Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWORKSHOP re Shoreline Master Program (SMP)Regular Agenda 1 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners Josh Peters, County Administrator FROM: Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney DATE: October 12, 2026 RE: SMP Update Workshop STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Jefferson Board of County Commissioners plans to have a workshop on the status of the pending Shoreline Master Program Update (SMP Update). ANALYSIS: The 5 Steps in the SMP Update Process Jefferson County is working on Step 4 of five steps in the SMP Update adoption process. The five steps in the SMP Update adoption process are discussed below:i Step 1. Draft proposed revisions and engage the public. Step 1 has been completed. Step 2. Plan and conduct joint public comment period with the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). Step 2 has been completed. Step 3. Get initial determination of consistency from Ecology. Regular Agenda 2 Step 3 has been completed. Step 4. Adopt SMP Amendments locally. This is how Ecology describes Step 4: (a) Consider Ecology’s initial determination of consistency, including any required or recommended changes. (b) Make any necessary modifications. Work with your Ecology planner if proposing alternative language to the required changes. (c) Adopt the amendment through ordinance following required local adoption process. A timeline of Jefferson County’s efforts to update the SMP through Steps 1 through 4 is attached as Appendix 1. The work completed so far during Step 4 is also described below. On December 11, 2023, the Board of County Commissioners set a public hearing on the Planning Commission’s recommended SMP Update after a presentation by DCD at an open public meeting. The Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (PAO) was not provided the SMP Update recommended by the Planning Commission until after the Planning Commission presented its recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners and after the public hearing was set on December 11, 2023. Immediately after receipt of the draft SMP Update, the PAO determined there was no adopting ordinance for the SMP Update, Ecology’s requirements for the SMP had not been fulfilled, and there was a lack of compliance with Jefferson County Resolution 17-19 (Regulatory Reform). On January 8, 2024, the Board of County Commissioners opened a public hearing on the Planning Commission’s December 5, 2023, recommendations.ii The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations on the Planning Commission’s recommendations at open public meetings on January 16, 2024, January 22, 2024, February 5, 2024, and February 26, 2024. DCD, the County’s consultant, and the PAO worked together to modify the SMP Update between approximately January 10, 2024, and approximately April 2024,iii when the County’s consultants and DCD staff were re-tasked to begin working on the upcoming 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update, including a 2025 Critical Areas Ordinance Update. This left the PAO to keep working on the SMP Update and to consult with Ecology after April 2024. On August 30, 2024, the PAO wrote to Ecology, explaining the scope of work necessary to provide Ecology with a SMP Update that: Regular Agenda 3 • Satisfies Ecology’s September 30, 2022, Initial Determination of Consistency; • Satisfies the county’s regulatory reform requirements under Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Goals LU-G-14 and ED-6-8, and their related policies, which are implemented by Jefferson County Resolution No. 17-19. • Ensures consistency with relevant RCW or WAC provisions, including checks against:  The SMA procedural requirements for amending an SMP contained in RCW 90.58.090(1) and (2);  The policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the approval criteria of RCW 90.58.090(3), (4) and (5);  The requirements of the applicable Shoreline Master Program Guidelines in WAC 173- 26-171 through 251;  The definitions in WAC 173-22-030, WAC 173-26-020, and WAC 173-27-030; and,  The Public participation—Notice provisions in RCW 36.70A.035(2). Importantly, the PAO’s August 30, 2024, letter advised Ecology that: Jefferson County plans to update the SMP in 2025 or 2026, following an update to the Critical Areas Ordinance as part of the required 2025 periodic update under the Growth Management Act (GMA), so that the reference in the SMP to the Critical Areas Ordinance is correct and up-to-date. An important interface between the SMP and the Critical Areas ordinance is the management of regulator buffers within shoreline jurisdiction. This is what Ecology’s September 2022 Initial Determination of Consistency said about the need to update buffer language: “To better distinguish between shoreline buffers and critical area buffers, revision suggested rephrase for clarity.” Initial Determination of Consistency Attachment 1, Rec-17, at 8. Staff recognized that CAO buffers and SMP buffers must be harmonized. Buffers are a very important mechanism used to protect shorelines in the SMP Update, the SMA, and the SMA implementing regulations in the WAC. Buffers in the SMC Update are particularly complex because of their interface with the Critical Areas Ordinance, chapter 18.22 JCC. The problem is the use of internally conflicting or internally inconsistent language that makes the SMP update more complicated. Regular Agenda 4 Staff took advantage of the looming 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update and its CAO Update component to harmonize the CAO and the SMP. Significant and time-consuming work was done by the Planning Commission, DCD and the PAO on the CAO Update. This included a robust public participation process. The CAO Update was completed when Ordinance No 01- 0309-26 was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on March 9, 2026. One important effect of this harmonization effort was to address Ecology’s comment quoted above. Staff departures from DCD and the PAO affected their ability to work on the Updated SMP and other projects of significant importance to the county at the same time. These projects include, but are not limited to, the Sewer Ordinance and related changes to the Unified Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan Update, and the CAO Update for both DCD and the PAO, as well as various tax initiatives, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe MOU for the Linger Longer Bridge, Floodplain and Salmon Enhancement Project, and litigated cases for the PAO. Staff stayed in contact with Ecology, which made clear in April 2024 that a good Updated SMP was a goal with which they agreed. But Ecology recently has urged Staff to send them the Updated SMP before an anticipated regulatory change in early 2027, so Ecology can review it under the existing standard. The PAO promised it would complete the effort it started in January 2024 by the end of September 2026. The PAO has now completed that effort. The Updated SMP is now in DCD’s hands. The effort undertaken so far is documented in the attached PAO Companion Report for the SMP Update and in the Updated SMP. Step 5. Submit Final SMP Amendment to Ecology for formal action. This step is next. Finishing Step 4 Finishing Step 4 requires five things for a “complete submittal” of the SMP Update to Ecology. First, the SMP Update must satisfy the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) requirements for submission of the SMP Update. The SMP submittal requirements in WAC 173-26-110(2) require “Amended text shall show strikeouts for deleted text and underlining for new text, clearly identifying the proposed changes.” According to Ecology, this is “often called ‘bill format.’” See Ecology Initial Determination of Consistency (September 30, 2022) at 11. Regular Agenda 5 Second, the SMP Update (chapter 18.25 JCC) and the 2025 CAO Update (chapter 18.22 JCC) must be harmonized. Third, the SMP Update must comply with Jefferson County Resolution No. 17-19 on regulatory reform. Resolution No. 17-19 is a joint resolution of the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of Health, titled “Establishing a Joint Program of Regulatory Reform.” Resolution No. 17-19 states: A program of regulatory reform can reduce the inadvertent complexity, inconsistencies and unpredictable permitting paths that exist today, while continuing to protect public health and the environment, assist the county in adapting to climate change, and make it easier, less time consuming and cheaper for applicants to comply and for county staff to administer. The negative cumulative effect of thousands of provisions that does not meet these standards is well-described in Resolution No. 17-19 as follows: A program of regulatory reform can reduce the inadvertent complexity, inconsistencies and unpredictable permitting paths that exist today, while continuing to protect public health and the environment, assist the county in adapting to climate change, and make it easier, less time consuming and cheaper for applicants to comply and for county staff to administer. A more detailed discussion of Resolution No. 17-19 is below. But it is worth noting here that inconsistent use of buffer terminology is a major source of difficulty for readability and enforceability of the SMP Update. Fourth, an adopting ordinance and other changes are needed to satisfy the requirements of chapter 2.55 JCC (Adoption of Ordinances and Resolutions). The SMP submittal requirements in WAC 173-26-110(1) require that for a “complete submittal,” “Documentation (i.e., signed resolution or ordinance) that the proposal has been approved by the local government.” (Emphasis added.) The first four requirements described above are met in the SMP Update provided to DCD on October 9, 2026. Fifth, “The Official Shoreline Map of the 2014 Appendix A will be republished.” Ecology’s Initial Determination of Consistency at 2. This requirement has not yet been met. Regular Agenda 6 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact of this briefing, except for the portion of salaries and benefits of staff and the Board involved in the briefing. RECOMMENDATION: The Board should hold a workshop. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney at Extension 219. REVIEWED BY: Josh Peters, County Administrator Date Appendices: Appendix 1 – Timeline Appendix 2 – August 30, 2024, Letter to Ecology 10/8/2026 Regular Agenda 7 APPENDIX 1 – TIMELINE Step 1. Draft proposed revisions and engage the public. On July 29, 2020, in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(a), Jefferson County developed a public participation program for this periodic review to inform, involve, and encourage participation by interested persons and private entities, tribes, and applicable agencies having interests and responsibilities relating to shorelines. The program was submitted to Ecology. Jefferson County established its SMP Regulatory Reform Task Force on September 14, 2020, to serve as a sounding board for the Board of County Commissioners during the SMP update. The Jefferson County SMP Regulatory Reform Task Force met on September 21, 2020; September 28, 2020; October 5, 2020; October 12, 2020; October 16, 2020; and December 30, 2020, to develop recommendations for the update. DCD made presentations on the SMP update to the Jefferson County Chamber of Commerce on October 16, 2020, and to the Jefferson County Association of Realtors and the Marine Resource Committee on October 29, 2020. Jefferson County began its periodic review of the SMP with the Jefferson County Planning Commission on September 16, 2020, and originally expected to complete the review by June 2021. DCD made a presentation on the update of the SMP to the Jefferson County Builders Developers Roundtable on February 4, 2021. Notice of the subject amendments was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on May 17, 2021, for their 60-day review in accordance with WAC 173-26-100(5). Step 1 completed Step 2. Plan and conduct joint public comment period with the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). A 30-day joint review with the Planning Commission and Ecology was held May 17-June 16, 2021.iv A Jefferson County Planning Commission public hearing was held on June 16, 2021.v After the June 16, 2021, public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated at several open public sessions and made recommendations regarding the SMP Periodic Update in October 2021.vi The Planning Commission made initial recommendations on updating the SMP in October 2021.vii Regular Agenda 8 Jefferson County solicited early public feedback and feedback from Ecology when it submitted a proposed updated SMP to the agency in 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted Ecology’s review, extending a process that was expected to take only a short time to more than a year. Step 2 completed Step 3. Get initial determination of consistency from Ecology. Ecology responded to the proposed SMP on September 30, 2022, in its Initial Determination of Consistency (Initial Determination of Consistency).viii Step 3 completed Step 4. Adopt SMP Amendments locally. This is how Ecology describes Step 4: (a) Consider Ecology’s initial determination of consistency, including any required or recommended changes. (b) Make any necessary modifications. Work with your Ecology planner if proposing alternative language to the required changes. (c) Adopt the amendment through ordinance following required local adoption process. Step 4 begins An SMP update survey was posted on the project’s website from September 2020 to June 2023 and received a total of 97 responses.ix Staffing shortages and the COVID-19 pandemic caused delays in county’s efforts to update the SMP. DCD lost eight employees in just one month in 2022. Jefferson County sought additional grant funding to consider the Initial Determination of Consistency and to complete its SMP periodic update following WAC 173-26-100, which provides a local process for approving and amending Shoreline Master Programs. Ecology provided comments in its Initial Determination of Consistency. Because of staffing shortages, DCD was unable to make much progress on the SMP Update until spring 2023, when Jefferson County secured grant funding to help complete the SMP update process. With that funding, DCD was able to continue working with the Planning Commission until December 5, 2023, when DCD presented the Planning Commission’s recommendations on the proposed SMP Update to the Board of County Commissioners. Regular Agenda 9 Because of continued DCD staffing shortages, the DCD Planning Manager (later DCD Director) was forced to work alone on the SMP Update with a Seattle-based consultant, BERK Consulting, Inc. On June 30, 2023, DCD submitted an SMP update to Ecology to close out Ecology’s grant agreement with Jefferson County, including an SMP Progress Draft, an SMP Periodic Review Checklist, an SMP Ocean Management Checklist, an Initial Determination Matrix, a Project Permit Application Framework, and a Draft Shoreline User Guide. The Planning Commission reviewed Ecology’s September 2022 Initial Determination of Consistency and discussed key issues and potential options at open public meetings on June 7, 2023, June 29, 2023, and August 2, 2023.x On June 22, 2023, DCD produced to the Planning Commission a draft updating the SMP.xi An adopting ordinance was not provided to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was dedicated to the SMP and held an open house and special meeting on June 29, 2023, to view a draft of the Shoreline User Guide and ask questions about the update of the SMP.xii On August 2, 2023, the Planning Commission was updated at an open public meeting on the progress of the project, amendments to chapter 90.58 RCW and the implementing Washington Administrative Code (“WAC”) regulations.xiii On September 18, 2023, a Cumulative Impacts Addendum was published.xiv On September 20, 2023, the Jefferson County SEPA Responsible Official issued a determination of nonsignificance for the update of the SMP.xv On September 20, 2023, notice of public hearing was published for a hearing to be held by the Planning Commission, which invited written public comments and oral testimony at a hearing to be held on October 4, 2023.xvi On October 4, 2023, the Planning Commission held an open public hearing on the proposed SMP update and reviewed written public comments made.xvii On October 18, 2023, November 1, 2023, and November 15, 2023, the Planning Commission deliberated at an open public meeting on the proposed SMP update.xviii On December 5, 2023, DCD presented to the Board of County Commissioners the Planning Commission’s recommendations on the proposed SMP update. xix On December 11, 2023, the Board of County Commissioners set a public hearing on the Planning Commission’s recommendations after a presentation by DCD at an open public meeting. Regular Agenda 10 The PAO was not provided the SMP Update until after the Planning Commission presented its recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners and after the public hearing was set on December 11, 2023. Immediately after receipt, the PAO determined there was no adopting ordinance for the SMP Update, Ecology’s requirements for the SMP had not been fulfilled, and there was a lack of compliance with Jefferson County Resolution 17-19 (Regulatory Reform). On December 27, 2023, the Jefferson County SEPA Responsible Official issued a revised determination of nonsignificance for the update of the SMP.xx On January 8, 2024, the Board of County Commissioners opened a public hearing on the Planning Commission’s December 5, 2023, recommendations.xxi The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners held deliberations on the Planning Commission’s recommendations at open public meetings on January 16, 2024, January 22, 2024, February 5, 2024, and February 26, 2024. DCD, the County’s consultant, and the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (PAO) worked together to modify the SMP Update between approximately January 10, 2024, and approximately April 2024, xxii when the County’s consultants and DCD staff were re-tasked to begin working on the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Update, including an Updated Critical Areas Ordinance. This left the PAO to keep working on the SMP Update and to consult with Ecology after April 2024. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners held deliberations on the Planning Commission’s recommendations at open public meetings on January 16, 2024, January 22, 2024, February 5, 2024, February 26, 2024. Continued review by DCD and the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (PAO) occurred between approximately January 10, 2024, and April 15, 2024. At that time, DCD advised that it had no additional resources to put toward the SMP Update until the third quarter of 2024, at the earliest. The county’s SMP consultants had transitioned from work on the SMP to work on the required 2025 periodic update to the county’s comprehensive plan and development regulations, which requires a significant level of effort. But the PAO kept working on the SMP Update. And the PAO essentially became the liaison with Ecology. Additional consultations between Ecology and the PAO occurred between approximately April 2024 and December 17, 2024. On August 30, 2024, the PAO sent Ecology a detailed letter describing the process, attached as Appendix B. On August 30, 2024, the PAO wrote to Ecology, explaining the scope of work necessary to provide Ecology with a SMP Update that: Regular Agenda 11 • Satisfies Ecology’s September 30, 2022, Initial Determination of Consistency; • Satisfies the county’s regulatory reform requirements under Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Goals LU-G-14 and ED-6-8, and their related policies, which are implemented by Jefferson County Resolution No. 17-19. • Ensures consistency with relevant RCW or WAC provisions, including checks against:  The SMA procedural requirements for amending an SMP contained in RCW 90.58.090(1) and (2);  The policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the approval criteria of RCW 90.58.090(3), (4) and (5);  The requirements of the applicable Shoreline Master Program Guidelines in WAC 173- 26-171 through 251;  The definitions in WAC 173-22-030, WAC 173-26-020, and WAC 173-27-030; and,  The Public participation—Notice provisions in RCW 36.70A.035(2). Importantly, the PAO’s August 30, 2024, letter advised Ecology that: Jefferson County plans to update the SMP in 2025 or 2026, following an update to the Critical Areas Ordinance as part of the required 2025 periodic update under the Growth Management Act (GMA), so that the reference in the SMP to the Critical Areas Ordinance is correct and up-to-date. An important interface between the SMP and the Critical Areas ordinance is the management of regulator buffers within shoreline jurisdiction. This is what Ecology’s September 2022 Initial Determination of Consistency said about the need to update buffer language: “To better distinguish between shoreline buffers and critical area buffers, revision suggested rephrase for clarity.” Initial Determination of Consistency Attachment 1, Rec-17, at 8. Staff recognized that CAO buffers and SMP buffers must be harmonized. Buffers are a very important mechanism used to protect shorelines in the SMP Update, the SMA, and the SMA implementing regulations in the WAC. Buffers in the SMC Update are particularly complex because of their interface with the Critical Areas Ordinance, chapter 18.22 JCC. The problem is the use of internally conflicting or internally inconsistent language that makes the SMP update more complicated. Staff took advantage of the looming 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update and its CAO Update component to harmonize the CAO and the SMP. Significant and time-consuming work was Regular Agenda 12 done by the Planning Commission, DCD and the PAO on the CAO Update. This included a robust public participation process. The CAO Update was completed when Ordinance No 01- 0309-26 was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on March 9, 2026. One important effect of this harmonization effort was to address Ecology’s comment quoted above. Staff departures from DCD and the PAO affected their ability to work on the Updated SMP and other projects of significant importance to the county at the same time. These projects include, but are not limited to, the Sewer Ordinance and related changes to the Unified Development Code, the 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update, and the CAO Update for both DCD and the PAO, as well as various tax initiatives, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe MOU for the Linger Longer Bridge, Floodplain and Salmon Enhancement Project, and litigated cases for the PAO. On October 9, 2026, the PAO completed the effort it started in January 2024 and placed the Updated SMP in DCD’s hands. The PAO’s efforts are documented in this PAO Companion Report for the SMP Update, including the timeline in Appendix 1 and the Updated SMP in Appendix C. Step 4 continues Step 5. Submit Final SMP Amendment to Ecology for formal action. The County remains in Step 4 pending completion of the local adoption process. After local adoption is complete, the County will proceed to Step 5 and submit the final SMP amendment to Ecology for formal action. i See Ecology, Using the optional joint review process for amending Shoreline Master Programs per WAC 173- 26-104 (August 2019), https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ezshare/sea/ShorelinePlannerToolbox/2019/Joint-Review- Guidance_8-19.pdf, Accessed October 4, 2026. ii https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-Master-Program-Periodic-Review, Accessed April 16, 2024. iii https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-Master-Program-Periodic-Review, Accessed April 16, 2024. iv https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/17503/2023-12-07-Staff-Report-to-BoCC-re- SMP?bidId=, Accessed April 16, 2024. v https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/17503/2023-12-07-Staff-Report-to-BoCC-re- SMP?bidId=, Accessed April 16, 2024. Regular Agenda 13 vi https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/17503/2023-12-07-Staff-Report-to-BoCC-re- SMP?bidId=, Accessed April 16, 2024. vii https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExternal/DocView.aspx?id=4768018&dbid=0&repo=Jefferson, Accessed on April 16, 2024. viii https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-Master-Program-Periodic-Review, Accessed April 16, 2024. ix https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-Master-Program-Periodic-Review, Accessed April 16, 2024. x https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/17503/2023-12-07-Staff-Report-to-BoCC-re- SMP?bidId=, Accessed April 16, 2024. xi https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExternal/DocView.aspx?id=4780546&dbid=0&repo=Jefferson, Accessed on April 16, 2024. xii https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-Master-Program-Periodic-Review, Accessed April 16, 2024. xiii https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-Master-Program-Periodic-Review, Accessed April 16, 2024. xiv https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/17126/E_Draft-Jefferson-County-CIA-Addendum- 91823?bidId=, Accessed April 16, 2024. xv https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/17640/2023-12-27-Revised-DNS---Jeff-Co- SMP?bidId=, Accessed April 16, 2024. xvi https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-Master-Program-Periodic-Review, Accessed April 16, 2024. xvii https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-Master-Program-Periodic-Review, Accessed April 16, 2024, and https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExternal/DocView.aspx?id=4875042&dbid=0&repo=Jefferson, Accessed on April 16, 2024. xviii https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-Master-Program-Periodic-Review, Accessed April 16, 2024. xix https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/17498/2023-12-05-PC-recommendation-letter-re-SMP- periodic-review?bidId=, Accessed April 16, 2024. xx https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/17640/2023-12-27-Revised-DNS---Jeff-Co- SMP?bidId=, Accessed April 16, 2024. xxi https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-Master-Program-Periodic-Review, Accessed April 16, 2024. xxii https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-Master-Program-Periodic-Review, Accessed April 16, 2024. APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2 JAMES M. KENNEDY Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Christopher R. Ashcraft, Chief Criminal Deputy Prosecutor Anna K. Phillips, Deputy Prosecutor Barbara Dykes Ehrlichman, Civil Deputy Prosecutor Melissa Pleimann, Deputy Prosecutor Holly McKeen, Deputy Prosecutor Jim Funaro, Victim Services Lysa Phillis, Child Support Enforcement Officer Jefferson County Prosecutor’s Office 1820 Jefferson Street Post Office Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: (360) 385-9180 Fax: (360) 385-9186 www.co.jefferson.wa.us/prosecutor August 30, 2024 VIA EMAIL ONLY Maria Sandercock Section Manager, Southwest Region Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program WA Department of Ecology Email: maria.sandercock@ecy.wa.gov Re: Jefferson County SMP Update Progress Dear Maria: I am writing to advise Ecology of Jefferson County’s progress to complete our required Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) periodic update. While substantial progress has been made, our current expectation is that it probably will take an additional two to three more months to complete the process. This effort will include:  Completion of the review undertaken by the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.  Notice of hearing to restart deliberations by the Board of County Commissioners to ensure consistency with RCW 36.70A.035(2).  Continued deliberations by the Board of County Commissioners with additional public comment to ensure consistency with RCW 36.70A.035(2).  Delivery to Ecology of the final adopted ordinance with a line-in-line out version with numbered lines, accompanied by a chart explaining the reason for each change by numbered line. The Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (PAO) has expended significant effort to make substantial progress. Since April: August 30, 2024 Letter to Maria Sandercock Page 2 1. The PAO created an adopting ordinance. 2. The PAO has undertaken additional efforts to satisfy Ecology’s September 30, 2022 Initial Determination of Consistency. 3. The PAO has undertaken further efforts to satisfy the county’s regulatory reform requirement. The effort undertaken by the PAO so far involves an intense word-for-word scrutiny to satisfy the requirements of Ecology’s September 30, 2022 Initial Determination of Consistency and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to regulatory reform, Goal LU- G-14 and Goal ED-6-8 (and their policies), which are implemented by Jefferson County Resolution No. 17-19. In addition, the PAO has been reviewing for consistency with relevant RCW or WAC provisions. Primarily, this involves consistency checks against:  The SMA procedural requirements for amending an SMP contained in RCW 90.58.090(1) and (2);  The policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the approval criteria of RCW 90.58.090(3), (4) and (5);  The requirements of the applicable Shoreline Master Program Guidelines in WAC 173- 26-171 through 251.  The definitions in WAC 173-22-030, WAC 173-26-020, and WAC 173-27-030; and,  The Public participation—Notice provisions in RCW 36.70A.035(2). Jefferson County plans to update the SMP in 2025 or 2026, following an update to the Critical Areas Ordinance as part of the required 2025 periodic update under the Growth Management Act (GMA), so that the reference in the SMP to the Critical Areas Ordinance is correct and up-to-date. An important interface between the SMP and the Critical Areas ordinance is the management of regulator buffers within shoreline jurisdiction. As discussed below, Ecology thought the buffer language in the draft update was unclear. The proposed revisions in the revised SMP periodic update should make the coming harmonization easier. But without making these changes now, the SMP will remain more confusing than necessary until the harmonization is complete. The PAO has completed its efforts on harmonizing buffer language. The Initial Determination of Consistency said, “The document will also benefit from a more unified approach to showing changes proposed by a single author.” Initial Determination of Consistency (September 30, 2022), at 11. The PAO has been reviewing the draft SMP ordinance using the “single author” approach. Initially, that single author was Barbara Ehrlichman. When Ms. Ehrlichman left the PAO in May 2024, I became the “single author.” Before she left, Ms. Ehrlichman had been working on this SMP periodic update as her primary responsibility. Given my other responsibilities, it is not possible for me to work as the speed Ms. Ehrlichman could. Nevertheless, this effort is a top priority for me. Collectively, the effort by the PAO has been a August 30, 2024 Letter to Maria Sandercock Page 3 significant drain on resources of our office, and it has taken longer than we hoped. Below is a description of the level of effort. 1. The PAO created an adopting ordinance. An adopting ordinance always has been required for all Jefferson County ordinances. The 2014 SMP had a detailed adopting ordinance that was 51 pages long. See Ordinance No. 07-1216-13. The requirement of an adopting ordinance recently was codified into an ordinance, Ordinance No. 02-528-24. An adopting ordinance provides essential information such as was due process followed, what are the factual bases for the ordinance, when the ordinance is effective, and does the ordinance comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This essential information provides the basis for any successful defense of an appeal of the SMP periodic update at the Shorelines Hearings Board or in court. A good adopting ordinance discourages appeals because it demonstrates that the work done to develop the SMP periodic update was solid. Avoiding or at least limiting an appeal saves State and Jefferson County resources. Finally, an appeal of the SMP periodic update creates uncertainty that can last for years. Uncertainty discourages development and compliance—because no one knows what the rules will be. 2. The PAO has undertaken additional efforts to satisfy Ecology’s September 30, 2022 Initial Determination of Consistency. We are working to satisfy the following comments from Ecology. a. “Bill Format” required for the Final SMP. Ecology had the following comments on the bill format requirement in the draft SMP submitted to Ecology for the Initial Determination of Consistency Review: Bill Format – The SMP Submittal Requirements at WAC 173-26-110(2) require amended text be shown in strikethrough/underline, often called ‘bill format’. Throughout the Draft SMP, many revisions appear to show iterative edits to earlier draft language so that text is presented in both underline and strikethrough, and edits/comments by four different county authors are displayed in different colors. For consistency with WAC and for transparency of the amendment process, the final submittal SMP must ensure that only the changes proposed to the current 2014 SMP are shown in strikethrough/underline. The document will also benefit from a more unified approach to showing changes proposed by a single author. Per local discretion, the county may opt to keep separate documentation showing the iterative progression of all proposed changes. Initial Determination of Consistency (September 30, 2022), at 11 (emphasis added). August 30, 2024 Letter to Maria Sandercock Page 4 b. Final Document Polish. Ecology had the following comments on the need for polishing the draft SMP submitted to Ecology for the Initial Determination of Consistency Review Final Document Polish - The Periodic Review Checklist is a required companion to the Draft SMP Amendments, and needs to keep pace to accurately reflect the proposed amendments. All proposed changes to the current 2014 SMP need to be reflected in the Periodic Review Checklist for transparency of the amendment process. Ecology encourages the county to further refine and improve the final submittal documentation. Comment bubble explanation/rationale in the draft SMP is better relocated to the PR Checklist or to staff reports referenced in the PR Checklist. Initial Determination of Consistency at page 11. c. Definitions and Terms Used. Ecology had the following comments on the definitions in the draft SMP submitted to Ecology for the Initial Determination of Consistency Review: “Ecology supports county’s effort to clarify when a shared dock/pier/float can or must occur, including addition of the ‘2 or more new dwellings’ requirement consistent with WAC 173-26- 231(3)(b). Related .100 Definition issues noted above carry through to the regulatory provisions. As proposed, the language is confusing and needs further improvement for clarity, to avoid internal conflict and aid implementation.” Initial Determination of Consistency Attachment 1, Rec-26, at 11. (Emphasis added.) The PAO agrees. Tackling definition and term inconsistency has been the major effort of the PAO so far. “Make nouns ‘dock/pier/float’ all singular not plural for internal consistency.” Initial Determination of Consistency Attachment 1, Rec-2, at 1. The PAO agrees that the singular form is better for internal consistency. This has been part of the PAO’s efforts. “Terms ‘properties’, ‘lots/parcels’ and ‘dwelling units’ seem to be interchangeable but the variety of terms is confusing, whereas unified phrasing clarifies and provides internal consistency.” Initial Determination of Consistency Attachment 1, Rec-2, at 1. The PAO agrees that elimination “interchangeable” terms should be goal of this review. The draft SMP periodic update contained slashes (/) throughout the document. The PAO has eliminated the use of slashes (/). d. Inconsistency in Buffer Language. Buffers are an important way the SMP protects shorelines. The PAO undertook the elimination of all inconsistencies in buffer language. This is what Ecology’s September 2022 Initial Determination of Consistency said about the need to update buffer language: “To better distinguish between shoreline buffers and critical area buffers, revision suggested rephrase for clarity.” Initial Determination of Consistency Attachment 1, Rec-17, at 8. August 30, 2024 Letter to Maria Sandercock Page 5 Buffers are a very important mechanism used to protect shorelines in the SMP, the SMA, and the SMA implementing regulations in the WAC. Buffers in the SMP are particularly complex because of their interface with the Critical Areas Ordinance, chapter 18.22 JCC. The SMP periodic update has a section on this interface in JCC 18.25.270. The county plans to update the SMP again shortly after it updates the Critical Areas Ordinance in 2025, so they are in greater harmony. The problem is the use of internally conflicting or internally inconsistent language that makes the SMP periodic update more complicated. Ecology thought the buffer language in the 2021 draft periodic update was unclear. The proposed revisions in the revised SMP periodic update should make the coming harmonization easier. But without making these changes now, the SMP will remain more confusing than necessary until the harmonization is complete. Per GMA, the deadline for Jefferson County to complete its 2025 Periodic Review, including an update to the Critical Areas Ordinance, is December 31, 2025. The more the SMP periodic update uses internally conflicting or internally inconsistent language about buffers, the harder it will be to understand, implement, and enforce. Consider the confusion created in the prior versions of the SMP periodic update when discussing buffers: i. “Buffer.” The starting point is that “Buffer” is the defined term. ii. “Buffer area.” Instead of using the defined term (“buffer”) the prior draft of the SMP periodic update sometimes uses “buffer area,” which is undefined. The defined term “buffer” already is an area, so the reader is left to wonder whether “buffer area” means something different. iii. “CASP buffer.” Sometimes, the prior draft of the SMP periodic update uses the undefined term “CASP buffer,” without explanation of what that means. The SMP periodic update has been revised so the reader will understand what that means, while using the defined term “buffer.” iv. “Common line buffer.” Sometimes, the prior draft of the SMP periodic update uses the undefined term “common line buffer,” without explanation of what that means. The SMP periodic update has been revised so the reader will understand what that means, while using the defined term “buffer.” v. “Critical area buffer.” Sometimes, the prior draft of the SMP periodic update uses the undefined term “critical area buffer,” without any explanation of what that means. The reader might understand the term relates to buffers described in the Critical Areas Ordinance, chapter 18.22 JCC. But there is no express connection to chapter 18.22 JCC. The SMP periodic update has been revised so the reader will understand what that means, while using the defined term “buffer.” vi. “Shoreline buffer.” (No definition). The prior draft of the SMP periodic update also uses the undefined term “shoreline buffer,” without any explanation of what that August 30, 2024 Letter to Maria Sandercock Page 6 means. The SMP periodic update has been revised so the reader will understand what that means, while using the defined term “buffer.” vii. “Standard buffer.” (JCC 18.25.270(4)(e)—Section on Standard Buffers). JCC 18.25.270(4)(e) is an important section in the SMP, describing a buffer standard from which a modification is possible if certain requirements are meet. “Standard buffer” is a term used many times in the SMP periodic update, including before JCC 18.25.270(4)(e). A separate definition referring to the section where it is described has been added to help navigate the SMP periodic update. viii. “Standard shoreline buffer.” The prior draft of the SMP periodic update also uses the undefined term “shoreline buffer,” without any explanation of what that means. The SMP periodic update has been revised so the reader will understand what that means, while using the defined term “buffer.” ix. Buffer terms are sometimes capitalized in the text of the prior SMP periodic update, sometimes not. As discussed above, the PAO has completed its efforts on harmonizing buffer language. 3. Satisfaction of the Jefferson County Regulatory Reform Requirement. The PAO has undertaken further efforts to satisfy the county’s regulatory reform requirement. Most of the comments in Ecology’s Initial Determination of Consistency parallel the Jefferson County regulatory reform requirement. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners and the Jefferson County Board of Health implemented the 2018 Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, when they adopted Jefferson County Resolution No. 17-19 on regulatory reform in 2019. Earlier drafts of the SMP periodic update did a good job of addressing new requirements in the law, after consultation with Ecology. But they did not tackle a comprehensive effort to eliminate inconsistency. Consistency is a key to having a good ordinance. With every use of imprecise, inaccurate, or confusing language:  The ability to comprehend an ordinance is diminished;  The ability to enforce an ordinance is diminished; and,  Government transparency and trust is diminished. Many of the terms in the prior draft of the SMP periodic update are left over from prior versions of the SMP and need to be modified to comply with the regulatory reform mandate in Resolution No. 17-19. August 30, 2024 Letter to Maria Sandercock Page 7 a. The 2018 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Related to Regulatory Reform. In December 2018, Jefferson County updated its Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted after an extensive public participation process, including public outreach and public hearings. The Comprehensive Plan has specific goals and polices related to regulatory reform, Goal LU-G-14 and its policies and Goal ED-6-8. LU-G-14 says: Goal LU-G-14 Ensure responsive, fair, and efficient permit processing. ►Policy LU-P-14.1 Develop and maintain implementing regulations and internal policies that ensure that development applications are processed in a timely, fair, and predictable manner. ►Policy LU-P-14.2 Ensure that permit review and requests for additional information are fair, consistent and balanced with the needs of the applicant and the public interest at large. ►Policy LU-P-14.3 Implement and maintain a land use and building permit enforcement program that encourages voluntary compliance as the first course of action, but is protective of the community’s life, safety, and environmental health. Similarly, Goal ED-6-8 says: Goal ED-G-8 Ensure responsive, fair, and efficient permit processing. ►Policy ED-P-8.1 Develop and maintain implementing regulations and internal policies that ensure that development applications are processed in a timely, fair, and predictable manner. ►Policy ED-P-8.2 Ensure that permit review and requests for additional information are fair, consistent and balanced with the needs of the applicant and the public interest at large. These goals and policies require Jefferson County regulations that are: i. Internally consistent; ii. Consistent with county ordinances (Jefferson County Code, abbreviated as JCC), state statutes (Revised Code of Washington, abbreviated as RCW), state regulations (Washington Administrative Code, abbreviated as WAC), federal statutes (U.S. Code, abbreviated as U.S.C), and federal regulations (Code of Federal Regulations, abbreviated as CFR); and, iii. Are easy to understand, comply with and enforce, to the fullest extent possible. b. Jefferson County’s Joint Board of county Commissioners and Board of Health Resolution No. 17-19, a joint resolution “Establishing a Joint Program of Regulatory Reform.” August 30, 2024 Letter to Maria Sandercock Page 8 On March 20, 2019, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners and the Jefferson County Board of Health implemented these Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, when they adopted Jefferson County Resolution No. 17-19, a joint resolution “Establishing a Joint Program of Regulatory Reform.” Resolution No. 17-19 states: “A program of regulatory reform can reduce the inadvertent complexity, inconsistencies and unpredictable permitting paths that exist today, while continuing to protect public health and the environment, assist the county in adapting to climate change, and make it easier, less time consuming and cheaper for applicants to comply and for county staff to administer.” Resolution No. 17-19 also makes clear the stakes of regulatory reform: “Streamlining regulations and permit review procedures supports job creation and wage growth, economic development, affordable housing, environmental protection and the public’s health related to Environmental Public Health, all of which are contributing factors to lifting citizens out of poverty, supporting public services, and promoting social equity in Jefferson County.” i. Consistency with relevant RCW or WAC Provisions Is Required Resolution No. 17- 19. State law preempts an ordinance if the ordinance irreconcilably conflicts with the statute. Cannabis Action Coal. v. City of Kent, 183 Wn.2d 219, 227, 351 P.3d 151, 155 (2015). The conflict must be direct and irreconcilable with the statute, and the ordinance must yield to state law if the two cannot be harmonized. If the ordinance and statute can be harmonized, then the statute should not be construed as restricting a municipality’s power. City of Tacoma v. Luvene, 118 Wn.2d 826, 835, 827 P.2d 1374, 1379 (1992). Where the SMP periodic update cannot be reconciled with the RCW and the WAC, the provision in the SMP periodic update will be preempted and compliance only with state law will be required. Thus, it is important to have provisions in the SMP periodic update that are in full harmony with the applicable RCW and WAC provisions. Otherwise, applicants, staff and other persons trying to interpret the SMP periodic update face greater difficulty. This type of difficulty is what the regulatory reform mandate in Jefferson County Resolution No. 17-19 sought to eliminate. ii. Eliminating the Cumulative Effect of Imprecise, Inaccurate or Confusing Language in the SMP Periodic Update Is Required by Resolution No. 17-19. The cumulative effect of drafted legislation that does not meet the goals and policies stated in Resolution No. 17-19, especially when the legislation is long and complex (like the SMP periodic update). The negative cumulative effect of thousands provisions that does not meet these standards is well-described in Resolution No. 17-19 as follows: “A program of regulatory reform can reduce the inadvertent complexity, inconsistencies and unpredictable permitting paths that exist today, while continuing to protect public health and the environment, assist the county in adapting to climate change, and make it easier, less time consuming and cheaper for applicants to comply and for county staff to administer.” August 30, 2024 Letter to Maria Sandercock Page 9 c. Examples of imprecise, inaccurate or confusing language in the prior drafts of the SMP Periodic follow: i. Definitions in the SMP periodic update with no corresponding use of the term in the body of the SMP periodic update: A. “Advertising.” B. “Commercial sign.” C. “Sign, commercial or industrial.” Note: Table 18.25.220-Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Shoreline Environment Designation has limits for “signs” in shoreline uses. But Table 18.25.220 makes no distinction between types of signs, including whether the signs are commercial or industrial. ii. Using multiple defined definitions. Prior drafts of the SMP periodic update had a defined term, “adverse impact or effect,” that was not used in the prior draft of the SMP periodic update. “Adverse impact” and “adverse effect” were both used separately in prior drafts of the SMP periodic update. “Impact” was deleted from the definition and “adverse impact” was changed to “adverse effect” to simplify the SMP periodic update. iii. Using an incorrect term. Prior drafts of the SMP periodic update frequently used both “county administrator” and “administrator.” Any reference to “county administrator” is incorrect. The county administrator is not mentioned in either JCC 18.25.610 or JCC 18.40.030 as having any decision making authority under Title 18 JCC or the SMP. JCC 18.25.610 makes clear that the “administrator” of the SMP is the Department of Community Development (DCD) director or their designee. The “administrator” of Title 18 JCC, the Unified Development Code, is the DCD director or their designee. See JCC 18.10.010 (“‘Administrator’ means the Jefferson County department of community development director or a designated representative.”) and JCC 18.40.030. iv. Using an imprecise term. “Applicant” vs. “proponent” or “applicant/proponent.” “Project proponents are responsible for complying with all applicable laws prior to commencing any use, development or activity.” vs. “The applicant shall comply with all applicable laws prior to commencing any use, development or activity.” v. Using multiple undefined terms, when there already is a defined term: “Comprehensive Plan.” The defined term is “Comprehensive Plan.” But frequently the term “Jefferson County comprehensive plan” was used instead. Consistent use of terms is important for clarity. Elimination of “Jefferson County” when “Comprehensive August 30, 2024 Letter to Maria Sandercock Page 10 Plan” is used has the added advantage of reducing the number of words and thereby increasing reading comprehension. vi. Using or not using abbreviations. Abbreviations of commonly used terms can help shorten a document. But little is gained by using an abbreviation, when the full term is also used—that has the opposite effect—it increases the length of the document. A. “GMA.” “GMA” is an abbreviation made part of the definition of Growth Management Act, used throughout the SMP periodic update. If the abbreviation is going to be used, it should be used consistently, throughout the SMP periodic update. B. “SMA.” “SMA” is an abbreviation made part of the definition of Shoreline Management Act, used throughout the SMP periodic update. If the abbreviation is going to be used, it should be used consistently, throughout the SMP periodic update. C. “SMP.” “SMP” is an abbreviation made part of the definition of Shoreline Master Program. But the prior draft of the SMP periodic update used three different abbreviations for the Shoreline Master Program: “master program,” “program” and “SMP.” Picking one abbreviation for the SMP periodic update adds clarity and should improve the ability to understand and comply with the requirements in the Shoreline Management Act and its implementing WAC. Jefferson County Resolution No. 17-19. “The SMP update” was selected because it is the way the Jefferson County Code refers to its chapters. D. Inaccurate use of slashes (/). In prior drafts of the SMP periodic update, slash (/) has been used to mean both “and” and “or.” When used in a list of items, slash means “or.” Slashes (/) have been replaced with an “and,” an “or,” or a comma, depending of the context. vii. Different capitalization use for the same word (Chapter vs. chapter). 4. Next Steps. a. Completion of PAO Review. b. Notice of hearing to restart deliberations by the Board of County Commissioners to ensure consistency with RCW 36.70A.035(2). c. Continued deliberations by the Board of County Commissioners with additional public comment to ensure consistency with RCW 36.70A.035(2). d. Delivery to Ecology of the final adopted ordinance with a line-in-line out version with numbered lines, accompanied by a chart explaining the reason for each change by numbered line. August 30, 2024 Letter to Maria Sandercock Page 11 5. Conclusion. We appreciate your willingness to work with us to address the needed changes to the SMP periodic update. Respectfully, Philip C. Hunsucker Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney cc: Michelle McConnell, Ecology Shoreline Planner (micm461@ECY.WA.GOV) Josh Peters, Jefferson County Community Development Director (jpeters@co.jefferson.wa.us) JEFFERSON COUNTY Shoreline Master Program Update October 12, 2026 BoCC Workshop Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Ecology's 5 Steps for an SMP Update BoCC Workshop, October 12, 2026 02 There are five steps to the SMP Update process: See Ecology, Using the optional joint review process for amending Shoreline Master Programs per WAC 173-26-104 (August 2019), https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ezshare/sea/ShorelinePlannerToolbox/2019/Joint-Review-Guidance_8- 19.pdf, Accessed October 4, 2026. Step 1. Draft proposed revisions and engage the public. Step 2. Plan and conduct joint public comment period with the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). Step 3. Get initial determination of consistency from Ecology. Step 4. Adopt SMP Amendments locally. Step 5. Submit Final SMP Amendment to Ecology for formal action. This how Ecology describes Step 4: BoCC Workshop, October 12, 2026 03 1 Consider Ecology’s determination Review required and recommended changes in the initial determination of consistency. 2 Make necessary modifications Work with the Ecology planner on any alternative language to required changes. 3 Adopt through ordinance Follow the required local adoption process. See Ecology, Using the optional joint review process for amending Shoreline Master Programs per WAC 173-26-104 (August 2019), https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ezshare/sea/ShorelinePlannerToolbox/2019/Joint-Review-Guidance_8- 19.pdf, Accessed October 4, 2026. Jefferson County is working on Step 4 BoCC Workshop, October 12, 2026 04 1 Draft revisions and engage the public Completed 2 Conduct a joint public comment period with Ecology Completed 3 Obtain Ecology’s initial determination of consistency Completed STEP 4 Local adoption of SMP amendments STEPS: Recent history of the local review BoCC Workshop, October 12, 2026 05 DEC 11, 2023 BoCC set a public hearing DCD presented at an open public meeting. PAO received the draft afterward. JAN 8, 2024 BoCC opened the public hearing The hearing addressed the Planning Commission’s December 5, 2023 recommendations. JAN–FEB 2024 BoCC deliberated in open meetings January 16 and 22, February 5 and 26. JAN–APR 2024 DCD, consultants and PAO revised the draft After staff and consultants shifted to the Comprehensive Plan, PAO continued with Ecology. PAO’s scope of review BoCC Workshop, October 12, 2026 06 April 30, 2024 letter to Ecology Core requirements Satisfy Ecology’s September 30, 2022 initial determination. Meet County regulatory reform requirements. Legal consistency checks SMA amendment procedures and approval criteria Applicable Shoreline Master Program Guidelines State definitions and public participation notice requirements Harmonizing SMP and CAO buffers BoCC Workshop, October 12, 2026 07 BoCC adopted the CAO Update on March 9, 2026, through Ordinance No. 01-0309-26. “To better distinguish between shoreline buffers and critical area buffers, revision suggested rephrase for clarity.” Ecology initial determination, September 2022, Attachment 1, Rec-17, p. 8 SMP Chapter 18.25 JCC Shoreline buffer language CAO Chapter 18.22 JCC Critical area buffer language Staff capacity affected the schedule BoCC Workshop, October 12, 2026 08 Ecology has urged submission before an anticipated regulatory change in early 2027. Staff departures reduced capacity DCD and PAO continued other significant County projects while the SMP review progressed. Competing commitments Comprehensive Plan and CAO updates Sewer Ordinance and related code changes PAO tax initiatives, intergovernmental work and litigation PAO has completed its review BoCC Workshop, October 12, 2026 09 Completion of PAO’s review does not complete local adoption. PAO Review Complete Commitment: end of September 2026 The Updated SMP is now with DCD. The PAO Companion Report and Updated SMP document the work completed so far. Five requirements remain to finish Step 4 BoCC Workshop, October 12, 2026 10 The outline identifies these requirements for a complete submittal, followed by local hearing and adoption actions. 1 Meet Ecology’s submittal format requirements 2 Finalize SMP and CAO harmonization 3 Finalize compliance with Resolution No. 17-19 4 Finalize the adopting ordinance 5 Republish the Official Shoreline Map Ecology requires amendments in bill format BoCC Workshop, October 12, 2026 11 Ecology refers to this presentation of amendments as “bill format.” “Amended text shall show strikeouts for deleted text and underlining for new text, clearly identifying the proposed changes.” WAC 173-26-110(2) Deleted text Show strikeouts New text Show underlining Footnotes Explain changes Resolution No. 17-19: regulatory reform BoCC Workshop, October 12, 2026 12 Inconsistent buffer terminology remains a key readability and enforceability concern. Reduce complexity and unpredictable permitting while maintaining public health and environmental protections. Clearer administration Resolve inconsistent terminology and permitting paths. Make compliance and administration easier, faster and less costly. Continued protections Protect public health and the environment while helping the County adapt to climate change. The adopting ordinance and shoreline map BoCC Workshop, October 12, 2026 13 Adopting ordinance Finalize the ordinance and other changes needed for chapter 2.55 JCC. Include signed documentation of local approval in the submittal. WAC 173-26-110(1) Official Shoreline Map Republish the Official Shoreline Map from the 2014 Appendix A. The outline reports that this requirement remains unmet. Ecology initial determination, p. 2 Local hearing and adoption actions BoCC Workshop, October 12, 2026 14 1 Re-notice and hold the hearing Revive the hearing and receive public comment. 2 Deliberate BoCC deliberates on the proposed SMP amendments. 3 Approve a final ordinance Complete local approval through the ordinance process. Workshop recap and remaining work BoCC Workshop, October 12, 2026 15 Timing concern: Ecology has urged submission before the anticipated early-2027 regulatory change. COMPLETED Steps 1–3 and PAO’s review CAO Update adopted March 9, 2026 REMAINING DCD finalization of the SMP package Bill format, CAO alignment, regulatory reform, ordinance and map Re -noticed hearing, public comment, deliberation and final ordinance Questions BoCC Workshop, October 12, 2026 16 Questions?