RES 81-14 SSDP WINSLOW WHARF RESOLUTION NO. 81-14
IN THE MATTER OF THE SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT FOR WINSLOW WHARF
WHEREAS, on .4 .F-ebrga,-rY, .19, ,.19~8~1 the Planning Agency recommended
approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development for Winslow
Wharf; an d
WHEREAS, on,. ,Ma, y.l. 4~,..198!. . , a Public Hearing was held by
the ttearing Examiner on an application for a Substantial
Development Permit for Winslow Wharf; and
WHEREAS, on ,-. ,.May. 2_'6..,. 19,81.. . , the Hearing Examiner recommended
approval of the Substantial Development Permit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order issued by the Hearing Examiner
for this application;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WINSLOW AS FOLLOWS:
Findings o f Fact: The City Council adopts Findings of
Fact I-XXVI and adds the following
Finding of Fact XXVII:
XXVII- The additional moorage facility
will make available to berthed vessels
water from the City of Winslow water system.
The deli-coffee shop facility and other
retail facilities will require the
availability of water from the City of
Winslow water system.
Conclusions of Law:The City Council adopts Conclusions of
Law I-IX and adds the following Conclusions
of Law X:
X- Availability of water connections to
berthed vesse Is on the additional
moorage facility and to the deli-coffee
shop and retail facilities puts
additional burden on the City of Winslow
water system. Participation fees are
p aid by o the r types o f us e rs to compen-
sate for the additional burden on the
water system and to provide funds for
further improvement and expansion of
the system,
Order:
The application for a Substantial Development
Permit for the proposed improvements at Wins low
Wharf should be granted subject to the following
conditions:
The dell-coffee shop and other retail
facilities shall be subject to the participation
fee requirement set forth in Ordinance 74-5 as
amended similar to any upland retail space or
food service es tab 1 ishment.
2o The additional moorage slips shal-1 be subject
to participation fees the amount to be determined
one year from the date of adoption of this
ordinance° The number of participation fees
required shall be calculated according to
the following formula:
A, amount of water used for 1 year following
issuance of the occupancy permit for the
moorage facility
B. amount of water used for 1 year prior to
issuance of the occupancy permit.
C, the standard water usage for an average
multiple family residential customer
A - B
,--~-- = # participation fees
any portion of a participation fee calculated
by this formula above 3/10th of a whole shall
count as an additional participation fee.
participation fees shall be paid 1 year
follo~ing issuance of the occupancy permit
for the moorage slips.
the am}unt of each participation fee shall
be the amount in effect at the time of payment.
non-payment of the calculated fee shall result
in disconnection of service to the moorage
facilityo payment of the calculated fee shall
be required for reconnectiono
3o The applicant must apply for and receive approval
on a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed
dredging above the line of extreme low tide
prior to issuance of the permit,
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Winslow on {~CL~,.~ 7_~/,
Clerk/Treasurer
HEARING LXAM!NER %
CITY OF WINSlf~ .~/~' ~
In the Matter of the )
)
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit of )
W~t~I/DW WF/RF CO INC. )
Applicant )
)
CITY OF' VVINSL_O'vV
File No. X-81- 7 ('b)
CONCLUS IONS OF LAW
~D P~OD~:~.~'NDATION
This matter c~ma before the Hearing E:o~:r~.ner at a qu~%si-judicial hearing
in Winslc~ Cit7 Hall May 14, 1981. The hearing also involved the application
of Winslow Wharf Co., Inco, for approval of a Preliminary Plat; findings on
the Plat nmtter are contained in a separate documant numbered X-81-7 (a) o
.Applicant was represented by its presi&~nt, Kent bUller. The City was
represented by its assistant city engineer, Ceorge Plescher. Janet Schneider,
of the City Clerk' s staff, tonitoted the recording of the proceedings. There
were four other persons present°
The Hearing Examiner stated he rents noorage space at Winslow %<harf. He
declared his rental is paid through October, 1982, and that he is obligated
financially to Winslow Wharf only for nominal nnnthly electricity charges.
the Exaniner said he felt he co~fid c~mduct a fair and impartial hearing~ He
offered to step ~. and ha~ a Substitute Hearing Examiner nt~ned in his place
if ~n~y person made a reason~t~le protest~ bIone was m, nde.
Witnesses were s~vorn and testified. EXhibits were offered and ada~itted,,
l?~e record was held open through b[Yy 18, 1981, for the filing by Ap. plicant
of resF~Dnses to cornrents on the !>:aft Environmental Impact Statemsnt (DEIS).
From testimony heard, record exmnined, e~hibits studied, and responses to
DEIS conn~anis cors idered, the Hearing Examiner n~kes these.
FL~DIN~ OF FA6T
I
Applicant G,ns sonn five acres of u?!and and second class tidelands on
both sides of the ~ntersection of Parfitt Way Southwest and b~dison Aven~ue
South in mhe City~ The postal addresses include Nos~ 305 and '403 on Madison,
~ d ~ ~o~ ~29 131 150 and 175 ~ Parfitt The coD. densed ]eg~]
description of the property is a "portion of Covertruant Lot 4, Section 27~,
, , o , " The
T~Lship 25 North Range 2 East W Mo in Kitsap County, Washington?
complete and lengthy legal description may be found on the Preliminary.
Plat filed as a part of the record in this matter°
Applicant leases from the State of Washington about five acres of
the bed of navigable waters abutting its tidelands,~
Applicant presently operates a 181-berth rm~rina, a sn~tl ship
chandtemV, and a seafood restaurant-tavern° It also rents a few spaces
for use by professionals and retail enterpriseso
II
Applicant:s upland property is zoned ccmn~rcia! and is designated
for non-residential use by the City' s Con~Drehensive 'Plan. Applicant' s
shoreline is designated as an Urban Envirormaent by ~e City's Shoreline
~hnagement Master Program°
III
Desiring to expand the marina and to develop the uplancts, Applicant
on JanL~_~_ry 29, 1981, filed with the City .for approval of a Shoreline
Substantial Developn~nt Permit o ~2so filed on that day was an Environ-
manta! Checklist and a doc~n~nt entitled "Development Proposal." The
Winslcz~ Planning Agency, on Feb~-aary 19, 1981, tnnanin~usly recommended
approval of the Shoreline Substantial P~velopn~nt Permit, subject to
conditions requ~-sted by the City. Engineer's office~ Those conditions
~,~ere that ( 1 ) the arkin ~ '
p ~ lots be landscaped and that (2) an engineer s
report be prepared relative to the possible build ~.~p of silt and sand
banks i~ the proposed area of dredging°
Under date of b~nrd~ 9, 1981, AB-j~'[, a Seattle consulting engineering
finn, filed a report on the dredging proposal~ On M~rch 12, 1981, the
City Lngineer's Office filed a Declaration of Environmental Significance
relati\~ to the proposal. On April 9, 1981, a Draft Fmvironn~ntal Intact
State~n~nt, prepared by The Ocea~o~_-aphic Institute of Washington, was fi!ed~
The City Clerk caused appropriate legal notices of this hearing to be
pub lished and pos ted.
Prior to the hearing, a plan for landscaping of the arkin
p g areas
was filed.
IV
~'~jor components of Applicant's proposal are these:
(1) Dredging of from 20,000 to 24,500 cubic yards of material from
two-r~hirds of an acre of tidelands and two and two-thirds acres of the bed
of navigable waters of Eagle Harbor to add 63 34-foot moorage berts (Note:
On May 18, 1981, four da~vs after this hearing w~ concluded but within an
extepsion tima period set by the Hearing Examiner for Applicant to respond
in ~riting to conrants on the DEIS received on the date of the hearing,
Applicant revised its moorage site plan by reducing the amount of dredging and,
thus, reducing the number of proposed n~ nnorage berths from 63 to 57; see
Winslo~ Wharf letter of bey 18, 1981, to State Departmant of Fisheries, and
see revised moorage site plan, identified as Exhibit 5).
(2) Disposal of the dredged material at a deepwater site approved by the
State Department of Natnatal Resources off Fourmile Rock in Elliott Bay°
(3) Shortening of the e~xisting pier from 150 feet to 30 feet; installation
of an already-permitted 1000-pound jib crane on the shortened pier for the
laund~ing and haulout of dinghies and day sailers.
(4) Construction of a new 80-foot dinghy float and viewing pier to be
open at all times to the public.
(5) Restoration of the e.xisting metal shed, addition of a conrnercial loft
space, and establishrent of an enlarged ship chandlery~ therein°
(6) Rennovation of an e~xisting garage for retail use°
(7) Sli~.t enlargement and rennovation of the existing tavern building
to accommodate retail shops and a "deli"-coffee shop~
(8) Constr~ction of a nvo-story, 5,300 sq~re-f,qDt building frenting at
an an~le on b~adison Avenue South to accenmodate retail shops and office space.
(9) Conszn~ction of a one-story, 3,000 square-foot building directly east
o~ d~e existing tavern to accon~.date a full-service restaurant.
(I0) Removal of a small house on property acquired north of the e~isting
p~rking area and development of ~.~at property to acconnx>date 30 more vehicle
parking spaces~
V
Appticant's proposal, particularly if 1L-~<ed by the proposed footbridge.
to ~e Ciry's waterfront trail syste{n, would enlarge and enhance public access,
both visual and physical, to the City's shoreline. Conversely, the 80~-foot
public-use dinghy float and vie~ing pier would enable persons aboard visiting
boats to come ashore at Winslow; this would not be restricted to persons
renting transient space at Applicant 's marina, as the dinghy float would be
open, without charge, to dinghies coming from vessels -anchored in Eagle
Harbor~ This float would become the only such public facility on the Winslow
side of Eagle Harbor~
There would be minimal marine view impainnant as a result of Applicant's
upland developmant. Proposed new buildings would be situated so as not to cut
off existing views of the water from residences to the east and west of the
project~ REsidences to the north, on higher ground, would retain most of their
present ~i~-~ of the water~ Dev~lopment of the shopping n~atl would preserve the
long-distance vi~ of ~j~e water nc~..~ available in the Madison Avenue sight corridor°
VII
Neither the new restaurant nor the shop-and-office-space commercial building
offer uses that, in the~.~selves, are shoreline related; they just as well could be
located inland as far as their uses are concerned. }towever~ the fact of their location
in a deliberately designed "people place" close to an active nmrina and the water's
ed,~Je n~l.~es both bui!~dings shoreline rclatcd~ ~.[hc nt~ re.,~taurant wou].d be 30 feet from
the dinginy float and vie~,.zing pier; the offices in the proposed comnercial building would
look out on the Eagle Harbor m~nrine scene.
VIII
Vehicle parking spaces would total 160, eight m~re than the number required by
various City ordin-.ances~ With the e..'<ception of the existing parking area to the west
of the n~nrina's nnta! shed, parking for the development would be inland and as far
~:cay fro,.n the water's edge as Applicant's land cx~ership provides. Applicant's proposed
developmant of Lot Severn (see Preliminary Plat) would eliminate ~hat natural and
cultivated greenery that residential lot nc~v provides. It would be replaced by parking
stalls, m:,o j_nterior landscaped plots aro,mnd existing trees, and a tanctscaped strip
along ~'k~dison Avenue South. 7he existing arkin
p g lot on the north side of Parfitt Way
Souu~vesc n~..~ is landscaped around existing trees, and around its street side perimnters.
Applicant's promosal calls for landscaping at the shoreside edge of the exisEing parking
area ~est of the mnrina's nntal shed. No land~iil has been used, or is t~tar~ned
rl~TM b~ ~:-<ed. for rjne creazi~. c,f vehicle Da_~]<ir!i..
The proposed marina expansion follows the natural shoreline configuration~
X
No shoreline ladfill is proposed°
The installation of the jib crane (.see Finding~ of Fact IV (3)) would provide
a mathod of launching small boats°
XII
The enlarged marina muld provide some half-dozen berths that, in themselves,
could be used for transient moorage; 14 transient moorage berths would be required
under the City' s Shoreline Management I~aster Program~ Hc~ever, Winsl~ ~,~harf, since
its inception in 1977, has offered transient moorage by Ene device of renting berths
temporarily vacated by permanent tenants; the wharf company credits the tenant with
a poreion of the transient rental fee~ Since 1977, Winslow k~narf-.-with armual
exceptions of the Fourth of July weekend--never has had to refuse tr~mnsient
moorage for lack of available ber~hso
X!II
The ek]Danded marina would continue to provide a pump out facility for
acceptance of boat waste°
XIV
~"fhe n~nrina's fu~l float is equipped for the pro~t absorption of oil and
gas spil!s~
On-shore sheer and toilet facilities would contin~ to be available in
the e.x]Danded marina~
%he expanded marina would not have any covered moorage~.
Live-aboards0 would ccn tinue to be permitted in the e.xpanded marina~
X%~III
Lk~controverted testinmy at the hearing (See Exhibit 3, Winslc~ ~arf letter
of April 30, 1981 to C~.pto Bob Murphy) demonstrated these salient points:
There new are 403 small craft _(Note: A '~'small craft" is one which is less than~
65 feet in lengrjO bertbed at con~rarcial ~'orages in Eagle Harbor, 181 of them
being at Winstc~ ~,~arfo Upon completion of various n~nrina e~xqDansions in 1982
there will be 517 snnl! craft at Eagle Harbor conmercia! nx~orages~ 244 of them
beh~g at Winsl~,~ ~harf~ Including vessels at private floats or "permanently" at
~nchor~ nhe grand totals are 455 for 1981, and 578 for 1982.
Four yacht clubs in Seattle maintain outstations in Eagle Harbor, but their
capacity bernkings in about 50 slips is generally confined to the peak sunn~r
season.
bhder present zoning and shoreline developmant regulations in both the
City and in the Kitsap County-controlled areas of Eagle Harbor, only one marina
could be developed or e-x~ndad by 20 mDre berths beyond the 1982 projected totals.
The land-locking features of Eagle H~rbor are both a boat ~.~ner's blessing
and a navigator's curse; Wing Point, on the nor~j~, and Bill Point (Creosote), on
Ene south, buffer reDored craft from almsst all winds, but the closeness of those
~wo points to each other makes the navigable entrance channel narrow and
convoluted (see E~hibit 4, Eagle Harbor Transit Chart)° 1he narrc~est navigable
channel is about 250 yards wida betwe~ the old Wing Point pier and the Coast
Guard marker "3" off Creosote; the hazard of this narrowness is compounded by
the ad~iitiona! fact that it is at this point that a vessel entering Eagle Harbor
Past n~.e a major course dnange from a nortbr~esterly direction to one almost
d~a west.
1he course of the Seattle-Bainbridge Island ferry mute, the most heavily
patronized route in the entire Washington State Ferry System, must utilize this
narrow ~trance channel. Forty-six one-way transits of the channel are made in
a 24-hour period by the large (more than 400-feet Iong0 ferries,~
At M~is hearing it was estimated without controvertion that, baqed on the
total number of vessels m~Dred in the safe ha~n of Eagle Harbor, there nc~ are
67 one-way transitsof the harbor' s entrance by sn~n!l craft in a 24-hour period
during the peM~ summer season and that, d~u~ to various marina expansiclrns, there will
be 78 sucln one-w~/transits by 1982.
Ferries entering and leaving Eagle Harbor have had nunmerous "close call"
passing situations wiuh small craft. Not one actual collision was noted in evidence
received at this hearing.
1]~c 46 form/transits and 67 snnll craft transits in a 24-hour period are not,
from a nu~r~rical standpoint, cause for undue ala~o Even in the narrowest portion
of the Eagle Harbor entrance channel, there is room for a ferry and small craft to
pass safely if the small craft pilot obeys the Coast Guard and international "Rules
of d~e Road" regulation that s~s: "A vessel of less than 65 feet in length, or a
sailing vessel, shall not i~mpede the passage of a vessel which c~mn safely navigate
on!v witbzLn a narrc~ d~mnel or fain~ay."
The passing hazard at the Eagle Harbor channel entrance is caused for
the most part by a few persons who do not understand the above regulations.
The hazard is not caused by the nunher of boats moored in Eagle Harbor. The
proposed increase of 63 hooting berths at Winslow Wharf would have an
insigificant adverse effect on the hazard°
Applicant proposes to mitigate the hazard described inmediately above.
Applic~nt, at its c~n exnpense, has prepared, under the supervision of a retired
ferry system. captain, a large comprehepsible Eagle Harbor Transit Chart (Exhibit 4)°
It shc~s the "s~ath" required by ferries in relation to available navigable water,
and, in understandable language, offers practical suggestions for the avoidance of
hazardous passing situations°
Applicant proposes to publish a s~tfficient number of these charts, in a
plasticized fonm~, for distribution, not only to the tenants of Winslow Wharf, but
to the tenants of all other coranercial marinas in Eagle Harbor, as well as to
the n~mberships of the four Seattle yacht clubs that have outstations in Eagle
Harbor° Applicant also offers to provide qualified lect~r~:,~.~s to give oral
presentations at yacht clubs relative to r/~e safe transit of the Eagle Harbor
channel entrance.
App!icant's cb. art- dis tribution plan would lessen tb.e ferry-small craft
passing hazard in the Eagle Harbor charmel entrance.
XX!I
1~e only directi~ in which the present rcoorage area can be expanded is to
the norUh, tc~ard the shore° Appticant's area leased from the State of Washington
cam~ot be expanded to the south, or the east or west°
rXi!!
l~.~.e m~aterial to be dredged ~or the moorage e~xpansion will coma, in part,
from ~ area above the line of extrema 1~ tide. ksClV
l]~.e dredging of up to t,yo-~irds of ~an acre of ~ne intertidal zone will
cause a loss of son~ marine invertebrates important to the diet of j~enile
salmsm..ids. The proposed dredged area does not appear to be high in the
~d~c~vi~v of these ~vertebrates a~.d the loss probably ~.rill not be
si~cnific~at~ The dredging will not destroy the existing upper intertidal area
frc~.n the line of a nhree-foot tide to the ].ine of higher hi~n water, thus leaving
that area undisturbed for fingerling salmon and other marine creatures.
Applicant's proposed reduction of the dredged area and reduction of
the proposed n~ berths from 63 to 57 (see Winslc~ Wharf letter of
May 18, 1981, to State Departn~nt of Fisheries, and Exhibit 5) further
will mitigate the potential loss of marine invertebrates due to dredging.
Dredging in the subtidal area will cause a temporary loss of marine
organisms, but there will be a recolonizati~ of this area in the long
terFR~
Any Conclusion of Law that is deemed to be a Finding of Fact herewith
is adopted as santo
From these Findings, the Hearing Exaniner cones to these
CONCLL~ IONS OF IAW
I
%he Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over the subject matter. Proper
application was made for the proposed permit° Due notice of this hearing
·
was g~ven~
II
The Hearing Examiner believes the governing regulations are the policies
and procedures of tb~e State Shorelines b~aage~nt Act, 'the guidelines and
regulaticns of the State Deparnn~nt of Ecolog~~ relative to the Act, and the
Ci~'s Shoreline M~nagen~nt bI~ster Program° %he City's F~ster Program
becann~ effective after the instant application for a St~stm~.tial Developmmqt
Permit was filed, but prior to this hearing. Applicant, therefore, contends
that Winslow Ordinance 77-1, ~nd not the F~ster Program, is controlling in
this ~tter. There is only one instance in this matter ~ere this legal
disagreen~nt becomes a practical ccnsideration~ It is discussed in Conclusion
of k~.~ I!i.
III
Part of the proposed dredging would be conducted above the extrema
1~ tide line (Finding of Fact k~C[II). A general regalation of the Dredging
Use Activity portion of the Master Program (Section F, Paragraph 3 (a) , Page 20)
requires that such dredging "shall be subject to a conditional use permit." The
Hearing E~nminer believes that, for all practical purposes, this hearing made
a thorough inquiry into all aspects of the proposed dredging. However, no
cenditicnal use permit was sot~ht -and none can be issued herein becannse sane
was not covered in t~he legal notice for this hearing~ The Hearing Examiner,
not a !g~-er and not hav~mg had the benefit of legal counsel in this matter,
feels that it would be better, in this Raconmandation, to err on the side of
extrema caution. He, therefore, intends to condition the Substantial Developmant
Permit wi~ a requiremant that Applicant seek, and obtain, a conditional use
permit for the dredging necessary abo~ the ~xtren~ low tide line. If the City
Cour~cil, after receiving the opinion of the City Attorney, believes this requiremant
is not warranmed, it easily can strike the condition.
IV
Otherwise, the instant application appears to maet the requiremants of
the Dredging Use Activity section of the CitT's M~ster Program. Dredging is
permitted in the Urban Environment that controls Applicant's property. The
proposed dredging is required because there is no alternative except no action
(F~ding of Fact XXI!)o The dredging wo~d cause ~ im~ignific-ant penmment
loss of so~ra nnrine invertebrates in the intertidal zone, but ~his loss would be
lessened by Applicant's proposal of b~ay 18, 1981, to reduce the number of new
moorage slips to 57 (Finding of Fact )t~[i!I).
V
The instant application n~ets the requirements of the b'~rinas and Corararcial
~borages Activity section of the City's ~ster Program (Findings of Fact X through
X~v%I). A n~arina is a permitted use in the Urban Environ~rnnt that controls
Applicant' s property.
V!
The instant application meets the requirements of the Conn~rci~]
Development Activity section of the City's Master Program (Findings of
Fact VI throuDh \~II). Conn~rcial development is a permitted use in the
Urban Environsant that controls Applicant's property.
VII
Washingtcn State Ferries contended, but did not prove, that the instant
application should be denied because of a hazardous passing situation
bet~een ferries and small craft in the narr~.~ entrance channel of Eagle
Harbor (see Captain Scb~artmman's letter, E~ibit 2, and Finding of Fact
>~<). Applicant has gone far beyond norn~l nitigation methods to lessen the
hazard (Finding of Fact XXI); the proposed distribution of copies of the
Eagle Harbor Transit Chart (Exhibit 4) at Applicant's expense should have
a nnrked salutory effect.
VIII
The nature and quality of the instant application is within the spirit
and intent of both the State Shorelines Manage~mnt Act and the State Departmant
of Ecology guidelines for the Act. In this connection, it should be noted
that one of the prima objectives of the Act's policy statemant is to achieve
public access to, and enjo~t of, the shorelines of the state. The
itsrant application achieves this goal (Findings of Fact V) , and should be
approved.
LX
Jay Findip~ of Fact that is deemed to be a Conclusion of La~ herewith is
adopted as same.
Therefore, the Hearing Examiner makes this
RECOM}'[iX~DATION
~lhe application of Winslc~ I.~harf Co., Lnc., for a Shoreline Substantial
Development Pern~[t should be appro~ed, subject to Applicant's applying for
~nd receiving a conditional use permit for the proposed dredging above the
line of extren~ !c~ tide.
DONE at Winslow, Washington, this ~i'%'~)i"-S-~¢~l~:i day of N~y, 1981.
'wa~[ 'wo0c~ard,' Hearin~ ' ' .-I ~r~
10