A. 
A development or use shall not be undertaken on the shorelines in the city of Burlington unless it is consistent with the master program and the policies of the Act, whether or not a shoreline permit is required for such development or use. See definition of "development" in BMC § 18.03.040.
B. 
Existing development is required to comply with the master program at the time of expansion or change of use or initiation of new forms of activity.
C. 
If use or development is nonconforming, change of ownership will not require compliance with the master program unless the new owner/operator significantly expands the operations or initiates new forms of activity.
D. 
The city will periodically review the cumulative effect of actions taken within the shoreline to ensure that the goal of no net loss of shoreline environmental functions is being met.
E. 
The city, for the purposes of making administrative decisions and processing permits as may be required by the SMP, means the department of planning and community development and its director.
F. 
The process of reviewing proposals shall be designed to assure that regulatory or administrative actions do not unconstitutionally infringe upon private property rights in accordance with WAC 173-26-186(5).
(Ord. 1786 § 1, 2013)
A. 
Shoreline Substantial Development Permits.
1. 
A substantial development permit is not required for projects that are below the threshold levels established in WAC 173-27-040(2), Developments Exempt from Substantial Development Permit Requirement, as follows (see WAC citation for complete list):
a. 
Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, does not exceed $8,504, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. (Note: The state of Washington requires that every five years the dollar threshold for this exemption be adjusted for inflation by the Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM). The adjustment is based upon changes in the Consumer Price Index during that time period (see chapter 18.03 BMC, Definitions). The OFM must calculate the new dollar threshold and transmit it to the Office of the Code Reviser for publication in the Washington State Register at least one month before the new dollar threshold is to take effect. (WAC 173-27-040(2)(a).) For purposes of determining whether or not a permit is required, the total cost or fair market value shall be based on the value of development that is occurring on shorelines of the state as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(c). The total cost or fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or materials;
b. 
Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire, or elements;
c. 
Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences;
d. 
Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements;
e. 
Construction and practices normal for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelines, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures including but not limited to head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels. A feedlot of any size, all processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, alteration of the contour of the shorelines by leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations;
f. 
Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys;
g. 
Construction on shorelines by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family residence for his own use or for the use of his family, which residence does not exceed a height of 35 feet above average grade level and which meets all the requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to this title;
h. 
Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single- and multiple-family residences. A "dock" is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities or other appurtenances. This exception applies if the fair market value of the dock does not exceed $22,500 for docks that are constructed to replace existing docks, are of equal or less square footage than the existing dock being replaced, or $11,200 for all other docks constructed in freshwaters. However, if subsequent construction occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, and the combined fair market value of the subsequent and prior construction exceeds the amount specified above, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development for the purpose of this title;
i. 
Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored ground water for the irrigation of lands;
j. 
The marking of property lines or corners on state owned lands, when such marking does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water;
k. 
Operation and maintenance of any system of levees, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system;
l. 
Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization under this title, if:
i. 
The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters;
ii. 
The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including, but not limited to, fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values;
iii. 
The activity does not involve the installation of a structure, and upon completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity;
iv. 
A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the city of Burlington to ensure that the site is restored to preexisting conditions; and
v. 
The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550 (oil or gas exploration);
m. 
The process of removing or controlling an aquatic noxious weed, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the Department of Agriculture or the Department jointly with other state agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW;
n. 
Watershed restoration projects as defined in RCW 89.08.460 are exempt from the requirement to obtain a substantial development permit. Gages Slough is part of the watershed project approved by the Department of Ecology and its restoration is exempt from the permit requirement;
o. 
Consistent with WAC 173-27-040, a public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, that conforms to the provisions of RCW 77.55.181, shall be exempt from the substantial development permit requirements of this chapter when all of the following apply:
i. 
The project has been approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife;
ii. 
The project has received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife;
iii. 
The city has determined that the project is substantially consistent with the master program.
p. 
The external or internal retrofitting of an existing structure with the exclusive purpose of compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 or to otherwise provide physical access to the structure by individuals with disabilities.
2. 
A shoreline substantial development permit application is a Type II permit, as per chapter 14A.05 BMC.
3. 
The "effective date of a substantial development permit" is the date of filing. The date of filing is the date Ecology receives the city's final decision. The date of filing for a shoreline variance or conditional use permit is the date the decision of Ecology is transmitted by Ecology to the city. For substantial development permits simultaneously mailed with a CUP or variance to Ecology, the date of filing is the date that Ecology's decision on the CUP or variance is transmitted to the applicant and the city. The date of filing starts the two-year clock for beginning of construction and establishes the 21-day appeal period of the permit to the Shoreline Hearings Board. The two-year time period does not include periods of pendency for other related permits or legal actions.
4. 
Appeal procedures for land use actions are outlined in BMC § 14A.05.190. After all local permit administrative appeals or reconsideration periods are complete and the permit documents are amended to incorporate any resulting changes, the city will mail the permit using return receipt requested mail to the Department of Ecology regional office and the Office of the Attorney General. Projects that require both conditional use permits and/or variances shall be mailed simultaneously with any substantial development permits for the project.
5. 
The permit and documentation of the final local decision will be mailed together with the complete permit application; a findings and conclusion letter; a permit data form (cover sheet); and applicable SEPA documents.
6. 
Time requirements for shoreline permits are as follows (see WAC 173-27-090 for complete language):
a. 
Construction activities shall commence, or where no construction activities are involved, the use or activity shall commence within two years of the effective date of a substantial development permit.
b. 
The period for commencement of construction or use may be extended once for a one-year period, if a request based on reasonable factors is filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record.
c. 
The authorization to conduct development activities shall terminate five years after the effective date of a substantial development permit.
d. 
The authorization period to conduct development activities may be extended once for a one-year period, if a request based on reasonable factors is filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record.
e. 
The time periods in subsections (A)(4)(a) and (c) of this section do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonably related administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals.
f. 
It is the applicant's responsibility to inform local government of any legal actions or permits that may affect time periods established herein. The city may terminate the shoreline permit if the applicant fails to demonstrate good faith in obtaining all other necessary permits or resolve any legal actions in a timely manner.
7. 
Permit review procedures shall be as follows:
a. 
The planning and community development department maintains records of project review actions resulting in issuance of permits, including shoreline substantial development permits.
b. 
Copies of Shoreline Management Act permit data sheet and transmittal letters forwarded to the Department of Ecology shall be utilized for evaluation of the potential cumulative effects of previous and proposed actions in shoreline areas.
8. 
Appeals to the Shorelines Hearings Board shall be consistent with RCW 90.58.140.
B. 
Conditional Use Permits.
1. 
The purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow greater flexibility in administering the use regulations of the master program in a manner consistent with the policies of the SMA. Conditional use permits may also be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in the SMA.
2. 
A shoreline conditional use permit is a Type III permit, as per chapter 14A.05 BMC.
3. 
The planning commission shall, following an open record public hearing, make a recommendation to the city council, who has the authority to make the final local decision.
4. 
The application for a shoreline conditional use permit shall be processed pursuant to the legislative policies stated in the Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58.020 (Legislative Findings – State Policy Enunciated – Use Preference) and the shoreline master program of the city of Burlington.
5. 
The criteria for approving conditional uses shall be consistent with WAC 173-27-160 (Review Criteria for Conditional Use Permits) and include the following:
a. 
That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020, the master program, and the BMC;
b. 
That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;
c. 
That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and the SMP;
d. 
That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and
e. 
That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
6. 
Other uses that are not classified or set forth in the master program may be authorized as conditional uses; provided, that the applicant can demonstrate, in addition to the criteria set forth in subsection (B)(5)(a) of this section and RCW 90.58.020, that extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable use of the property in a manner consistent with the permitted use regulations of the master program.
7. 
When reviewing conditional use permit applications, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
8. 
Uses which are specifically prohibited or not allowed by the master program may not be authorized pursuant to either subsection (B)(5) or (6) of this section.
C. 
Variances.
1. 
The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property. Shoreline variances should be granted in a circumstance where strict implementation of the master program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in the SMA. In all instances, extraordinary circumstances should be shown, and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
2. 
A shoreline variance permit is a Type II permit, as per chapter 14A.05 BMC. The board of adjustment shall, following an open record public hearing, make a final local decision on the permit application.
3. 
Variances for development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
a. 
That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards as set forth in the master program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable permitted use of the property.
b. 
That the hardship is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions, such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features, in the application of the master program and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions.
c. 
That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environmental designation.
d. 
That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief.
e. 
That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
4. 
Variances for development that will be located waterward of the OHWM may be authorized, provided the applicant can satisfy all of the criteria specified in subsections (C)(3)(b) through (e) of this section. The applicant must also demonstrate that the public rights of navigation and that the strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the master program precludes all reasonable use of the property.
5. 
In granting of all shoreline variances, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests or like actions in the area.
6. 
Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited.
D. 
Developments Not Required to Obtain Shoreline Permits or Local Reviews. Requirements to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other review to implement the Shoreline Management Act do not apply to the following:
1. 
Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial action at a facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW, or to the Department of Ecology when it conducts a remedial action under chapter 70.105D RCW.
2. 
Boatyard improvements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person installing site improvements for storm water treatment in an existing boatyard facility to meet requirements of a national pollutant discharge elimination system storm water general permit.
3. 
WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.356, Washington State Department of Transportation projects and activities meeting the conditions of RCW 90.58.356 are not required to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other local review.
4. 
Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant to RCW 90.58.045.
5. 
Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW.
E. 
Revisions to Permits.
1. 
When an applicant seeks to revise a shoreline substantial development permit, conditional use permit, or variance, whether such permit or variance was granted under this SMP, or under the Skagit County SMP in effect prior to adoption of the Burlington SMP, the planning and community development department shall request from the applicant detailed plans and text describing the proposed changes to the project. If the staff determines that the proposed changes are within the general scope and intent of the original substantial development permit, conditional use permit or variance, as the case may be, the revision may be approved by the planning director, without the need for the applicant to file a new substantial development permit application, provided the development is consistent with the SMA, WAC 173-27-100 (Revisions to Permits), and the master program.
2. 
"Within the scope and intent of the original permit"
means the following:
a. 
No additional over-water construction will be involved, except that pier, dock, or float construction may be increased by 500 square feet or 10 percent from the provisions of the original permit, whichever is less.
b. 
Lot coverage and height may be increased a maximum of 10 percent from the provisions of the original permit.
c. 
Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with the conditions attached to the original permit and with the shoreline master program.
d. 
The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed.
e. 
No adverse environmental impact will be caused by the project revision.
f. 
The revised permit shall not authorize development to exceed height, lot coverage, setback, or any other requirements of the master program except as authorized under a variance granted as the original permit or a part thereof.
3. 
If the revision, or the sum of the revision and any previously approved revisions, will violate the criteria specified above, the planning and community development department shall require the applicant to apply for a new shoreline substantial development or conditional use permit or variance, as appropriate, in the manner provided for herein.
4. 
If proposed revisions to the original permit involve a conditional use or variance, the city shall submit the proposed revision to the DOE for review. The DOE shall respond with its final decision on the proposed revision request within 15 days of the date of receipt by the DOE (WAC 173-27-100(6)). The city shall notify parties of record of the DOE's final decision.
5. 
Revisions to permits may be authorized after original permit authorization has expired under RCW 90.58.143. The purpose of such revisions shall be limited to authorization of changes which are consistent with this section and which would not require a permit for the development or change proposed under the terms of chapter 90.58 RCW, this regulation and the local master program. If the proposed change constitutes substantial development then a new permit is required; provided, this subsection shall not be used to extend the time requirements or to authorize substantial development beyond the time limits of the original permit.
6. 
The revision approval, including the revised site plans and text consistent with the provisions of WAC 173-27-180 as necessary to clearly indicate the authorized changes, and the final ruling on consistency with this section shall be filed with the DOE. In addition, the city shall notify parties of record of their action.
7. 
The revised permit is effective immediately upon final decision by the city or, when appropriate under subsection (D)(4) of this section, upon final action by the DOE.
8. 
Appeals shall be in accordance with RCW 90.58.180 and shall be filed within 21 days from the date of receipt of the city's action by the DOE or, when appropriate under subsection (D)(4) of this section, the date the DOE's final decision is transmitted to the city and the applicant. Appeals shall be based only upon contentions of noncompliance with the provision of subsection (D)(2) of this section. Construction undertaken pursuant to that portion of a revised permit not authorized under the original permit is at the applicant's own risk until the expiration of the appeals deadline. If an appeal is successful in proving that a revision is not within the scope and intent of the original permit, the decision shall have no bearing on the original permit.
(Ord. 1786 § 1, 2013; Ord. 1924 § 1 (Exh. A), 2022)
A. 
Whenever a development falls within the exemptions stated in BMC § 18.09.020(A)(1) and the development is subject to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, or a Section 404 permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, the city shall prepare a letter addressed to the applicant and the department, exempting the development from the substantial development permit requirements of chapter 90.58 RCW. This exemption shall be in the form prescribed by WAC 173-27-050.
B. 
A statement of exemption is also required for exempt work on levees.
C. 
Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemption from the substantial development permit process.
D. 
An exemption from the substantial development permit process is not an exemption from compliance with the Act or the local master program, or from any other regulatory requirements. To be authorized, all uses and developments must be consistent with the policies and provisions of the applicable master program and the Shoreline Management Act. A development or use that is listed as a conditional use pursuant to the local master program or is an unlisted use must obtain a conditional use permit even though the development or use does not require a substantial development permit. When a development or use is proposed that does not comply with the bulk, dimensional and performance standards of the master program, such development or use can only be authorized by approval of a variance.
E. 
The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt from the permit process is on the applicant.
F. 
If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a substantial development permit is required for the entire proposed development project.
G. 
Local government may attach conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the Act and the local master program.
(Ord. 1786 § 1, 2013)
A. 
The following definitions and standards shall apply to nonconforming structures and uses regulated by this master program:
1. 
"Nonconforming use or development"
means a shoreline use or development that was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the city of Burlington shoreline master program or amendments thereto, but does not conform to current regulations or standards of the program.
2. 
Structures that were legally established and are used for a conforming use but are nonconforming with regard to shoreline setback requirements may be maintained and repaired and may be enlarged or expanded; provided, that any such enlargement or expansion:
a. 
Will not extend the footprint of the structure any closer to the shoreline or wetland than the current design;
b. 
Will not interfere with or obstruct dedicated public access routes to the shoreline, per applicable requirements set out herein;
c. 
Will meet any construction standards enacted by the city to protect adjacent flood risk reduction structures;
d. 
Will be consistent with the current, or another authorized, conforming use; and
e. 
Will adhere to underlying municipal code and building regulations.
3. 
A "nonconforming lot" means a lot that met dimensional requirements of the applicable master program at the time of its establishment but now contains less than the required width, depth, or area due to subsequent changes to the master program. A nonconforming lot may be developed if permitted by other land use regulations of the city and so long as such development conforms to all other requirements of this master program and the Act.
4. 
Uses and development that were legally established and are nonconforming with regard to the use regulations of the master program may continue as legal nonconforming uses. Such uses shall not be enlarged or expanded unless otherwise permitted by this SMP.
5. 
A use that is listed as a shoreline conditional use but existed prior to adoption of the master program or any relevant amendment and for which a conditional use permit has not been obtained shall be considered a nonconforming use.
6. 
A use that is listed as a shoreline conditional use but existed prior to the applicability of the master program to the site and for which a conditional use permit has not been obtained shall be considered a nonconforming use.
7. 
A structure for which a variance has been issued shall be considered a legal nonconforming structure and the requirements of this section shall apply as they apply to preexisting nonconformities.
8. 
A structure that is being used, or has been used, for a nonconforming use may be used for a different nonconforming use only upon the approval of a shoreline conditional use permit. A shoreline conditional use permit for any such new nonconforming use may be approved only upon a finding that:
a. 
No reasonable alternative conforming use is practical; and
b. 
The proposed use will be at least as consistent with the policies and provisions of the SMA and the master program and as compatible with the uses in the area as the preexisting use.
In addition, such conditions may be attached to the permit as are deemed necessary to assure compliance with the above findings, the requirements of the master program and the Shoreline Management Act, and to assure that the use will not become a nuisance or a hazard.
9. 
A nonconforming structure that is moved within the SMZ must be brought into conformance with the master program, unless such relocation is expressly authorized through previous agreement between the city and the property owner.
10. 
If a nonconforming structure is damaged or partially destroyed to an extent not exceeding 50 percent of the assessed valuation of such structure as established by the most current Skagit County assessor's tax roll, it may be restored to its original condition, as authorized by the city's building official, and its immediately preceding or existing use at the time of partial destruction may be continued or resumed. Such damaged or destroyed building may be reconstructed to a size not to exceed the existing footprint at the time of the damage or destruction and within the height at the time of the damage or destruction, and except for the shoreline setback provision in subsection (A)(2) of this section, must conform to those specifications required by the current building code and applicable zoning requirements for reconstruction of nonconforming structures; provided, that:
a. 
Application is made for the permits necessary to restore the development within six months of the date the damage occurred;
b. 
All permits are obtained; and
c. 
The restoration is started within one year and completed within two years of permit issuance.
11. 
If a nonconforming use is discontinued for 12 consecutive months or for 12 months during any two-year period, the rights to such use shall expire and any subsequent use of such structure shall be conforming. A use authorized pursuant to subsection (A)(8) of this section shall be considered a legal nonconforming use for purposes of this section.
12. 
An undeveloped lot, tract, parcel, site, or division of land located landward of the OHWM that was established in accordance with local and state subdivision requirements prior to the effective date of the city of Burlington shoreline master program, but does not conform to the present lot size standards or is not configured to allow for reasonable use that would meet current shoreline setback requirements, may be developed if permitted by other land use regulations of the BMC and so long as such development conforms to all other requirements of the master program and the SMA. In this case, a SMP variance shall be required.
(Ord. 1786 § 1, 2013; Ord. 1924 § 1 (Exh. A), 2022)
A. 
In the event of failure to comply with the plans approved by the city or with any conditions imposed upon the shoreline development permit, the permit shall immediately become void and any continuation of the use activity shall be construed as being in violation of BMC Title 17.
B. 
Any person failing to conform to the terms of a permit issued in accordance with the SMP or who undertakes development on the shorelines of the state without first obtaining any permit required by the SMP shall be subject to a civil penalty as per RCW 90.58.210 and WAC 173-27-280.
(Ord. 1786 § 1, 2013)
This master program shall apply to all lands and waters as defined by RCW 90.58.030 for the city of Burlington including the Skagit River Shoreline District and associated Gages Slough wetland corridor.
The shoreline management zone extends a minimum of 200 feet upland from the line of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Skagit River or 200 feet from the edge of the floodway within the floodplain, whichever is greater. The floodway may be the area established by FEMA maps or by identifying the contiguous land upon which flood waters may be carried during periods of flooding that can occur with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually. These areas prone to flooding have been identified, under normal conditions, by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of vegetative ground cover condition, topography, or other indicators of flooding. As of the date of writing of this shoreline master program, the jurisdictional map shall utilize the waterward top of levee as the edge of the floodway. The actual extent of shoreline jurisdiction will be determined on a case by case basis as needed. The shoreline management zone includes associated wetlands, but not wetland buffers beyond 200 feet of the floodway.
(Ord. 1786 § 1, 2013)
This master program shall apply to every person, individual, firm, partnership, association, organization, corporation, local or state government agency, public or municipal corporation, or other entity which develops, owns, leases or administers lands, wetlands, and waters which fall under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. Nothing in this management program shall be construed as allowing any abridgment of private property rights.
(Ord. 1786 § 1, 2013)
A. 
Direct federal agency activities in or affecting Washington's coastal zone shall be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the most recent federally approved Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. (CZMA) and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
Washington's coastal zone, as established in the state's approved Coastal Zone Management Program, includes the following coastal counties: Whatcom, Skagit, San Juan, Island, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, Mason, Kitsap, Jefferson, Clallam, Grays Harbor, Pacific and Wahkiakum.
The Shoreline Management Act is incorporated into the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program and, thereby, those direct federal agency activities affecting the uses or resources subject to the Act must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable provisions of the Act, regulations adopted pursuant to the Act and the local master program.
When the Department of Ecology receives a consistency determination for an activity proposed by the federal government, it shall request that local government review the proposal and provide the Department of Ecology with its views regarding the consistency of the activity or development project with the enforceable policies of the local master program.
The CZMA federal consistency decision-making process for federal agency activities is prescribed in the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1456 (c)(1) and (2)), in federal regulations at 15 CFR Part 930, Subpart C, and in Washington's most recent federally approved CZM program document.
B. 
Federal agency activities may be required by other federal laws to meet the permitting requirements of chapter 90.58 RCW.
C. 
The policies and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW, including the permit system, shall apply statewide to all nonfederal developments and uses undertaken on federal lands and on lands subject to nonfederal ownership, lease or easement, even though such lands may fall within the external boundaries of a federal ownership.
(Ord. 1786 § 1, 2013)
This program is exempted from the rule of strict construction, and it shall be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which it was enacted. (See also RCW 90.58.900, Liberal Construction.)
(Ord. 1786 § 1, 2013)