HomeMy WebLinkAbout27 2014-12-05Anna Bausher
From: Sue Corbett<suec7l @gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 2:00 PM
To: Anna Bausher
Cc: Carl Smith
Subject:Re: geoduck farms in Squamish Harbor
Dear Anna,
Thank you for your prompt reply,but I ask that you consult with your legal counsel one more time,in light of a very recent court case.
Your email does not make clear whether your legal consultation occurred before or after this case was reported and able to be
analyzed.
It will save time and money for all concerned--the county,the JARPA applicant(s),and residents--ifwe all have an up-to-date
understanding ofthe county's position as to which SMP--the old one or the current one--applies to JARPA applications filed before
the effective date of the new SMP(assuming,for the sake of analysis,that they are complete and not misleading).This is especially
important,given that the county's position on this question has changed,twice,in the space ofa few months.
The new case,reported August 25,2014,is Potala Village Kirkland,LLC v City ofKirkland,Div I,Washington State Court of
Appeals.As amplified in the links below,it holds that the common law vested rights doctrine does NOT apply to shoreline permit
applications,and neither does RCW 19.27.095.It overrules a 1974 case,Talbot v.Gray,that concerned vesting rights under the
Shoreline Management Act and confirms that such rights are now only by statute or ordinance.
Here is a link to the slip opinion ofPotala Village:
http://wvvw.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/705423.pdf
And here is more discussion of the case by the Municipal Research&Services Center of Washington:
http://insight.mrsc.org/2014/08/27/new-court-decision-clarifies-vested-rights-doctrine/
A petition for review before the state Supreme Court has been requested and briefed.
https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate trial courts/supreme/?fa=atc supreme.petitions
The Washington Association of Municipal Attorneys has filed an amici curiae brief supporting the Court of Appeals decision:
https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/petitions/908 19-
2%2000A%20Amicus%20Curiae%20Brief%20of%20Wa%20Assoc%20of%20Municipal%20Attys.pdf
Please ask your legal counsel to review this significant new case and determine the county's position in light of it.
Thank you.
LOG ITEM
Sue Corbett 15Chairperson,Squamish Harbor Residents Page , ®f 01
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Anna Bausher<ABausherAco.jefferson.wa.us>wrote:
Hello Sue,
Thank you for your concern. The JARPAs for the geoduck aquaculture you are inquiring of were submitted on
November 5, 2013 and December 11,2013. This is prior to the current Jefferson County Shoreline Master
Program. At this time when the JARPAS were submitted,no County permits were required for geoduck
aquaculture. Subsequent to the letter you quote below dated May 14, 2014 from Stacie Hoskins, Jefferson
County DCD received legal consultation that a JARPA submitted and substantially complete before the
effective date of the current Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program does not require County permits for
i
the proposal reflected in the JARPA. To inquire of the permit status of these JARPAs please contact the US
Army Corps of Engineers.
Sincerely,
Anna Bausher
Assistant Planner-DCD
Phone 360-379-4454
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject
to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must
release this e-mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy(or for inspection) ofthis e-mail
unless it is also exempt from production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and
other state laws.
From: Sue Corbett [mailto:suec71 @,gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 01,2014 4:29 PM
To: Anna Bausher
Cc: Carl Smith
Subject: Re: geoduck farms in Squamish Harbor
Anna,
Your email today conflicts with a letter I received from Stacie Hoskins, May 14, 2014, attached.
Specifically, your email suggests that if a JARPA application for geoduck farming was complete before the
effective date of Jefferson's new SMP,then no county permit is required.
Ms. Hoskin's letter,however, states that the JARPA permit must be granted (not just applied for)prior to the
new SMP, in order for the county process to be avoided. Her letter states that if an activity is not permitted by
the Corps of Engineers prior to the new SMP's effective date, a county permit will be required. To quote from
her letter:
Given all permits for the proposal were not obtained prior to February 21, 2014, the adoption and effective
date of the new Shoreline Management Master Program, local permitting for the geoduck farm proposal
through Jefferson County DCD is required. The next step for the applicant will be to apply to Jefferson County
DCD for a pre-application conference per JCC 18.40.090. A pre-application conference will provide the
applicant with local permitting submittal requirements,the permit review process, applicable code provisions
and fees."
Please clarify.
Thank you.
Sue Corbett
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Anna Bausher<ABausher@,co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote:
Sue,
LOG ITEM
2 5
Page 2 of5i
Jefferson County currently does not have any applications submitted by Brad Nelson for aquaculture. Brad
Nelson submitted Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Applications(JARPAs)to the US Army Corps of
Engineers for aquaculture in 2013,prior to the current Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP).
Provided that these JARPAs were submitted and substantially complete before the effective date ofthe
current SMP,no County permits are required for the proposals reflected in these JARPAs. For information
regarding the status of these JARPAs you should contact the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Sincerely,
Anna Bausher
Assistant Planner-DCD
Phone 360-379-4454
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore
subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County
must release this e-mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy(or for inspection)of this e-
mail unless it is also exempt from production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56
and other state laws.
From: Carl Smith
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 8:06 AM
To: Anna Bausher
Subject: FW: geoduck farms in Squamish Harbor
Anna: do you have any information on this? Thanks, Carl
From: Sue Corbett [mailto:suec71@a,gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday,November 30, 2014 12:31 PM
To: Carl Smith
Subject: geoduck farms in Squamish Harbor
Mr. Smith,
I was wondering if you can tell me what the status is on the applications submitted by Brad Nelson for five
more geoduck farms in Squamish Harbor, Jefferson County. We already have one large farm here which is
planted in the native eelgrass. Our community is strongly opposed to having multiple farms here in our harbor
and we would appreciate any information you are able to offer concerning this issue.
Thank you.
Sue Corbett
LOG,ITEM
3 1,.7
Page 3 of
Anna Bausher
From: David Alvarez
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 4:33 PM
To: Anna Bausher
Cc: Carl Smith
Subject:RE: geoduck farms in Squamish Harbor confidential attorney client communication
Carl and I have talked about this. Please discuss this issue with him. David Alvarez
From:Anna Bausher
Sent:Thursday,January 08, 2015 4:23 PM
To: David Alvarez
Cc:Carl Smith
Subject: FW:geoduck farms in Squamish Harbor confidential attorney client communication
Hello David,
I am following up to the email below that Carl sent regarding the geoduck farms in Squamish Harbor. We are anxious to
hear your thoughts and any guidance you may have for us.
Thank you,
Anna Bausher
Assistant Planner-DCD
Phone 360-379-4454
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act,a state law
found at RCW 42.56.Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy(or for
inspection)of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from production to the requester according to state law,including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
From:Carl Smith
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 3:36 PM
To: David Alvarez
Cc:Anna Ba usher
Subject: FW: geoduck farms in Squamish Harbor confidential attorney client communication
David: Does your recent info you sent us regarding vesting come into play here? (Court Of Appeals Div.One) ruling that
only a building permit or plat is a vesting action?This is what Sue Corbett is
Purporting. It seems that this situation is different since the question is what SMP applied at the time of the Corps of
Engineers application of the geoduck project. At the time of the application to the Corps,the older SMP was in force,
which did not require an SMP permit so the vesting question seems secondary and moot.What say ye?
Carl
From:Sue Corbett [mailto:suec7l@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 2:00 PM
To:Anna Bausher LOG ITEM
1
Page Li of 9
Cc: Carl Smith
Subject: Re: geoduck farms in Squamish Harbor
Dear Anna,
Thank you for your prompt reply,but I ask that you consult with your legal counsel one more time,in light of a very recent court case.
Your email does not make clear whether your legal consultation occurred before or after this case was reported and able to be
analyzed.
It will save time and money for all concerned--the county,the JARPA applicant(s),and residents--if we all have an up-to-date
understanding of the county's position as to which SMP--the old one or the current one--applies to JARPA applications filed before
the effective date ofthe new SMP(assuming,for the sake of analysis,that they are complete and not misleading).This is especially
important,given that the county's position on this question has changed,twice,in the space of a few months.
The new case,reported August 25,2014,is Potala Village Kirkland,LLC v City of Kirkland,Div I,Washington State Court of
Appeals.As amplified in the links below,it holds that the common law vested rights doctrine does NOT apply to shoreline permit
applications,and neither does RCW 19.27.095.It overrules a 1974 case,Talbot v.Gray,that concerned vesting rights under the
Shoreline Management Act and confirms that such rights are now only by statute or ordinance.
Here is a link to the slip opinion of Potala Village:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/705423.pdf
And here is more discussion of the case by the Municipal Research&Services Center of Washington:
http://insight.mrsc.org/20 14/08/27/new-court-decision-clarifies-vested-rights-doctrine/
A petition for review before the state Supreme Court has been requested and briefed.
https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate trial courts/supreme/?fa=atc supreme.petitions
The Washington Association of Municipal Attorneys has filed an amici curiae brief supporting the Court ofAppeals decision:
https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/petitions/90819-
2%2000A%20Amicus%20Curiae%20Brief%20of%20Wa%20Assoc%20of%20Municipal%20Attvs.pdf
Please ask your legal counsel to review this significant new case and determine the county's position in light ofit.
Thank you.
Sue Corbett
Chairperson,Squamish Harbor Residents
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Anna Bausher<ABausher@co.jefferson.wa.us>wrote:
Hello Sue,
Thank you for your concern.The JARPAs for the geoduck aquaculture you are inquiring of were submitted on
November 5, 2013 and December 11, 2013.This is prior to the current Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.At
this time when the JARPAS were submitted, no County permits were required for geoduck aquaculture.Subsequent to
the letter you quote below dated May 14, 2014 from Stacie Hoskins,Jefferson County DCD received legal consultation
that a JARPA submitted and substantially complete before the effective date of the current Jeffersoarynty ShecOne
2
Page 5 v
Master Program does not require County permits for the proposal reflected in the JARPA.To inquire of the permit
status of these JARPAs please contact the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Sincerely,
Anna Bausher
Assistant Planner-DCD
Phone 360-379-4454
1
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act,a state law
found at RCW 42.56.Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy(or
for inspection)of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from production to the requester according to state law,including RCW 42.56 and other state
laws.
From:Sue Corbett [mailto:suec7l@Rmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 4:29 PM
To:Anna Ba usher
Cc:Carl Smith
Subject: Re: geoduck farms in Squamish Harbor
Anna,
Your email today conflicts with a letter I received from Stacie Hoskins, May 14, 2014, attached.
Specifically, your email suggests that if a JARPA application for geoduck farming was complete before the effective date
of Jefferson's new SMP, then no county permit is required.
Ms. Hoskin's letter, however, states that the JARPA permit must be granted (not just applied for) prior to the new SMP, in
order for the county process to be avoided. Her letter states that if an activity is not permitted by the Corps of Engineers
prior to the new SMP's effective date, a county permit will be required. To quote from her letter:
LOG ITEM
3
Page tQ of 9
Given all permits for the proposal were not obtained prior to February 21, 2014, the adoption and effective date of the
new Shoreline Management Master Program, local permitting for the geoduck farm proposal through Jefferson County
DCD is required. The next step for the applicant will be to apply to Jefferson County DCD for a pre-application
conference per JCC 18.40.090. A pre-application conference will provide the applicant with local permitting submittal
requirements, the permit review process, applicable code provisions and fees."
Please clarify.
Thank you.
Sue Corbett
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Anna Bausher<ABausher@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote:
Sue,
Jefferson County currently does not have any applications submitted by Brad Nelson for aquaculture. Brad Nelson
submitted Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Applications (JARPAs) to the US Army Corps of Engineers for aquaculture in
2013, prior to the current Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Provided that these JARPAs were
submitted and substantially complete before the effective date of the current SMP, no County permits are required
for the proposals reflected in these JARPAs. For information regarding the status of these JARPAs you should contact
the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Sincerely,
Anna Bausher
Assistant Planner-DCD
Phone 360-379-4454
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act,a state law
found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy(or
LOG ITEM
4
Page 1 of
1 for inspection)of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from production to the requester according to state law,including RCW 42.56 and other state
1 laws.
From:Carl Smith
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 8:06 AM
To:Anna Bausher
Subject: FW:geoduck farms in Squamish Harbor
I
Anna: do you have any information on this?Thanks, Carl
From: Sue Corbett [mailto:suec7l@gmail.com]
Sent:Sunday, November 30, 2014 12:31 PM
To:Carl Smith
Subject:geoduck farms in Squamish Harbor
Mr. Smith,
1
I was wondering if you can tell me what the status is on the applications submitted by Brad Nelson for five
more geoduck farms in Squamish Harbor, Jefferson County. We already have one large farm here which is
1 planted in the native eelgrass. Our community is strongly opposed to having multiple farms here in our harbor
and we would appreciate any information you are able to offer concerning this issue.
Thank you.
Sue Corbett
i
LOG ITEM
5 les
Page 1 of R
Anna Bausher
From: Sue Corbett<suec71@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 3:34 PM
To: Anna Bausher; Carl Smith
Subject:loose PCV tubes in Squamish Harbor
Attachments: Stubbed Attachments.htm
a :
A
7E3
Anna and Carl,
Attached are pictures taken of Squamish Harbor on December 27 at 2PM.There were at least 100 PCV tubes visible from the road at a
plus 4.5 tide.A neighbor saw an alarming amount ofloose tubes when he was out on the tidelands during a low tide at night collecting
bait for crabbing several weeks ago.Considering that there were approximately 40,000 PCV tubes planted during 2013 and 2014,you
can imagine how many tubes are dislodged and being spread out around the harbor.This is unacceptable.
This harbor is shallow and sits directly in line for the frequent southerly storms coming up the Canal.Having PCV pipes spread all
over the beach is a very predictable result of geoduck farming on Squamish Harbor.Does Jefferson County bare any responsibility?
The geoduck farmers apparently are not monitoring their farm or are ignoring the fact that they are trashing the
harbor. A clear solution would be to prohibit geoduck farming in Squamish Harbor.
Sue Corbett
Chairperson, Squamish Harbor Residents
LOG ITEM
1 1.6____._
Paye 9 of