Laserfiche WebLink
considered no less than five separate “pick lists” which identified voluminous “issues” and <br />made material changes to the proposed document(s). (See Jefferson County SMP website for <br />these “pick lists”, incorporated by reference as though fully included here.) A public <br />hearing on the BOCC final proposed SMP, essentially a new proposal by the BOCC, was never <br />held by Jefferson County nor was a recommendation from the Planning agency issued, in further <br />violation of RCW 36.70.030 and WAC 173-26-100. <br /> <br />In sum, since DOE has before it a proposed SMP enactment which was not subject to meaningful <br />public participation and was not properly “adopted” by the local government, it should not <br />proceed with its responsibilities under RCW 90.58.090 until such time as it does. <br /> <br />Further, Jefferson County has never held a public hearing on a proposed SMP which included <br />all the SMP’s required components. <br /> <br />For example, the Integration and Consistency components of the proposed SMP (dated in 2006) <br /> are based on either incomplete or obsolete information which does not reflect current case <br />law, statutory or administrative code provisions. Nor do these documents include <br />consideration of the then pending Pope Resources/Hood Canal Sand and Gravel (Now Thorndyke <br />Resource) marine transportation application (aka “Pit-to-Pier”) in specific non-compliance <br />with the requirements of RCW 90.58.100. The Integration and Consistency Reports are actually <br />based on Jefferson County’s Draft 2000 SMP. (See, Exhibits B and C, Consistency and <br />Integration Reports, Adolphson Associates Inc., 2006, Jefferson County SMP website.) <br /> <br />The Cumulative Impact Analysis (required by DOE’s SMP Grant), in either final draft or final <br />form, was not available for public review when the SMP was “locally approved”. (See, <br />Jefferson County SMP website.) This cumulative impact analysis completely omits discussion of <br />the Thorndyke Resource (formerly Pope Resources/Hood Canal Sand and Gravel) marine <br />transportation application pending at the time of the draft report’s publication (See <br />requirements in RCW 90.58.100), completely omits discussion of non-residential uses permitted <br />as conditional uses in Residential and Conservancy SEDs, and contains factually inaccurate <br />information regarding the then applicable Mineral Resource Land Overlay (MRLO). In fact, none <br />of these documents reflected the accurate content of the SMP as “locally adopted by the BOCC. <br />The state should not proceed with further review of a Jefferson County “locally adopted” SMP <br />until these deficiencies are rectified. When rectified, the DOE should hold a hearing on the <br />complete SMP submission by Jefferson County. <br /> <br />JeffersonCountyhas not complied with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.040 which requires <br />internal consistency between the SMP and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, or with the <br />requirements of WAC 173-26-201(2) (a) for adequate scientific/technical foundation of amended <br />SMP provisions. For example, the proposed SMP proposes to outright ban water dependent uses <br />(industrial piers of a certain type) which are specifically allowed as conditional uses in <br />the JCCP and Unified Development Code (UDC) and specifically identified by RCW 90.58 as <br />priority uses. <br /> <br />Nor has Jefferson County provided a meaningful analysis of the constitutional issues raised <br />by the proposed SMP, particularly in light of recent case law at the state and federal <br />judicial levels. Jefferson County has posited a conclusory, “illustrative only” and on its <br />face “brief and general” analysis which fails to substantively address any of the specific <br />provisions of the proposed SMP that have been challenged in the drafting/review process as <br />having potential constitutional infirmities. Some of the questions answered in the document <br />completely lack legal citation/foundation. For example, individual property restrictions <br />(standard buffer requirements of 150 feet) are applied on a “landscape” basis without <br />consideration of the “nexus and proportionality” requirements of state and federal case law. <br />(Applicable citations omitted.) The various proposed SMP provisions challenged on the basis <br />of their constitutional propriety/legitimacy are established in the record are not <br />exhaustively detailed here, but rather are incorporated by reference from the record (from <br />both the SMP and CAO local adoption processes) as though fully set forth herein. Jefferson <br />2 <br /> <br />