HomeMy WebLinkAbout87.Hagen, J. 5-5_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment VII
Michelle McConnell
From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net]
Sent:Wednesday, May 05, 2010 9:11 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment VII
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
To avoid resending them, Comments V and VI were submitted from:
Jim Hagen
Director, Citizens Alliance for Property Rights
Director, Olympic Stewardship foundation
Jefferson County
ARTICLE 6 - General policies and Regulations.
1. Critical Areas, shoreline Buffers, and Ecological Protection.
6.1.A.1.
This policy states "Uses and developments that may cause the future ecological condition to
become worse than the current condition should not be allowed." Though this is a policy it is
supported by regulations (6.1.B.2). Use of the standard "may cause" is totally inconsistent with the
goals of the SMA and highlights how far beyond legal limits this SMP has strayed.
6.1.A.2.iv.
This policy asks for an assessment of the "direct effects of the project and indirect effects."
What are the indirect effects of a project? Though a policy, DCD staff has stated that the policies will
guide code interpretation, so they carry weight. Policies need to be clear and definable.
6.1.A.5.
This policy relates to evaluating development of nonconforming lots. "Should not
substantially impair the view of the adjacent residences." This is a potentially consequential condition
placed on development of nonconforming lots. What is the standard for "substantially impair?" These
vague and arbitrary terms need to be clarified.
6.1.B.1.
Compliance with this regulation is at once the most basic and elusive of the SMP. Review of
inner-department DOE correspondence and correspondence with the County reveals the concept of
No Net Loss remains uncertain even to the DOE. A draft white paper released on March 4, 2010 by
consultants Jim Kramer, Carol MacIlroy, and Margaret Clancy, written with guidance from DOE,
acknowledges that "Even though the SMP update process has been underway for several years, the
path for SMPs to meet the no net loss policy objective is still emerging." This is an astounding
admission considering that NNL is the cornerstone of SMPs and that landowners have been told
under no uncertain terms that the protection standards in the updated SMP are absolutely necessary
for shoreline protection. The fact is, the concept of NNL is still very much in the prototype phase, yet
permit applicants are being subjected to restrictive development standards nonetheless, including
extensive requirements for conditional use permits and even prohibitions of common uses. Taxpaying
citizens deserve fair regulation based on supporting data that clearly identifies a need, especially
1
when regulations are being increased five-fold and many current uses that comply with the law will
suddenly be made nonconforming, which is disfavored by the law.
The Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report cannot possibly be used for establishing
the NNL baseline. And even given more accurate data, how can anyone possibly measure something
as difficult to quantify as no net loss over an entire ecosystem-wide jurisdiction? This invites
subjective interpretation of new data, which will be meaningless anyway because there is not a stable
Minimum Permit Application Requirements 10.3.
starting point. The in are not clear about the
degree of specificity describing pre-development conditions. Lacking this, it is difficult to determine if
net loss will result from the impact of development.
And as the white paper has clearly identified, the task of implementing SMPs has become so
monumental it is beyond the scope of resources local jurisdictions can manage, and is requiring
substantial infusions of money from outside sources. The Jefferson County DCD has been cut down
by a third by the decline in permit revenue, and are left with a skeleton staff to administrate complex
regulations like the Critical Areas Ordinance and now a 200 page SMP. The DCD has now embarked
on the creation on a new department, call the Watershed Stewardship Resource Center, ostensibly to
guide applicants through what DCD director Al Scalf has called the regulatory "maze." This comes at
a cost of $800,000. This begs the question of why our contemporary planning schemes are resulting
in a permit maze in the first place. Isn't that anathema to the purpose of planning? What it also
indicates is the current environmental regulation model is not financially sustainable and local
planning budgets are collapsing under its weight. RCW 90.58.100(1)(e) requires the department and
local governments to the extent feasible shall "utilize all available information regarding hydrology,
geography, topography, ecology, economics, and other pertinent data." This SMP should be include
a cost/benefit analysis and an assessment of the local jurisdiction's ability to implement and
administrate this SMP while meeting state planning goals for permit efficiency. Additionally, a
general economic impact statement needs to be conducted to determine the economic consequences
of this update.
6.1.B.2.
"Uses and developments that cause a net loss of ecological functions and processes shall be
prohibited." Exactly how will it be determined whether a development results in net loss? No net loss
is gauged both on a site-specific project level at the time of application and at a jurisdiction
ecosystem-wide scale over time. The whole point of Shoreline Inventories, Restoration Plans and
Cumulative Impact assessments is to take into account a number of variables influencing long term
success of shoreline protection. RCW 90.58.020 reserves "alterations of the natural conditions of the
shorelines of the State, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single
family residences..." WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) states, "Where uses or development that impact
ecological functions are necessary to achieve other objectives of RCW 90.58.020, master programs
shall, to the greatest extent feasible, protect existing ecological functions and avoid new impact..."
This seems to be a recognition that while some impacts will occur, they can be offset by mitigation or
through restoration programs that offset impacts with net gain in other areas of the jurisdiction. This
regulation is unnecessary except in the most extreme situations, and the language in the regulation
should reflect that (for example, "in the rare instances where mitigation and restoration fails to offset
the impact of a use or development, that development shall not be allowed."). But even that is
unnecessary. 6.1.B.1. says all that needs to be said.
6.1.B.4.
This regulation eliminates the need for excessive requirements for conditional use permits
or prohibition of uses outright. If permit applications can on a case-by-case basis meet the
requirements of mitigation actions then the permit should be granted, period.
Jim Hagen
2
Director, Citizens Alliance for Property Rights
Director, Olympic Stewardship Foundation
Jefferson County
3