Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTask Force Meeting 1 2020_09_21_Summary BERK NOTES.docx JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Task Force Meeting 1 Summary | Monday, September 21 | 5:30 pm – 7:30 pm Location: GoToMeeting Virtual Meeting Participants 11 Task Force members participated, including: 1. Cliff O’Brien – Port Ludlow Associates, Residential/Commercial Construction & Development 2. Gordon King – Aquaculture 3. Chris Kelley – Oceanographer, Aquaculture 4. Brent Vadopalas - Citizen at large District 1, Aquaculture 5. Phil Andrus –Citizen at large District 2, former County Planning Commissioner (tentative) 6. David Wilkinson – Climate Action Committee, Atmospheric Science 7. Craig Durgan – Citizen at large District 3, PUD#1 8. Ron Rempel – Citizen at large District 2, Wildlife Biologist 9. Arlene Alen, Planning Commission Member, District 1 10. Lorna Smith, Planning Commission Member, District 2 11. Richard Hull, Planning Commission Member, District 3 Staffing COUNTY Greg Brotherton – County Commissioner, MRC Member, HCCC member David Wayne Johnson – DCD, Associate Planner, SMP Periodic Review Project Manager WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Michelle McConnell, Regional Shoreline Planner with WA Department of Ecology CONSULTANTS Lisa Grueter, AICP – Principal, BERK Consulting, Facilitator, Consultant Project Manager Amy Summe, PWS – Associate, Senior Biologist/Permit Specialist, Shannon & Wilson Julia Tesch – Associate, BERK Consulting, Engagement Page 2 of 8 OBJECTIVES Review purpose of periodic review and role of Task Force. Begin identifying key topics for scoping document. AGENDA Time Topic of Discussion Presenter(s) 5:30 – 5:45 pm Roundtable Welcome and Introductions Greg Brotherton, BOCC All 5:45 – 5:55 pm Review overall project purpose: what is a periodic review? David Wayne Johnson, Jefferson County DCD 5:55 – 6:10 pm Review purpose and structure of Task Force: Specific ask of Task Force: what is a scoping document? Task Force resolution, operating principles, and expectations Four-part meeting arc Lisa Grueter, BERK 6:10 – 6:20 pm Review Public Participation Plan and existing public engagement opportunities, including: Survey and Story Map David Wayne Johnson, Jefferson County DCD Lisa Grueter, BERK 6:20-6:35 pm Review Periodic Review Checklist Findings David Wayne Johnson, Jefferson County DCD Lisa Grueter, BERK; Amy Summe, S&W 6:35-6:45 Break All 6:45 – 7:10 pm Group Discussion – Scoping: Changes to Local Conditions Regulatory Reform Opportunities All 7:10-7:20 pm Public Comment Public Attendees 7:20 – 7:30 pm Questions, Next Steps, and Adjourn Lisa Grueter, BERK Page 3 of 8 Meeting Highlights PRESENTATION Greg convened the meeting once there was quorum, and the task force members and staff introduced themselves. Greg then reviewed meeting conventions, including asking everyone to mute audio while not speaking and to leave video on. Greg encouraged all participants to avoid using the chat function, as the chat record is not recorded during this open public meeting. David Wayne thanked participants for volunteering their time to support the SMP Periodic Review and reminded participants to participate in the Open Public Meetings Act webinar training. David Wayne clarified that the periodic review differs from creating a new SMP. To be consistent with state law and other Jefferson County Plans, and to be responsive to changin g circumstances, the County must conduct a periodic review every 8 years. The periodic review is not a complete rewrite of the code, as the County did in 2013. Instead, it is an opportunity to make code changes based on changes in state law and to resolve typos, mis-references to other code, inconsistencies, and grammatical errors. For example, the County has had to write several code interpretations to support the SMP code since it was last written, and those clarifications need to be incorporated into the code. Ecology has provided a checklist with all the state policy changes since 2013. Commissioners passed a resolution last year to guide this process, which will focus on regulatory reform. Guiding principles include: 1. Protect Jefferson County’s environment and public health. 2. Streamline and simplify the structure of County Code to make it understandable and efficient to comply with and to administer. 3. Assess required professional studies to identify overly burdensome and costly barriers in the code and permit review process. 4. Allow County departments greater flexibility to allow minor exceptions that retain environmental protections and public safety. 5. Streamline permit review procedures. 6. Enhance transparency and accountability for timely reviews. Lisa Grueter reviewed the meeting objectives and agenda, then shared lists of all consultants, County staff, and task force participants. Lisa presented a slide deck which included : ▪ Meeting Objectives and Agenda. ▪ County Staff, Consultant staff, and Task Force members. ▪ Background on the Shoreline Master Program. ▪ Purpose of a Periodic Review and scoping. ▪ Task Force purpose, timeline and meeting structure, expectations, and operating principles. ▪ Public participation and project schedule. Page 4 of 8 David Wayne reviewed the overall schedule for the project and related public participation. The goal of the public participation plan is early, ongoing, consistent, and continuous outreach to inform the public of the revision to the program and to elicit comments and feedback from the public on their preferred regulations. David Wayne referred people to the project webpage, which includes a Story Map, public participation plan, survey, meeting materials, and will also include additional documents as the project progresses. David Wayne informed the group that there has been public outreach via news media to notify the community about opportunities to engage. Lisa added that there would be focused interviews with tribes and asked David Wayne to describe the joint review process with ecology. Greg interjected to offer Michelle McConnell, Regional Shoreline Planner with WA Department of Ecology, an opportunity to introduce herself. Michelle then provided an overview of the joint review process for the County and State. The optional joint review process was introduced recently to consolidate the minimum public involvement steps for local and state review processes in cases where there are minimal planned policy changes. The joint review process requires closer coordination among County staff and Ecology staff, but streamlines the process. If jurisdictions select the optional joint review process, there is a 30-day joint public comment period for which public comments are provided to both the County and Ecology and there is a joint public hearing with both Ecology and the County. The joint review process also allows an initial submittal to ecology, for which Ecology delivers an initial determination of consistency before the Board of County Commissioners approve or deny the permit. Lisa continued presenting to deliver an overview of the Story Map and survey, including screenshots of the webpages. Lisa paused for questions on the public participation plan, but no one had questions. Lisa suggested that a FAQ page could provide additional public information as the project progresses. Lisa shared the periodic review checklist, which includes many optional clarifications that could help provide additional transparency for the public. Lisa explained the four classifications of the permit system under the SMP and provided a breakdown by type of the 45 permits that were granted in the past 5 years . DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS ▪ Climate change  Lorna: With sea level rise, the shoreline is no longer static. The County may need to change language to address the changing nature of the shoreline, even if the code updates don’t directly address climate change.  Lisa: Current Code already addresses shoreline as it exists on the ground (related to ordinary highwater mark), not on a map.  Craig: The permit-related concerns about climate change are unfounded because marine biologists will still examine the area during public comment. Page 5 of 8  Lorna: There is clear modeling from the UW about how sea level rise will occur in the future. It might make sense to incorporate language. We want to acknowledge that the sea level is rising and we know where it will be within the next few decades. E.g., where the sea level will be within 10 years could impact the viability of a bulkhead.  Craig: Periodic review occurs every 8 years, during which time shoreline won’t change dramatically due to climate change. Creates an unnecessary complication that would create a more substantial review process than the current process.  Lorna: Whatcom County has some examples of climate change policy as part of their SMP Periodic Update in 2019 that could serve as examples. ▪ Christopher: It appears there’s an inconsistency regarding geoduck permitting. REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATIONS ▪ Phil: Is it within the Task Force’s purview to suggest topics for the scoping document, and when will that occur?  Answer: Yes, and we will open up discussion for that tonight and dive in deeper in the next meeting. ▪ Lorna: Were all 45 permits shown from the past 5 years granted? Does the story map show what year the permits were granted?  Answer: Yes, they were all granted. We can provide additional information by year in the next meeting. Additionally, the permit number in the Story Map has the perm it date embedded. ▪ Christopher: What is the difference between a conditional administrative use permit and a conditional discretionary use permit?  Answer: Both are the same type of permit. Conditional administrative use permit requires a decision from DCD and Ecology. Conditional discretionary use permit allows the administrator the discretion to make the permit decision themself or forward to the hearing examiner, who is a land use attorney, for additional expertise. ▪ Phil: Do you ever deny permits? Do you ever negotiate to bring down outlandish proposals?  Answer: The County almost never denies a permit. Through the permitting review process, the County identifies parts of the landowner’s proposal that are approvable, and most landowners are interested in negotiation to gain an approval. Additionally, the permits require a pre-application conference, which allows landowners to tailor their initial proposals to closely meet code. ▪ Phil: Why does it appear that there are no dock or pier permits in the permit list?  Answer: The County generally processes dock repairs as exemptions, and exemptions aren’t Page 6 of 8 included in this list. ▪ Gordon: What was Ecology’s concern about the number of conditional use permits?  Answer: It’s less of a concern, but caught Ecology’s attention that CUPs often take more process and time than other permit types. Ecology felt there may be an opportunity to streamline process. Ecology doesn’t typically see other Counties require CUPs for the types of development for which Jefferson has required CUPs. ▪ Lorna: Part of the concern for DOE might be that Jefferson has more permits than other counties. Does Jefferson require more permits per acre of shoreline, or total?  Answer: Yes, Ecology must review CUPs, and it requires some staff time. However, workl oad concerns have not been the main issue. The ratio of SDPs to CUPs was inverted in Jefferson County compared to other counties. ▪ Gordon: Are other counties more relaxed about shoreline development?  Answer: Every county must show no net loss of ecological function. Standards likely don’t differ, but permit processes differ, with the same outcome, to avoid additional time and expense. ▪ Lorna: Since the last SMP, there has been much more climate change modeling. How will this impact the code updates? Is this included in the best available science that we must examine?  Answer: There is a requirement to consider the most current, accurate, complete scientific information available. That would include some more recent projections. However, there is no explicit requirement to update the code for climate change or sea level rise. That is up to local government discretion. ▪ Christopher: Is all of Jefferson’s shoreline considered state shorelines of significance under state designations?  Answer: Depends based on marine shoreline vs freshwater shoreline. It is likely a greater proportion of marine shoreline that is state shoreline of significance. Michelle will find this map and follow up. “Shorelines of the state” is an umbrella term that includes shorelines, shoreland area, and shoreline of state significance. These are important terms that sound similar, so it is essential to be careful when using these terms. ▪ Phil: Is Ecology considering changes to the Shoreline Management Act to give help counties consider if their jurisdictions have changed as a result of climate change and changing shorelines?  Answer: Not yet. Area of jurisdiction is based on area of ordinary highwater mark, which is determined by a definition and field inspection at a site. It’s not a feature that’s mapped locally or statewide. The definition of ordinary highwater mark already allows for climate - based changes. Page 7 of 8 ▪ Ron: How does DCD or Ecology address climate change at the project level? What are the criteria at that process level? How does the public know what those requirements are going to be?  Ecology is looking at climate change and has resources to provide to help support County efforts to address climate change. E.g., Ecology has already consolidated all references to climate change in SMPs within Puget Sound. Jefferson has some policies in its comprehensive plan but doesn’t apply those policies to their permitting. The SMP is not the only and sometimes not the best place to address climate change, as it only addresses the first 200’. ▪ Christopher: Why does incorporated Jefferson County have a different SMP than unincorporated Jefferson County?  Answer: There is an option to a regional SMP, and other counties have opted in. It is at the discretion of each local government to do a regional program. The City and County shared the first SMP in the mid-1970s, and at some point there was recognition that the City’s conditions were significantly different from elsewhere in the County, so the two governments opted for separate SMPs. ▪ Phil: What can the County do to facilitate marine trades in the unincorporated parts of Jefferson County? E.g., Lower Hadlock, Quilcene, Brinnon.  Answer: David described the SMP supports water dependent uses and there has been discussion about the marina in Quilcene. ▪ Ron: Has the County reviewed the effectiveness of shoreline regulations to result in no net loss of function?  Answer: Wetland specialist is engaged in a grant to review the results of the SMP with Clallam County, but that information is not yet available. ▪ Christopher: Why are industrial piers allowable in priority wetland areas?  Answer: Sometimes it’s because there’s something existing. We will take a closer look at that. ▪ Gordon: Clarified that he doesn’t work for Coast Seafoods, which was written in the initial . PUBLIC COMMENT ▪ Patricia Jones: Executive director of Olympic Forest Coalition. Functionality through GoToMeeting did not enable public comment. Looks forward to a robust public involvement process, including timely access to documents, principles (on website, if possible), and minutes on the website. NEXT STEPS ▪ Christopher will share a list of his observations of the policy with David via email. ▪ BERK and the County will share Christopher’s list, the periodic review checklist, and the slide deck Page 8 of 8 via email.