Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTask Force Meeting Summary 2 20200928 BERK NOTESJEFFERSON 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 2 Summary | Monday, September 28 | 5:30 pm – 7:30 pm Location: Virtual Meeting Participants All Task force members participated, including: 1. Cliff O’Brien – Port Ludlow Associates, Residential/Commercial Construction & Development 2. Gordon King – Taylor Shellfish, Aquaculture 3. Amy Leitman – Marine Surveys & Assessments, Marine Biologist 4. Chris Kelley – Oceanographer, Aquaculture 5. Brent Vadopalas - Citizen at large District 1, Aquaculture 6. Phil Andrus –Citizen at large District 2, former County Planning Commissioner (tentative) 7. David Wilkinson – Climate Action Committee, Atmospheric Science 8. Craig Durgan – Citizen at large District 3, PUD#1 9. Ron Rempel – Citizen at large District 2, Wildlife Biologist 10. Arlene Alen, Planning Commission Member, District 1 11. Lorna Smith, Planning Commission Member, District 2 12. 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 Linda Paralez – DCD, Acting Director 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 OBJECTIVES Identify additional issues to address in scoping document beyond minimum requirements. Review early input from Survey/Story Map AGENDA Time Topic of Discussion Presenter(s)  5:30 – 5:35 pm Review meeting objectives Lisa Grueter, BERK  5:35 – 5:45 pm Public Comment Public Attendees  5:45 – 6:00 pm Early results on Story Map and Survey David Wayne Johnson, Jefferson County DCD  6:00 – 6:30 pm Scoping document framework: Issues/options from meeting #1 Other changed conditions, Regulatory Reform opportunities Lisa Grueter, BERK; Amy Summe, S&W, All  6:30 – 6:40 pm Break All  6:40 – 7:20 pm Group Discussion: Continue discussion on scoping document. All  7:20 – 7:30 pm Questions, Next Steps, and Adjourn Lisa Grueter, BERK   Notes INTRODUCTION Lisa Grueter called the meeting to order at 5:32 and called attendance. Amy Leitman introduced herself. Amy is part of the Marine Surveys and Assessment Co-op that helps with shoreline, aquaculture, and critical areas permits. REVIEW MEETING OBJECTIVES Lisa Grueter presented the meeting objectives. Lisa Grueter noted that minutes should be added to the agenda. Phil Andrus made a motion to approve the minutes of September 21, 2020, which was seconded by Richard Hull. All approved the minutes from Meeting 1 by consensus. PUBLIC COMMENT Patricia Jones commented that she will be submitting comments to the task force with respect to the public engagement plan and scoping plan. Patricia alerted the Task Force to technical difficulties in viewing the meeting online. Greg Brotherton addressed this concern with technical support. EARLY RESULTS ON STORY MAP AND SURVEY Lisa Grueter shared logistics about the survey timeline. David Wayne Johnson shared preliminary survey findings, which can be shared with the Task Force. There have been 5 survey responses so far. Many people skipped some questions, which is okay. The County may advertise the survey on its Facebook page. The first 10 survey questions ask about respondents’ characteristics. Question 11 asks survey respondents if they think there are policy changes that should be made. The County received two responses on that survey question, both of which address aquaculture. Question 12 asked if respondents have identified changes to data that the County should consider. The County received a single answer regarding the monitoring of release of Atlantic salmon in net pens, though there are no net pens in Jefferson County. Question 13 asked survey respondents if they had any additional input. David Wayne will follow up with survey respondents who request additional information. County may keep the survey open longer than the 9th. Meeting with the chamber scheduled for October 25. Survey close date likely in end of October or early November. Lisa Grueter agreed that the survey can be open longer as needed. FOLLOW-UPS TO MEETING 1 INFORMATION REQUESTS Lisa Grueter presented follow-up information to requests from Meeting 1, including: Periodic review checklist. Richard: It seems valuable to include the optional additional amendments. Why don’t we intend to include those? David Wayne: Additional amendments result from staff working with the code and identifying needs to clarify. Have mostly found fixes for those issues and would like to get Ecology’s take on those. There might be some needs for additional research, and that will be done after the task force meeting process. Greg Brotherton noted that the live streaming video is not accessible to the public due to technological issues. The meeting still meets public meeting standards because it is accessible to the public via phone. Scoping documents, including the presentation slides, are available online. The meeting is being recorded and will be posted online after. No members expressed concern with continuing. Lisa Grueter continued presented follow-up information to requests from Meeting 1, including: Shorelines of Statewide Significance Phil Andrus: When there was a shoreline commission, the classification of a shoreline as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance (SSWS) seemed relatively insignificant. What shoreline use changes result from this designation? Lisa Grueter: The permitting order of priority for land uses differs for a shoreline based on its designation. This helps ensure uses are compatible with the designation. For example, on a non-SWSS single family could be a preferred use whereas on SWSS there may be other considerations for priorities based on RCW 90.58.020. There may be more attention on the types of uses and ensuring optimal implementation of the act, e.g. greater focus on achieving public access on these shorelines. Michelle McConnell noted the permitting order has been in place since the statute was first approved by the Legislature and voters. More recent comprehensive updates have reminded jurisdictions of the significance of this designation. Lorna Smith: SSWS hold greater significance for the public’s interest. The designation was originally about identifying particularly unique, special areas where permitting should give a strong look to natural values and public interest. These are public resources and we need to give additional scrutiny to permitting. Phil Andrus: How has permitting differed practically as a result of this designation? Lorna Smith: In Snohomish County, had a list of land uses that were discouraged from SSWS, e.g., industrial uses, bulkheads, single-family homes. Every permit for a SSWS got extra review from Ecology, even if not a permit type that would typically receive that kind of review. Michelle McConnell: Not sure if the additional permit review still occurs. Christopher Kelley: Asked for additional clarification regarding the aquaculture siting criteria. Lisa Grueter: Some of the aquaculture permit allowances are based on statewide rules (e.g. geoduck). As we look to what needs to be refreshed or understood, we can look at this hierarchy of preferences. Permit levels and review Amy Summe presented a comparison of Jefferson County’s shoreline use permit review processes for expansion of nonconforming single family structures, beach access structures, and residential mooring buoys with permit review processes for Whatcom, Kitsap, and Clallam counties. Amy clarified that the permit review process she reviewed for Clallam County has been locally-adopted and does not reflect the in-progress periodic review. Lisa Grueter clarified that these jurisdictions all have measures to address waterward no net loss, but are more flexible landward. Phil Andrus asked about requirements to remove mooring buoys in Mystery Bay. State and Federal governments have historically discouraged mooring buoys in some waters. Amy Leitman: This has happened in other counties for which mooring buoys closed off a shellfish area and for which many mooring buoys were not permitted. Had to remove mooring buoys to open back up shellfish districts. David Wayne Johnson: Port Hadlock area and Mystery Bay removals were a result of mooring buoys that were too densely populated, impacting shellfish in those areas. Now, if the County receives an application, have to work with Department of Natural Resources to get those approved. Gordon King: Another complicating factor with mooring buoys are tribes. Mooring buoys impact their ability to fish. Tribes plan to object to any permits. Lisa Grueter noted the plan to have focus groups with tribes. Lorna Smith: There is a balance between establishing mooring buoys versus having recreational boaters anchoring. Which is more detrimental, especially in eelgrass areas, which Jefferson is trying to reestablish? Suggests that the eelgrass bed consideration should stay on the table. Amy Summe: Current Jefferson County mooring buoy regulations require avoidance of eel grass beds. There are several considerations to improve protections and work with Tribes. David Wayne Johnson: Have processed a few mooring buoys in past few years. Review carefully to avoid eelgrass beds. Ron Rempel: Lives on the water outside Mystery Bay. Often sees anchors dropped with buoys on them and using them for mooring boats throughout the winter. Buoys have a permitting process, whereas anchoring creates just as much problem and doesn’t have a permitting process. Sheriff’s department tries to enforce the amount of time boats ca, anchor, but this is difficult to enforce due to high monitoring needs. Don’t have good tools to deal with this. Is there a different way to handle that? Amy Summe: Can regulate mooring buoys under the SMP because it is about building structures, but anchoring likely falls under other policies. Craig Durgan: Don’t want to create a situation where people consistently anchor and re-anchor. Can clamp down on mooring buoys and create a worse situation. Lisa Grueter described additional SMP allowances, forest practices, and aquaculture. Lisa confirmed that the State has issued newer guidance on wetlands protection since Jefferson’s last SMP was adopted. Some of this guidance was pulled into the Critical Areas Ordinance update. There will likely be additional alignment of the two in this process. Climate change and sea level rise. Lisa Grueter reviewed the background information provided to Task Force members. Lorna Smith asked for confirmation that the periodic review is an opportunity to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. David Wayne Johnson confirmed that this is correct. David Wilkinson asked for clarification on the distinction between climate change and sea level rise for this plan. Lisa Grueter confirmed that climate change is a broader issue in general beyond the SMP jurisdiction across the county; sea level rise would affect shorelines. Ron Rempel: As we think about sea level rise and longer-term projects that are close to sea level, we should consider elevation, not just distance from the highwater mark. Amy Leitman: Agrees with Ron. Dealing with a similar situation in Island County regarding bulkhead replacement. Craig Durgan: Sea level rise has been measured for 200 years. Historical data is available and averages to 1/8” per year. Biologists determine ordinary highwater mark for all permitting processes. Suggests that we are getting bogged down in this but we need to move on. Lorna Smith: Bulkhead issues don’t only have to do with sea level rise but also storm surges. Invites people to look at a vegetated berm built at Cape George as an example of a potential solution. Lisa Grueter provided 4 options to address sea level rise for the periodic review scope: Retain current SMP policy and monitor Ecology rules. Integrate/reference Com Plan policies in SMP and monitor Ecology rules Review policies such as how to consider new information over time and improvements with longer life. Other? Lisa Grueter continued with issues to consider, including: Climate change is a countywide issue though sea level rise will be felt in shoreline. We need to be consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Should there be consistency with Port Townsend approach? Does the SMP have adequate tools to allow for shifting information over time? There are no State SMP rules yet. Lorna Smith: Asked for clarification of the differences among the three options. Lisa Grueter: Option 2 only focuses on consistency with comp plan, whereas Option 3 is a more robust review. Ron Rempel: Currently there’s a policy in the Comp Plan that requires foundations to be built above projected sea level. Is there a way to integrate that as a requirement? Christopher Kelley: Since a biologist must identify Ordinary Highwater Mark for permitting, could that biologist also project the ordinary highwater mark into the future based on sea level rise projections? Amy Leitman: Indicate issue came up with Ecology and Island County. Brent Vadopolas: Asked about the downside of selecting Option #3. Lisa Grueter: The question is whether we have enough information and time to address this in the periodic review, or if it’s better to address this in a more holistic, thorough process. Brent Vadopalas noted that science is not settled around sea level rise, and it might be difficult to create policy around this. David Wayne Johnson suggested we select Option #2 and offer to the Planning Commission a more serious overview taking on Option #3. Ron Rempel expressed concern that we’re kicking the can down the road rather than facing this issue. If we give the issue to the Planning Commission, how do we incorporate their work into code? This work would require substantial staff time. Craig Durgan: Suggests we review sea level rise in a later policy process. Concerned the Task Force will get too bogged down. Lisa Grueter: Will bring back information to the group about at a minimum carrying forward Option 2, and potential language for Option #3. David Wilkinson: Local 2020 Climate Action Group provided a review for the City’s SMP. Comments will be taken up at the City Climate Action Committee for potential recommendation from the committee. There will likely be a lot of similarity for us to consider, such as the definition of ordinary highwater mark and the application of historical data. Lisa Grueter: We will work up a couple sentences for the scoping document. Can look at a time frame if the County takes up that subject and can look at the City’s work. Lorna Smith: It is important to be as consistent as possible with the City. Should consider what they’re doing, integrate the County’s program with theirs, to make life easier. Lisa Grueter: Will send the City’s public comments with the Task Force. What is the City doing around Option #3 and what would it mean for this group? All: Agreed with suggested approach. David Wayne Johnson reviewed code interpretations issued by the County. Patterns had to do with interpretation problems. Will share summary of code interpretations and scans of interpretations, but may not be relevant to review in this task force. GROUP DISCUSSION Changes to Local Conditions Amy Leitman: Returned to mooring buoy issue. Suggests that code review and address eelgrass patches, beds, and other specific types of habitat. Code could encourage more ecologically benign structures, such as one-point impact. Phil Andrus: How are mooring buoys anchored today? Amy Leitman: A helix screw can be driven into the substrate, with depth depending on the size of the boat. Once it’s driven down, it has an impact of about ¾” above the substrate. Ron Rempel: Some studies in California show that mooring buoys are better than anchoring in the same location. Anchors have a much greater impact than the helix screw. Phil Andrus: Permanently-anchored boats create shade that impact eelgrass. Amy Summe: Depending on factors like tides or turbulence, boats can hit eelgrass. Shade can be an issue if a large boat isn’t moving around the anchor, but it won’t have a major impact for a typical boat that wouldn’t be firmly fixed by a buoy. Craig Durgan: Anchored boats don’t have a major impact to shade, compared to boats at a pier. However, anchored chain drags around the bed and impacts the habitat. Phil Andrus suggests we make sure that the permit process doesn’t unduly burden marine trades in the South County to support economic development. Craig Durgan supports addressing marine trade, especially down in South County, a more economically depressed area. Would be good to have more employment opportunities. Lorna Smith asked Phil/Craig for additional clarification about what this would look like in practice. Phil Andrus noted that this could include policies, performance standards to support economic development, though no specific recommendations. Arlene Alen: In total agreement; looking forward to what this looks like integrated into the project. Lisa Grueter: We will bring back information about how this is already treated and direction about how to incorporate into the SMP. Craig Durgan: Shoreline is more than single family homes. If we don’t try to protect industry and only look to the environment, we could lose industry. Everywhere there’s a marina and boats, there’s a potential for marine trade. Ron Rempel: Also need to integrate the SMP with broader zoning issues, as parcels on the water aren’t where the marine trading always occurs. That is outside the scope of this process, but it should be integrated with a much larger view. Lisa Grueter called for anyone who had not yet shared to add ideas. Cliff O’Brian had no additional points to add. Christopher Kelley suggested that Jefferson County could help promote aquaculture development. Craig Durkan: Consider boat launching ramps, many of which are run-down. Gordon King: When the SMP was originally created, one commissioner didn’t want net pens. Got one small area approved for net pens, outside of the area where anyone would realistically engage in aquaculture. There is reasonable support in the county for shellfish aquaculture, but not sure if additional aquaculture could happen. Lisa Grueter: We can bring back information about how the County currently views aquaculture. Gordon King noted that this process is about minor tweaks and consistency, not about a rewrite. Michelle McConnell will provide additional guidance as she has been involved in past policy efforts surrounding aquaculture. Linda Paralez (Acting Director of Community Development) has been through a number of shoreline management updates and critical area code implementations/updates. Thinks that this is one of the most professional and elegant Task Force teams she has seen in a long time. Gave kudos to all. Has worked with a climate change group in Seattle and can connect this Task Force to any of those professionals. Hopes to be of service to Jefferson County. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT No members of the public commented.