HomeMy WebLinkAbout88.Hagen, J. 5-5_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment VIII
Michelle McConnell
From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net]
Sent:Wednesday, May 05, 2010 10:18 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment VIII
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program
ARTICLE 6, cont.
6.1.C. Regulations - Cumulative Impacts.
6.1.C.1.
There is enough vagueness in this regulation that it really reads more like a policy. This also
invites wide interpretation by the administrator. This regulation should specifiy it is intended for
rare instances when extreme circumstances converge so that all mitigating factors
cannot successfully achieve NNL. The County intends on assessing cumulative impacts even where
exempt, preferred uses are concerned, and if upon their determination they conclude net loss might
occur they could deny the permit based on 6.1.B.2. So single-family residences are not in fact
exempt?
Addressing
Measuring cumulative impacts is as inexact as no net loss. WAC 173-26-201(3)(d)(iii)
cumulative impacts in developing master programs.
This section acknowledges "There are
practical limits when evaluating impacts that are prospective and sometimes indirect." It goes on to
describe how "master program policies and regulations should be developed to assure that the
commonly occurring and foreseeable cumulative impacts do not cause a net loss of ecological
functions..." Doesn't the SMP when taken as a whole effectively consider cumualtive impacts for
commonly occurring and preferred impacts such as single-family residentail? Inclusion of this
regulation is another redundancy that adds up to an unnecessary 200 pages.
6.1.C.2.
This regulation requires the applicant to perform the duties the County either cannot or will
not conduct themselves (inadequate FSICR and CIA). How can the applicant possibly determine
whether their proposed development will create negative cumulative adverse impacts? And from what
baseline and projected impacts contained in the FSICR and Cumulative Impact Analysis does the
applicant measure their proposal? The County received a $670,000 grant from DOE, a good chunk of
which went into the FSICR and CIA, and even then haven't established defensible baselines. This
really puts an onerous and subjective burden on the applicant who hasn't been given
$670,000. Assess impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, public access/use, aesthetics, and other
shoreline attributes?! What other attributes? Who decides what is aesthetically valuable?
Cumulative Impact Analysis:
This document, written by ESA Adolfson and Associates, provides
only a general synopsis of potential future development and impacts. It states in 2.1 that Jefferson
County is sparsely populated...and that East Jefferson County has between 1 and 149 residents per
square mile." It states "Jefferson County's shorelines are in relatively good shape compared to more
developed areas of the Puget Sound basin." (DOE shoreline mangers have gone further in
characterizing Jefferson's shorelines as excellent, making it an ideal "pilot project" for the model SMP
update.). In section 5.4 the CIA concedes that "in and of itself, residential development probably does
not have major adverse effects on shoreline resources." Major impacts are associated construction of
1
bulkheads and vegetation removal. "Over time a heavily armored shore can lose its beach because
the sediment sustains the beach is no longer reaching it or is not staying on the beach." In section
5.11, however, the CIA states "a relatively small percentage (less than 10% of the County's
shorelines are armored." And there is no substantive data indicating that percentage will significantly
increase, resulting in cumualtive impacts. Just that when it happens, it's bad. And that's the problem
with the CIA; it addresses general negative influences on the shoreline but not in the context of how
they apply to Jefferson County.
Potential impacts of future development are based simply on "demand for housing, job availability,
and other factors." That's it. No mention of OFM population projections failing to meet even moderate
predictions for growth. There is a mistaken concern for conversion of resource lands to residential
uses without consulting the County Comprehensive Plan, which contain goals and policies making
this conversion practically impossible (NRG 1.0, NRP 1.1, NRG 4.1, NRG 4.6,NRG 10.0, NRP 10.7
and 10.9). Conversion of residential lands to commercial is near impossible by virtue of RCW
36.70A.(5)(d). The CIA conjectures how many lots could be created by subdivision, using a simplistic
formula of dividing existing rural residential zoning densities into their maximum build-out potential,
which ignores strict Compressive Plan criteria for down zoning rural residential lands. The CIA then
concludes, "Overall, the number of existing lots eligible for subdivision based on size and land use
designation is very low; less than one percent in most cases." !!!
The CIA notes that 70% of the shorelines have already been developed. This has occurred using at
best 30 foot setbacks. The assumption of the CIA is that, despite no evidence, development of the
remaining 30% is going to be so exponentially greater than previous historic trends so as to warrant a
five-fold increase in buffers and expansion of the Natural designation to 41%, triggering DOE
oversight and outright prohibition of preferred uses such as bulkheads.
The biggest myth perpetrated by DOE and County officials is that Jefferson County is facing rapid
development pressures. Please explain how our Comprehensive Plan will allow this to happen. Our
big city of Port Hadlock will reach 4,900 people by 2024!
The Cumulative Impact Analysis as written contains no meaningful insight into potential future
cumulative impacts. Combined with the Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, there
isn't enough substantive data on which to establish a NNL baseline and criteria for SEDs. Given
this, how can a citizen be expected to assess the cumulative impacts of their development proposal?
6.1.D - Critical Areas and Shoreline Buffers.
Concerns:
Uniform buffers are in conflict with case law.
?
Nowhere does the RCW. or WAC demand 150 foot buffers. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(B)
?
Critical saltwater habitats
describes management planning that establishes "adequate buffer
zones." Same for wetlands.
It defies credulity to explain how 150 foot buffers are needed whether the use is high intesnity
?
or rural residentail.
With passage of SHB 1653, the new protection standard is no net loss, not "at least equal to"
?
the CAO.
Makes a total of 917 parcels nonconforming, including 447 in Shoreline Residential. (CIA, 5.13,
?
Table 8).
Ignores increased controls on growth achieved through multiple layers and at an ecosystem-
?
wide level. Housing density, limited commercial opportunities, new limits on water allocations,
stormwater and clearing and grading controls,etc. all contribute to offset the potential for
ecological degradation.
2
RCW 90.58.100(1) calls for a systematic interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the
?
integrated use of the natural and social sciences. The 150 foot buffers were based solely on
environmental considerations. That was explicitly stated.
No assessment of the economic impacts were considered despite much expressed concern
?
and the impact of the recession.
Provisions for buffer reduction or averaging are expensive, time consuming, and not nearly as
?
flexible as advertised. The self-proclaimed inefficiency at the DCD "maze" further calls into
question the merits of these options.
Rather than starting with large buffers and including options to reduce them, start with smaller
?
buffers that have proven effective and increase as needed on a case-by-case basis.
Refusal to listen to the public. In a July 17, 2008 e-mail, ESA consultant Margaret Clancy
?
writes to Jeffree Stewart, "I believe we have some work to do if we want to avoid a repeat of
the CAO battles." The CAO battles were over buffers. Short of the Planning Commission
recommendation to reduce buffers to 50 feet in two SEDs, there was no effort to learn from
history. Real on-the-ground environmental conservation is dependent on the acceptance of
regulations as legitimate. The over 200 people who showed up to overwhelmingly protest the
LASMP is a testament to the lack of credibility people have in the SMP.
The Port Townsend SMP allows for 25-35 foot buffers in some areas. When asked why
?
Jefferson can't similarly apply the same buffer widths, the reply was that they conducted their
own Shoreline Inventory that justified those buffers. This points to the arbitrary nature of
Inventories and how they can vary depending on who conducts them.
Commissioner John Austin stated early in the process that the 150 foot buffers
?
weren't changing, indicating that this was pre-determined and that public input was
meaningless.
6.1.E Regulations - Exemptions to Critical areas and Shoreline Buffer Standards.
Despite these
"exemptions," which should be called allowance with conditions, development on the 917 lots made
nonconforming by 150 buffers is subject to restrictive conditions that weren't present when the land
was purchased by its current owners. Growth Management laws have promised predictability in land
use but the landscape of contemporary environmental planning is constantly shifting. Ten conditions
are placed on this "exemption," including limits on building size and mandate to consolidate lots under
common ownership if applicable.
6.1.E.2. Non-conforming lots - Common Line Buffer.
The expansion of this provision to 300 feet
(from the Planning Commission recommendation of 50 feet) is so far as to make it of any value.
Jim Hagen
Director, Citizens Alliance for Property Rights
Director, Olympic Stewardship Foundation
Jefferson County
3