HomeMy WebLinkAbout86.Hagen, J. 5-5_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment VI
Michelle McConnell
From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net]
Sent:Wednesday, May 05, 2010 7:52 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment VI
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
To summarize a recurring theme in Article I, the LASMP is inconsistent with the SMA where it
potentially places severe conditions and even outright prohibitions on preferred uses. (90.58.020
allows "Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the State, in those instances when
authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences...").
ARTICLE 2 - DEFINITIONS.
Feeder Bluff.
This definition is so broad it could include virtually every bluff in Jefferson County. This
is significant as some common shoreline uses are prohibited outright where feeder bluffs are present.
What isn't defined are the standards for identifying and classifying feeder bluffs. This is an example of
arbitrary interpretation and discretion by DCD staff and the administrator allowed by the SMP. In
essence this creates a new critical area out of whole cloth.
Channel Migration Zone.
This far surpasses the purpose of a definition and includes language that
is not merely defining but regulatory ("...and includes an Erosion Setback for a 100-year period of
time and a Geotechnical Setback to account for slope retreat to a stable angle of repose."). This
exemplifies the zeal to regulate even within the constraints of defining the terms in the ordinance.
(This reminds me of the 'Charlie Brown' episode when Snoopy scores three goals during the National
Anthem!).
ARTICLE 4 - Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environmental Designations.
4.1.
Absent in this section is a process for contesting the SED assigned to a particular parcel.
4.2.B.1.
This section bases shoreline environmental designations on a Final Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization Report that is overly broad and too general from which to establish a reliable and
measurable No Net Loss baseline. In many instances the FSICR simply describes the general
presence of existing functions ("Piddling Creek supports chum salmon and cutthroat trout and once
supported Coho."). On page three of the introduction to the FSICR there is an acknowledgement that
it is "not intended as as a full evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing SMA shoreline policies or
regulations." Yet this is the source for the NNL baseline (Cumulative Impact Analysis, 1.3). Much of
the information for the FSICR was derived from studies conducted ten years ago, yet the NNL
baseline begins upon adoption. Use of outdated assessment studies makes the baseline retroactive
to the time when the relevant studies were conducted. The FSICR was also dependent on aerial
photographs for some assessments and were used extensively to assign SED's. In at least one case
in Port Ludlow the County relied on outdated photographs to designate a reach Conservancy that had
subsequently been developed into condominiums. This was noticed and changed by the Planning
1
Commission but several other instances of outdated information - pointed out by longtime residents
during public hearings - used to determine SEDs was left to stand.
The FSICR lacks an inventory of existing structures as required by WAC 173-26-201(3)(c). It only
describes general land-use patterns. It is therefore lacking in the ability to assess the relationship
between ecological functions and the degree of human alteration in any meaningful manner. Absent
this crucial corresponding relationship, SEDs cannot be assigned according to the designation criteria
in WAC 173-26-211.
4.2.C.1.
The creation of a new SED, Priority Aquatic, is an unnecessary redundancy in a county that
has extensive and multi-layered environment-related growth management regulations. Creation of
new SED would have been more suited to recognizing Jefferson's extensive low-density rural
residential zoning designations as specifically referenced in WAC 173-26-211(5)(f)(ii)(A).
4.2.3.i.
The purpose statement of the Natural designation excludes the language in WAC 173-26-
211(5)(a)(i) that serves to protect from harm shorelines that "include intact or minimally degraded
shoreline functions intolerant of human use." There has been no demonstration made by the FSICR
or any other supporting studies that show Natural-designated areas are intolerant of human use.
4.2.3.ii.e.
This designation criteria is not contained in the WAC 173-26-211 and is added solely at the
discretion of the County.
WAC 173-26-211(5)(B) includes a policy stating commercial uses should not be allowed in the
Natural designation, yet reach JJJ(?) at the bottom of Discover Bay was so designated despite being
in a commercial zone and including Highway 101.
Designation of 41% of Jefferson County shorelines as Natural is an abuse of the goals and policies of
RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26. This is purely a policy decision by the county, not one founded in the
requirements of the law. The dramatic expansion of this designation places nearly half our shorelines
under conditional permit review by DOE for single-family residences, a preferred and exempt use in
the SMA. This is in conflict with RCW 90.58.100(5) requirements to "insure that strict implementation
of a program will not create unnecessary hardships or thwart the policy enumerated in RCW
90.58.020." Expansive designation of shorelines under Natural also prohibits outright common
accessory uses such as beach stairs and preferred uses such as protective bulkheads (RCW
90.58.100(6) without any opportunity to mitigate perceived harm. The automatic assumption that
these uses will cause harm without mitigating measures betrays the SMA, ignores modern
engineering techniques, and most of all is simply prejudicial.
4.2.4. Conservancy.
Deliberations by the Board of County Commissioners focused on ecological
restoration opportunities in the Conservancy designation despite that not being a criteria.This was
also a primary focus of the Planning Commission in reviewing proposed Conservancy designations.
This is not the focus of WAC 173-26-211(5)(b). Twenty nine percent of the shorelines are designated
Conservancy (Cumulative Impact Analysis, 4.2, Figure 3). Combined with the Natural designation this
constitutes 69% of our shorelines in a County dominated by rural residential zoning.
4.2.4.ii.e.
The criteria, "The shoreline is good candidate for ecological restoration" is not included in
WAC 173-211(5)(b)(iii).
4.2.5. Shoreline Residential.
Rural residential is the predominate land use in Jefferson County, yet
accounts for only 17% of the entire shoreline designation. WAC 173-26-211(5)(f)(ii)(A) offers counties
the opportunity to "establish two or more different 'shoreline environments' to accommodate different
2
shoreline densities or conditions..." This provision was written for a county like Jefferson. The
Planning Commission recommendation for 50 buffers in the Shoreline Residential designations would
have at least helped to alleviate the creation of nonconforming uses but that was rejected by the
Department of Community Development and the BoCC and was strongly discouraged by DOE. There
is no reason to make existing homes nonconforming, especially when their presence to date has not
been proven to contribute to No Net loss over the years it has taken to develop 70% of the shorelines
under 30 setback standards. The law is giving the county a clear path to keep its word when it says
existing development will not really be effected by the new SMP.
4.3. Uses Allowed in Each Shoreline Designation.
The allowed uses in Table 1 contain a
substantial increase over conditional and prohibited uses over the existing code without any clear
demonstration that this is needed to achieve no net loss. Requirements for DOE review of CUPs will
be costly and time consuming. Plus, throughout the process DOE technical advise has advocated for
a very strict and almost fundamentalist approach to restricting shoreline development. (Jeffree
Stewart very inappropriately weighted in during the Planning Commission public comment and
review phase that DOE could not approve the recommendations that included 50 foot buffers. This is
procedural interference to the deference given local jurisdictions to develop shoreline policies that suit
local conditions. WAC 173-26-171(3)(a). Statements like this handcuffed the BoCC from even
considering the 50 foot buffer recommendation). Permit applicants can hardly feel confident
petitioning for permission from the very agency that wrote the restrictions to begin with! These
conditions and prohibitions substantially interfere with constitutional private property rights referenced
in RCW 90.58.020 and WAC 173-26-186(5).
3