A. 
Shoreline Administrator.
1. 
The community and economic development (CED) director or his/her designee shall serve as the shoreline administrator, and in the case of a shoreline substantial development permit (SSDP) to grant or deny the permit. The administrator shall administer the shoreline permit and notification systems, and shall be responsible for coordinating the administration of shoreline regulations with zoning enforcement, building permits, and all other regulations regulating land use and development in the city.
2. 
The shoreline administrator shall be familiar with regulatory measures pertaining to shorelines and their use, and, within the limits of his or her authority, shall cooperate in the administration of these measures. Permits issued under the provisions of this shoreline regulation shall be coordinated with other land use and development regulatory measures of the city. The shoreline administrator shall establish procedures that advise all parties seeking building permits or other development authorization of the need to consider possible shoreline applications. It is the intent of the city, consistent with its regulatory obligations, to simplify and facilitate the processing of shoreline substantial development permits.
3. 
The shoreline administrator shall assure that proposed regulatory or administrative actions do not unconstitutionally infringe upon private property rights. Shoreline goals and policies should be pursued through the regulation of development of private property only to an extent that is consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations (where applicable, statutory limitations such as those contained in Chapter 82.02 RCW and RCW 43.21C.060) on the regulation of private property.
4. 
The shoreline administrator shall apply Article VI, Administration and Enforcement, for shoreline critical areas.
B. 
Hearing Examiner.
1. 
The hearing examiner shall have the authority to decide on appeals from administrative decisions issued by the administrator of this SMP.
2. 
The hearing examiner may grant or deny shoreline variances and shoreline conditional use permits, following an open record hearing.
C. 
Planning Commission. The planning commission is vested with the responsibility to review the SMP as part of regular SMP updates required by RCW 90.58.080 as a major element of the city's planning and regulatory program, and make recommendations for amendments thereof to the city council.
D. 
City Council. The city council is vested with authority to:
1. 
Initiate an amendment to this SMP according to the procedures prescribed in WAC 173-26-100.
2. 
Adopt all amendments to this SMP, after consideration of the recommendation of the planning commission. Substantive amendments shall become effective immediately upon adoption by Ecology.
(Ord. 1476 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2012; Ord. 1701 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2019)
A. 
Under the administrative provisions, the shoreline administrator shall have authority to interpret this SMP when such interpretation is clearly consistent with the goals and policies of this SMP and the Act.
B. 
The city shall consult with Ecology if formal written interpretations are developed as a result of a lack of clear guidance in the Act, the SMP guidelines, or this master program to ensure that any are consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173-26 WAC.
(Ord. 1476 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2012)
A. 
A complete application for a shoreline substantial development, shoreline conditional use, or shoreline variance permit shall contain, at a minimum, the information listed in WAC 173-27-180.
B. 
The shoreline administrator may vary or waive these requirements according to administrative application requirements on a case-by-case basis.
C. 
The shoreline administrator may require additional specific information depending on the nature of the proposal and the presence of sensitive ecological features or issues related to compliance with other city requirements, and the provisions of this SMP.
(Ord. 1476 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2012)
A. 
An exemption from the shoreline substantial development permit process is not an exemption from compliance with the SMA or this SMP, or from any other regulatory requirements. All proposed uses, activities, or development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction must conform to the intent and requirements of Chapter 90.58 RCW, the SMA, and this SMP whether or not a permit or other form of authorization is required.
B. 
The city shall exempt from the shoreline substantial development permit requirement the shoreline developments listed in WAC 173-27-040 and RCW 90.58.030(3)(e) (substantial development less than $7,047), RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(xiii) (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990), 90.58.140(9) (governor certification), 90.58.147 (improvements for fish and wildlife habitat or fish passage), 90.58.355 (hazardous substance remedial actions) and 90.58.515 (watershed restoration projects).
C. 
Letters of exemption shall be issued by the city when an exemption applies or when a letter of exemption is required by the provisions of WAC 173-27-050.
D. 
Interpretations of Exemptions.
1. 
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 shoreline substantial development permit process.
2. 
A development or use that is listed as a conditional use pursuant to this SMP, or is an unlisted use, must obtain a shoreline conditional use permit even though the development or use does not require a shoreline substantial development permit. When a development or use is proposed that does not comply with the bulk, dimensional and performance standards of this SMP, such development or use can only be authorized by approval of a shoreline variance.
3. 
The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt from the permit process is on the applicant.
4. 
If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a shoreline substantial development permit is required for the entire proposed development project.
5. 
The city may attach conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the SMA and this SMP. Additionally, nothing shall interfere with each responsible local government's ability to require compliance with all other applicable laws and plans.
(Ord. 1476 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2012; Ord. 1701 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2019)
A. 
A shoreline substantial development permit shall be required for all development of shorelines, unless the proposal is specifically exempted per NBMC § 14.20.660. Shoreline substantial development permits shall be processed with a Type I administrative permit as set forth in NBMC § 20.01.004.
B. 
A shoreline substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with:
1. 
The policies and procedures of the Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW;
2. 
The applicable provisions of Chapter 173-27 WAC; and
3. 
This SMP.
C. 
The city may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the SMA and this SMP.
D. 
Nothing shall interfere with the city's ability to require compliance with all other applicable plans and laws.
(Ord. 1476 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2012)
A. 
Uses specifically classified or set forth in this SMP as conditional uses shall be subject to review and condition by the hearing examiner and by Ecology. Applications for a shoreline conditional use permit shall be processed with a Type II permit as set forth in NBMC § 20.01.004.
B. 
Other uses which are not classified or listed or set forth in this SMP may be authorized as conditional uses provided the applicant can demonstrate consistency with the requirements of this section and the requirements for conditional uses contained in this SMP.
C. 
Uses which are specifically prohibited by this SMP may not be authorized as a conditional use.
D. 
Review Criteria for SCUP. Uses which are classified or set forth in the applicable master program as conditional uses may be authorized; provided, that the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. 
That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the master program;
2. 
That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;
3. 
That the proposed use of the site and design of the project are compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program;
4. 
That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and
5. 
That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
E. 
In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for 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.
F. 
In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the city or Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or to assure consistency of the project with the SMA and this SMP.
G. 
Nothing shall interfere with the city's ability to require compliance with all other applicable plans and laws.
(Ord. 1476 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2012)
A. 
The purpose of a variance is to grant relief to specific bulk or dimensional requirements set forth in this SMP where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of this SMP would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Variances from the use regulations of the SMP are prohibited. Applications for shoreline variance permits shall be processed with a Type II procedure as set forth in NBMC § 20.01.004.
B. 
Review Criteria.
1. 
Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
2. 
Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the OHWM, as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(b), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
a. 
That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the SMP precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property;
b. 
That the hardship described in criterion subsection (B)(2)(a) of this section is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the SMP, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions;
c. 
That the 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 SMP and will not cause adverse impacts on the shoreline environment;
d. 
That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area;
e. 
That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and
f. 
That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
C. 
Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the OHWM, as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
1. 
That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property;
2. 
That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsections (B)(2)(a) through (f) of this section can be met; and
3. 
That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected.
D. 
In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
(Ord. 1476 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2012)
A. 
Each permit for a substantial development, shoreline conditional use or shoreline variance issued by local government shall contain a provision that construction pursuant to the permit shall not begin and is not authorized until 21 days from the date of filing with Ecology, as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130, or until all review proceedings initiated within 21 days from the date of filing of the decision, except as provided in RCW 90.58.140(5)(a) and (b). The "date of filing" for a substantial development permit means that date of the actual receipt by Ecology of the final decision from the city; the applicant shall receive telephone or electronic notice from Ecology that it has received the decision followed by a written communication. With regard to a permit for a shoreline variance or a shoreline conditional use, "date of filing" means the date of transmittal of the written decision from Ecology to the city and the applicant.
B. 
Permits for substantial development, shoreline conditional use, or shoreline variance may be in any form prescribed and used by the city including a combined permit application form. Such forms will be supplied by the city.
C. 
A permit data sheet shall be submitted to Ecology with each shoreline permit. The permit data sheet form shall be consistent with WAC 173-27-990.
(Ord. 1476 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2012; Ord. 1701 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2019)
A. 
After the city's approval of a shoreline conditional use or variance permit, the city shall submit the permit to the department for Ecology's approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Ecology shall render and transmit to the city and the applicant its final decision approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving the permit within 30 days of the date of submittal by the city pursuant to WAC 173-27-110.
B. 
Ecology shall review the complete file submitted by the city on shoreline conditional use or variance permits and any other information submitted or available that is relevant to the application. Ecology shall base its determination to approve, approve with conditions or deny a conditional use permit or variance on consistency with the policy and provisions of the SMA and, except as provided in WAC 173-27-210, the criteria in WAC 173-27-160 and 173-27-170.
C. 
The city shall provide timely notification of Ecology's final decision to those interested persons having requested notification from local government pursuant to WAC 173-27-130.
(Ord. 1476 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2012)
A. 
Appeals of Shoreline Permit Decisions. City of North Bend decisions on shoreline permits may be appealed to the following "bodies" in this sequence:
1. 
North Bend hearings examiner or in accordance with Chapter 20.06 NBMC.
2. 
State Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB) in Tumwater.
3. 
SHB decisions may be appealed to superior court.
4. 
Superior court decisions may be appealed to the Court of Appeals.
5. 
Appeals Court decisions may be appealed to the Washington Supreme Court.
6. 
Appeals to the SHB and courts are governed by RCW 90.58.180 and 43.21B.001, Chapter 34.05 RCW, Part V, and Chapter 461-08 WAC.
B. 
Regarding administrative appeals of shoreline administrator interpretations, see NBMC § 14.20.110 and § 20.06.001.
C. 
All requests for review of any final permit decisions under Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173-27 WAC are governed by the procedures established in RCW 90.58.180 and Chapter 461-08 WAC, the rules of practice and procedure of the shorelines hearings board.
(Ord. 1476 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2012)
A. 
A permit revision is required whenever the applicant proposes substantive changes to the design, terms or conditions of a project from that which is approved in the permit. Changes are substantive if they materially alter the project in a manner that relates to its conformance to the terms and conditions of the permit, the SMP and/or the policies and provisions of Chapter 90.58 RCW. Changes which are not substantive in effect do not require approval of a revision.
B. 
Revisions to permits shall be considered consistent with WAC 173-27-100.
(Ord. 1476 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2012)
A. 
The Act provides for a cooperative program between the city and the Department of Ecology to implement and enforce the provisions of the Act and this SMP. This section provides for a variety of means of enforcement, including civil and criminal penalties, orders to cease and desist, and orders to take corrective action, in accordance with WAC 173-27-270, 173-27-280, 173-27-290, and 173-27-300 and NBMC § 14.20.740. The enforcement means and penalties provided herein are not exclusive and may be taken or imposed in conjunction with, or in addition to, any other civil enforcement actions and civil penalties, injunctive or declaratory relief, criminal prosecution, actions to recover civil or criminal penalties, or any other action or sanction authorized by this section, or any other provision of the North Bend Municipal Code and land use code, or any other provision of state or federal law and regulation.
B. 
The shoreline administrator, with the assistance of the city attorney, shall have authority to commence and prosecute any enforcement action authorized by this section. In determining the appropriate enforcement actions to be commenced and prosecuted, the administrator shall consider the following factors:
1. 
The nature of the violation;
2. 
The extent of damage or potential future risk to the shoreline environment and its ecological functions or to the public health and safety, caused by or resulting from, whether directly or indirectly, the alleged violation;
3. 
The existence of knowledge, intent, or malice on behalf of the violator;
4. 
The economic benefit or advantage that accrued to the violator(s) as a result of the violation; and
5. 
The estimated actions and costs of providing adequate mitigation, restoration, rehabilitation, or enhancement, to repair or minimize any substantial adverse impacts upon the shoreline environment and its ecological functions, or the public health and safety.
C. 
The shoreline administrator may commence and prosecute enforcement action jointly with the Department of Ecology. Pursuant to Chapter 173-27 WAC, the Department of Ecology may initiate and prosecute enforcement action separate from the shoreline administrator.
(Ord. 1476 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2012; Ord. 1701 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2019)
A. 
The city will periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the shoreline master program update at achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions with respect to shoreline permitting and exemptions in order to comply with WAC 173-26-191(2)(a)(iii)(D).
B. 
The shoreline administrator will, to the extent feasible, coordinate with other city departments or restoration partners, as well as adjacent jurisdictions, to assess cumulative effects of shoreline development.
(Ord. 1476 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2012)