.046". 20.162.054 is defining when a regulated wetland is not subject to the city's
mitigation sequencing requirements. All wetlands are regulated under code.
There is great potential for this section of the CAO to provide incentives for habitat and CA enhancement and
creation. But as it is written currently, there is little incentive for applicants to be proactive. Most of this section
(and proceeding sections) is reactive and serves to regulate activities in and around CAs rather than promote the
Noted. This sections provides standards and requirements for all regulated uses and
Wetland
enhancement of our important natural features. The creation and maintenance of CAOs was mandated by the
activities and is not intended to outline standards for property owners to be proactive
WMP
9
20.162.056
Development
Growth Management Act which clearly prioritizes both economic development and ecologic stewardship. Other
Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis.
with enhancing wetlands or their buffers. Staff should note the comment regarding
Standards
standards. In fact, the CASP, or Critical Area Stewardship Plan, of Jefferson County offers a completely different
plan. I don't believe the city has resources to develop these or is planning to develop
route to land use that can nullify CA development standards if the CASP presented offers the same or greater
these plans in the future.
habitat functions that exist at a site pre -application. A more dynamic pathway to alter buffer widths is an easy and
obvious first step in incentivizing development that can result in a net -positive for CA and buffers.
The 2013 Best Available Science final report published by WADOE makes it abundantly clear that buffer widths are
only one of many characteristics of a functioning buffer. Most factors that contribute to a buffer's effectiveness are
Noted. While Ecology's 2013 report may provide explain buffer widths are one function of
Wetland
qualitative rather than quantitative. Yet the only characteristic other than width mentioned in a meaningful way in
a buffer, Ecology's wetland guidance for CAO wetland updates outlines a predictable and
this section is vegetation. Much effort is given to determine the quality/category of a wetland, but little is given to
WMP
10
20.162.056.3
Development
the quality/category of buffers. Per the above comment, here is the opportunity to marry economy and ecology by
Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis.
straightforward approach to establishing buffers based on BAS and provides
Standards
offering incentives (more buildable land) for the desired outcome (a higher functioning buffers). Templates for
recommended buffer widths to Protech wetland functions. The city's updates include
such a buffer rating and enhancement system are being developed by local professionals and WMP has discussed
withCA
the buffer recommendations in 2022 guidance. To discuss city staff.
Ecology's
the same concept with WADOE and USACE for our upcoming mitigation bank.
WMP
11
20.162.056.5
Wetland
Development
RE - Buffer averaging shall not be used in conjunction with a buffer reduction: Why?
Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme
Incorporating both in a proposal presents a double dip situation. Per Ecology's 2022
Standards
guidance, averaging should not be combined with other buffer reductions.
WMP
12
20.162.056.5a )
Wetland
Development
RE: Maximum buffer reduction of up to 25%: Why 25%? This seems like an arbitrarily limiting factor towards
Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme
Ecology's 2022 guidance utilizes BAS and this guidance recommends this limit.
Standards
improved buffer function.
POMC 20.162.026 requires an applicant to provide mitigation sequencing when a
20.162.024 relates to wetland mitigation and is, again reactive rather than proactive. Avoidance and non -avoidance
proposed alteration to a critical area or modification is proposed. This comment is
Wetland
will both lead to a degraded buffer function if the buffer is already degraded or sub -optimal. If an applicant
associated with buffer alterations. We disagree with the suggestion that a situation where
WMP
13
20.162.056.5(b)
Development
Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis.
a reduction is unavoidable will lead to a degraded buffer is that buffer is already degraded.
Standards
proposes to improve buffer functions via a Buffer Enhancement Plan, CASP, or similar plan, why add the step of
This section of code also requires an buffer modification to submit a buffer enhancement
avoiding reducing the buffer that is suboptimal?
plan which are intended to improve buffer functions and ensure a project would lead to
further degrading existing buffer functions.
WMP
14
20.162.060.5(a)
Wetland Mitigation
"and/or Federal rule" as some mitigation banks are certified only through USACE
Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element.
Revised.
Requirements
WMP
15
20.162.060.5(e)
Wetland Mitigation
Great addition and one that can be expanded to include buffers and other development standards, such as buffer
Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element.
Noted.
Requirements
widths and setbacks. The BAS supports it and applicants will too.
112