HomeMy WebLinkAbout85.Hagen, J. 5-5_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment V
Michelle McConnell
From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net]
Sent:Wednesday, May 05, 2010 7:28 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment V
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
ARTICLE I:
1. Purpose and Intent.
The goals of the SMP update as stated in this section come from the policy
objectives of the SMA but the actual content of the 200 page document go well beyond what is
required by law. RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 do not mandate 150 foot buffers, designating 41% of
the shoreline Natural, greatly expanding the requirements for conditional use permits for preferred
and common accessory shoreline uses, and creating nonconforming uses out of preferred uses of the
SMA. Application by Jefferson County and DOE of the policy objectives contained in RCW 90.58.020
and WAC 173-26 ignore the unique low-density, low-intensity development characteristics found in
Jefferson.
The Jefferson County update process has been characterized by a clear bias by Jefferson
Department of Community Development staff, ESA Adolfson consultants, and Department of Ecology
staff against the preferred use of single family residential uses. This attitude of favoritism toward
ecological protection can best be summarized by Michelle McConnell's answer to a question from the
Planning Commission on why the Natural designation had been so drastically expanded: "We saw an
opportunity and we took it." WAC 173-26-176(2) recognizes the potential conflict for use of
shorelines. This section further addresses the resolution of that conflict with the following policy
objective; "The act's policy of achieving both shoreline utilization and protection is reflected in the
provision that "permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a
manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the shoreline and environment of
the shoreline area and the public's use of the water." RCW 90.58.020. The wording "insofar as
practical" is clearly intended to recognize the balance of uses that is the hallmark of the SMA.
Despite the fact 70% of Jefferson shoreline parcels have already been developed (Cumulative Impact
Analysis, 4.3) under the existing protection standards in a manner that has minimized resultant
damage to the shoreline environment, the new proposed standards increase the protection standards
five-fold. Pictures can be worth a thousand words. At the DOE public hearing on 4/20/2010, a
presentation by Jeffree Stewart was accompanied by slides that depicted the shoreline environment
in a positive light and development as a clear threat. The example used to depict a home made
nonconforming by the new regulations - a dilapidated cabin on stilts - was particularly prejudiced and
unrepresentative of the normal home that is lovingly cared for by its owners. There are countless
pictures Mr Stewart could have used that provide a much more accurate portrayal of shoreline homes
in Jefferson, and indeed it was reported Mr. Stewart has spent nearly ten years working in our county.
Yet the photographs he used were not only unrepresentative of typical conditions, they weren't even
from Jefferson! This conveys a very clear message from DOE that betrays the SMA goal of a
balanced approach to shoreline use, and this message is directly reflected in the slanted favoritism
toward protection of the environment and excessive conditions placed on human uses of the
shoreline throughout the SMP amendments.
1
2. Applicability.
A.
The requirement for a statement of exemption, even for exempt uses recognized as preferred by
the SMA, subjecting all proposed uses to comply with this Program dilutes the purpose of granting
6.1.A.1.
exemptions. Something is either exempt or it isn't. Many provisions (including ) dictate that
any "Uses and developments that may cause the future ecological to become worse than the current
condition should not be allowed." This and other conditions throughout the LASMP raise the
legitimate possiblity that an exempt use or statement of exemption can in fact be denied.
C.
This section states "classification of a use or development as permitted does not necessarilymean
the use/development is allowed." Again, in the case of exempt uses, this is negates the purpose of
establishing exemptions in the first place.
6. Critical Areas Regulations Adopted by Reference.
(JCC 18.22)
This section invites challenging the section of the CAO that pertain to shoreline activities.
And for that matter that pertain to upland ones, too. Article VI - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas establishes protection standards for streams and marine shorelines. The buffer standards in
18.22.270 set shoreline buffer widths at 150 feet (18.22.270(5). These are applied in a uniform,
generic manner without analysis of site-specific conditions, which would seem to conflict with Isla
Verde, Sims, Nolan, and Dollan. Other elements of this section, including vegetation management,
are similarly uniform and not consistent with recent court findings.
Article VII - Wetlands has a direct consequence on development permits in the shoreline jurisdiction.
This section could also be revisited through petition to the Growth Board. One thing that needs re-
examination is the methodology used in Tables 18.22.330(1), (2), and (3), and to revisit the
classification of rural residential homes as a moderate land-use impact, when it should be a low
impact use. (The DOE wetlands guidance manual, Wetlands in Washington Volume I, describes the
four major environmental disturbances cause by human activity, none of which are applicable in low-
density Jefferson). The science behind the high Wetland Ratings scores for habitat value, which are
the biggest driver to large buffer widths, does not include conditions that mimic Jefferson's low-
density rural residential patterns.
Article V - Geologically Hazardous Areas. The sections on Channel Migration Zones is applicable to
the shoreline jurisdiction. This is already being challenged by Pacific Legal Foundation but it might be
worth including again.
8. Liberal Construction.
Again, this section takes liberties with the intent of the statute. "Liberal
construction means that the interpretation of this document shall not only be based on the actual
words and phrases used in it, but also by taking its deemed or stated purpose into account." Citizens
with legal backgrounds questioned use of the word deem and whether it was too broad and left too
much interpretation of binding development standards in the hands of the administrator, particularly
when the county had already exhibited a bias toward development. It is also worth noting that the
SMP grants the County and DOE liberal construction while exemptions to shoreline permits are
"narrowly construed." (9.2.A.).
2