RES 94-23 DENIAL OF SSDP APPLICATION TO EXTEND FLOATING DOCK FOR NORMAN SIEVERTSONRESOLUTION NO. 94- 23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND,
WASHINGTON, DENYING A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION
OF A FLOATING DOCK, UPON APPLICATION OF NORMAN
SIEVERTSON (FILE NO. SSDP 02-20-91).
WHEREAS, on December 5, 1990, Norman Sievertson flied with Kitsap County an
application to extend an existing floating dock on his property, located at 6514 N.E. Monte Vista
Drive, Bainbridge Island, Washington, on the east shore of Manzanita Bay; and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1991, the application was transmitted to the City for
processing; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 1993, the City SEPA official issued a mitigated determination
of nonsignificance for the dock extension; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 1994, the Planning Commission considered the application,
and by memorandum dated April 20, 1994, recommended to the City Council that the
application be approved, subject to eight conditions, and that no formal public hearing be held;
and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 1994, the City Council considered the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and heard arguments and testimony of the applicants and all interested
persons, and continued discussion of the application to June 16, 1994; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 1994, the City Council heard further arguments and testimony
of the applicant and all interested persons and by motion denied the application; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE
ISLAND, WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council makes and enters the following findings of fact with respect
to the application of Norman Sievertson for extension of a floating dock in file No. SSDP 02-20-
91:
1. On December 5, 1990, Norman Sievertson filed with Kitsap
County an application for a shoreline substantial development permit to extend a
floating dock at 6514 N.E. Monte Vista Drive, Bainbridge Island, Washington,
on the east shore of Manzanita Bay. The property is owned by Norman and Ann
Sievertson and is legally described as:
-1-
F:\dms\~k\0064528.01
11. The ends of the docks on the west side of Manzanita Bay generally
form a line parallel to the shore. The ends of the docks on the east side of
Manzanita Bay, commencing on the north end at the existing dock, generally
form a line parallel to the shore. The existing dock protrudes into Manzanita Bay
approximately the same distance as the other docks on the east side of Manzanita
Bay. The extension would protrude substantially farther into Manzanita Bay than
the other docks on the east side of Manzanita Bay.
12. Manzanita Bay can be divided into two parts: the northern part,
which includes the mouth of the bay, and the southern part, which includes the
head of the bay. The existing dock marks the northern edge of the southern pare.
13. There are two docks at the extreme northeast end of the northern
part of Manzanita Bay. There is a substantial distance between these two docks
and the existing dock.
14. Extension of the existing dock by 72 feet would substantially
reduce the size of the mouth of the southern part of Manzanita Bay.
15. The existing dock establishes the area of navigation in the southern
part of Manzanita Bay. If the extension is approved, all other property owners
in the southern part of Manzanita Bay could extend or construct their docks to
five feet past the line of extreme low fide. The cumulative effect of such dock
construction or extension would be to reduce substantially the area of the southern
part of Manzanita Bay available for navigation.
16. The water activities of canoeing, kayaking and boating will be
significantly impaired by construction of the 72 foot extension.
17. The extension creates an obstruction and is a hazard to navigation.
18. Applicant has not shown that a joint use moorage facility for the
sailboat is not feasible.
19. Applicant plans to moor his sailboat, which has a draft of six feet,
at the end of the extension.
20. Applicant has a buoy where the end of the extension would be
located. Applicant has moored his sailboat at the buoy for two to three years.
Nothing prevents applicant from using the buoy for mooring of the sailboat.
-3-
F:\dms\rpk\0064528.01
21. Use of a buoy is a conventional, standard and traditional means of
mooring a vessel.
22. Applicant wants to construct the extension because mooring the
sailboat to the extension is more convenient than mooring the sailboat to the
buoy.
Section 2. The City Council makes and enters the following conclusions of law with
respect to the application of NoHnan Sievertson for extension of a floating dock in file No.
SSDP 02-20-91:
1. Having been filed on December 5, 1990, the application is
governed as to substance by Kitsap County ordinances, and as to procedure by
City ordinances.
2. RCW 90.58.020 establishes the policies of the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW ("Act"). That statute states in
relevant part that:
It is the policy of the State to provide for the
management of the shorelines of the State by
planning for and fostering all reasonable and
appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure
the development of these shorelines in a manner
which, while allowing for limited reduction of
rights of the public in the navigable waters, will
promote and enhance the public interest. This
policy contemplates protecting against adverse
effects to the public health, the land and its
vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the State
and their aquatic life, while protecting generally
public rights of navigation and corollary rights
incidental thereto.
3. Under the policies of the Act, the extension is not a reasonable and
appropriate use of the shorelines of the State. The existing 160 foot dock, in
combination with a buoy, is a reasonable and appropriate use.
4. Under the policies of the Act, the extension constitutes a significant
(not a limited) reduction of rights of the public in navigable waters, and will not
promote and enhance the public interest.
-4-
F:\dms\rpk\0064528.01
5. Under the policies of the Act, the extension would not protect
against adverse effects to the waters of the State, and would not protect generally
public fights of navigation.
6. RCW 90.58.140(1) provides that --
A development shall not be undertaken on the
shorelines of the State unless it is consistent with
the policy of this chapter and, after adoption or
approval, as appropriate, the applicable guidelines,
rules, or master program.
7. The extension is not consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.58
RCW as stated in paragraph 2 above or the Kitsap County Shoreline Master
Program, as described below.
8. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(7), applicants for permits have the
burden of proving that a proposed substantial development is consistent with the
criteria that must be met before a permit is granted.
9. Applicant has not met the burden of proving that the extension is
consistent with the criteria that must be met before the permit is granted.
10. The Sievertson property is located in the rural environment,
according to the Kitsap County Shoreline Master Program. Part 4 (shoreline
management) of the Shoreline Master Program states as follows with respect to
the "rural environment":
Definition: A rural environment is defined as an
area in which the natural, agricultural or
recreational features predominate and where the use
by man results in only a light modification of the
natural characteristics.
PurpOse: The purpose of placing an area in Rural
Environment is to protect agricultural land from
urban expansion, restrict intensive development
along undeveloped shorelines, function as a buffer
between urban areas, maintain open spaces and
opportunities for recreational uses compatible with
agricultural activities, provide the opportunity for
rural living which is of lower unit intensity than
-5-
F: \dms\rpk\0064528.01
semi-rural living, to provide an environment where
living is compatible with the natural systems, and to
regulate use activities which may change the natural
systems that establish the characteristic nature of the
environment. It is intended that man's use activities
will interact with the natural systems.
11. The extension would be an activity that changes the surface water
use of Manzanita Bay, a natural system.
12. Part 6 of the Kitsap County Shoreline Master Program governs
shorelines of state-wide significance. Under principle 7 of Part 6, the potion of
Manzanita Bay seaward from the line of extreme low tide is a shoreline of state-
wide significance. The introduction to Part 6 states as follows:
Because these shorelines are major resources from
which all people in the state derive benefit, Kitsap
County's Master Program must give preference to
uses which favor public and long-range goals.
Principle 2(a) of Part 6 provides that the County shall:
Designate and administer shoreline planning
environments and use regulations to minimize man-
made intrusions on shorelines.
Principle 3 of Part 6 states that:
Actions that would convert resources into
irreversible uses or detrimentally alter natural
conditions characteristic of shorelines of state-wide
significance should be severely limited.
13. Pursuant to Part 6 of the Master Program guidelines, boating,
canoeing and kayaldng are public uses which should have preference over private
docks in that portion of Manzanita Bay lying within the shorelines of state-wide
significance.
14. Pursuant to part 6 of the Master Program guidelines, the extension
is a man-made intrusion on the shorelines. Therefore, the extension should be
denied in order to administer the applicable use regulations in a manner that
minimizes man-made intrusions on the shorelines.
-6-
F:\dms\rpk',0064528.01
15. Part 7 of the Kitsap County Shoreline Master Program relating to
piers and floating docks provides that piers and floating docks are permitted in
the rural environment. The policies with respect to piers and floating docks are
as follows:
1. The cooperative uses of piers and floating docks
should be encouraged. Priority should be given to
the use of community piers and docks in all new
major waterfront subdivisions.
2. The use of floating docks over piers should be
encouraged in those areas where scenic values are
high and where conflicts with recreational boaters
and fishermen are not greatly increased.
3. Open pile piers should be encouraged where
shore trolling is important and where there is
significant long shore drift.
4. Boat docking facilities should not be located in
ecologically sensitive areas.
5. Size and length of piers and floating docks
should be the minimum that provides the required
service.
6. Size and length should also be a minimum
interference to navigation and other uses of the
water area.
16. Under policy no. 5 in paragraph 11 above, the length of a floating
dock should not be dictated by the type and size of vessel owned or used by the
dock owner. For example, if a dock owner decides to purchase a 200 foot luxury
vessel or a sailboat with a 12 foot draft, the floating dock should not
automatically be approved at a length to moor the vessel in all tides. The length
of a floating dock should be determined by the size and draft of a reasonable
vessel, the ability to moor the vessel to a buoy in the vicinity of the dock, and all
other relevant factors.
17. Under policy no. 6 in paragraph 11 above, the length of the
extension, as well as the total length of the floating dock with the extension (232
foo0, is a significant (not a minimum) interference to navigation and other uses
of the surface water of Manzanita Bay.
-7-
F: \dms\npk\0064528.01
18. The general regulations for piers and docks under part 7 of the
Kitsap County Shoreline Master Program are as follows:
1. When State harbor lines have been designated,
piers and docks shall be located shoreward of the
outer harbor line.
2. Where State harbor lines do not apply, piers and
docks shall project the minimum distance necessary
to service appurtenant vessels and should not create
a hazard to navigation.
3. Individually owned, single family residence
piers and docks are permitted where it can be
shown that a joint use moorage facility is not
feasible.
4. Joint use moorage facilities should be required
for residential developments, and should be
encouraged, when feasible, for recreational
developments and commercial developments.
5. Piers and floating docks for commercial vessels
shall automatically require a substantial
development permit and shall be evaluated for
design in accordance with the policy heating at the
time of consideration of the permit.
6. Private recreational piers or floating docks in
fresh water shall be the same as saltwater.
19. The extension would create a hazard to navigation.
20. Because the extension would create a hazard to navigation, the
existing dock (without the proposed extension), together with the buoy at which
the sailboat can be moored, is the minimum necessary to service the applicant's
sailboat.
21. Applicant' s extension would be an individually owned, single family
residence floating dock. Applicant has not demonstrated that other docks on the
shores of Manzanita Bay cannot be jointly used to moor his sailboat.
-8-
F:\dms\rpk\O064528.01
Section 3. The City Council denies the application for shoreline substantial development
permit for a dock extension filed by Norman Sievertson in File No. SSDP 02-20-91.
Section 4. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to carry out the filings and
transmittals set forth in BIMC 16.12.860(N).
PASSED by the City Council this 21s!; day of July, 1994.
APPROVED by the Mayor this 22nd day of July, 1994.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
Susan Kasper, City Clerk
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.: 94-2~
Janet K. West, Mayor
7-21-94
7-21-94
-9-
F:\dms\rpk\0064528.01
Block 000, Lot 7, Plat of Manzanita Bay, records of the Kitsap
County Auditor, Kitsap County, Washington ("property").
The property is Tax Lot No. 4157-000-007-006 and is approximately .24 acres
in size.
2. Kitsap County transmitted the application to the City on February
20, 1991 for processing.
3. The zoning designation for the property is "R-2"; the
Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is "semi-rural"; and the
Shoreline Master Program designation for the property is "rural".
4. The property is bordered on the west by Puget Sound and
Manzanita Bay. The parcels surrounding the property have zoning designations
of "R-2", and have Comprehensive Plan designations of "semi-rural". The
parcels on either side of the property along Manzanita Bay have Shoreline Master
Program designations of "rural".
5. The property is served by a 160 foot long floating dock ("existing
dock"). The existing dock is located entirely on tidelands owned by the
Sievertsons. The application request is for a 72 foot extension of the existing
dock. The extension would not be located on tidelands owned by the Sievertsons.
6. The extension will increase the total length of the dock by 43
percent. After construction of the extension, the new dock will be one of the
longest in Manzanita Bay.
7. The extension will require the driving of five used, treated wood
pilings into the floor of the bay and will be supported by styrofoam flotation logs.
8. The SEPA official issued a mitigated determination of
nonsignificance on July 28, 1993.
9. By letter dated August 9, 1993, the Department of Ecology
commented on the determination of nonsignificance and recommended three
conditions to any approval of the application.
10. The existing dock extends to the line of mean low level water. The
extension would extend five feet beyond the line of extreme low tide.
-2-
F:\dms\~k\0064528.01