HomeMy WebLinkAboutMtg Minutes 101220 SMP TFMINUTES
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Task Force
Regular Meeting – October 12, 2020, 5:30 p.m.
Jefferson County Courthouse – Commissioners’ Chambers
1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA
MEMBERS:
Arlene Alen Lorna Smith Richard Hull
Cliff O’Brien Gordon King Amy Leitman
Chris Kelley Brent Vadopalas
David Wilkinson Craig Durgan Ron Rempel
REVIEW MEETING OBJECTIVES: Lisa Grueter, Facilitator with BERK Consulting, called the meeting to order at 5:30 and called attendance. All Task Force members were present, except for
Phil Andrus.
Also present was Jefferson County Commissioner Greg Brotherton, and Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) Associate Planner David Wayne Johnson. Julia Tesch with
BERK Consulting, Inc. and Amy Summe, Shannon & Wilson supported the meeting on behalf of the consultant team. Michelle McConnell Washington Department of Ecology Regional Shoreline
Planner was also present.
Consultant Grueter presented the meeting objectives, which were to review and discuss scoping document for remaining changes needed to achieve consensus.
MEETING MINUTES: Consultant Grueter asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the October 5, 2020 meeting, as amended to correct the spelling of Arlene Alen’s name. Task Force member
Rempel made a motion to approve the minutes of October 5, 2020 as amended, which was seconded by Task Force member Kelley. Consultant Grueter asked if there was anyone who cannot agree
with this motion. Hearing no objections, the minutes were approved by consensus.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments.
RESULTS ON STORY MAP AND SURVEY: Associate Planner Johnson shared preliminary survey findings, which as of that date numbered about 83 or 84. He described comments about the permitting
process for shoreline access, but the location of the commenter was unknown.
SCOPING DOCUMENT PART 1: Consultant Grueter reviewed the meeting materials focusing on Attachment E the draft Scoping Document. The Task Force rules for voting stive for consensus but
accept majority votes. Dissents would be noted. Each item on the Task Force List would be taken in order for discussion and votes. There were some comments on Attachment D regarding
Staff Code Dockets/Interpretations as well.
Task Force Scoping Item A: Conditional Use Permits and Variance Permits for Proper Level of Review. After reviewing options for scoping language in the Task Force Packet Attachment E,
Task Force member Durgan expressed concerns that the Task Force is not being asked to make specific recommendations, and he did not find that the intention to create a scoping document
was clear at the beginning of this process. Consultant Grueter noted that the Task Force Resolution and Welcome Letter
identified the SMP Task Force charge and that example scoping documents from other counties were provided to the Task Force at prior meetings. Commissioner Brotherton clarified that
the scoping document is to create guardrails for the actual policy changes. Task Force members as individuals will still have the opportunity to provide guidance for specific code as
the process proceeds at the public hearing for the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners. The Task Force is intended to give guidance to DCD staff.
Ron Rempel moved to select Option 3. Amy Leitman seconded the motion. The motion passed with 10 Ayes and 1 Nay. Task Force member Durgan voted Nay due to concerns about whether there
was enough citizen input in the overall SMP Periodic Review process; about the Scoping Item A itself he indicated the language was not clear enough about what would be reviewed.
Scoping Item A: Review Conditional Use Permits and Variance Permits for Proper Level of Review. Option 3 – Focus on Permitting Levels, Maintain Standards: Maintain protective standards
to achieve no-net-loss of shoreline ecological function, but reduce unnecessary CUPs/variances. Potentially adjust administrative versus discretionary CUPs. Examples include but are
not limited to: existing single family home expansions and septic systems.
Task Force Review of Future SMP Draft Language. Task Force member Durgan also expressed concern that three members of the Task Force were Planning Commission members rather than other
local residents or property owners; he owns land along Chimacum Creek. Associate Planner Johnson noted that all county residents that applied were included in the Task Force; state
and tribal agencies would be reached separately. Task Force member Smith who is also a Planning Commission member noted that with the prior Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Task Force,
the Planning Commission had very little time to review reams of documents, and felt they were being pressed to review significant material with very little time. Task Force member Smith
appreciates being part of this SMP Task Force so she can help provide context.
The group discussed how the Task Force could be involved when there are drafts of the SMP policies and code amendments. Task Force member Rempel moved that the SMP Task Force have a
meeting with a member of DCD, after DCD drafts the changes, to review those changes before it goes to the Planning Commission. Task Force member Durgan seconded the motion. The Task
Force passed the motion unanimously with 11 Ayes.
Task Force Scoping Item B: Mooring Buoys. The SMP Task Force discussed Item B regarding mooring. Task Force Member Durgan indicated that monitoring and enforcing seasonal versus year-round
mooring could be difficult. Task Force Member King commented that tribes would likely weigh in on mooring or other activities that could interfere with fishing. Consultant Summe noted
the approach to mooring buoys to avoid crowding, such as boats running into one another during storms, grounding, interactions with eelgrass are found in other SMPs; even though standards
may duplicate other agencies, the County needs to show that the SMP is appropriately protective by itself. Task Force member Kelley suggested considering appropriate locations for mooring
first and then identifying appropriate numbers.
After reviewing options, Task Force member Hull moved to adopt Option 2 with a modification to “consider the appropriate number or density of buoys.” Task Force member O’Brien seconded
the motion. The motion passed with 9 Ayes and 2 Abstentions by Task Force Members Durgan and King. There were none voting Nay.
Scoping Item B: Mooring Buoys. Option 2 – Modified: Review permit type and standards for buoys compared to other shoreline facilities for boating. Consider where there are
good locations for buoys. Review buoy standards versus anchoring, and unintended consequences of SMP regulations. Clarify permitting standards surrounding eelgrass beds, including differences
between areas with eelgrass patches and full eelgrass coverage. Consider appropriate number or density of buoys.
RECESS: The Task Force members recessed the meeting at 6:30 p.m. and reconvened at 6:40 p.m.
SCOPING DOCUMENT PART 2: The Task Force continued discussion of items in Attachment E of the Task Force packet.
Task Force Scoping Item C, Sea Level Rise. The integration of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan policies into the SMP was discussed as appropriate. Task Force member Wilkinson
asked about Local 2020 comments to Port Townsend; Consultant Grueter noted the comments were provided to the SMP Task Force. Regarding whether to add new policies or code, Task Force
member King was concerned about the lack of specificity. There was discussion about the process to amend the SMP outside the periodic review process. Task Force member Leitman described
an example project that would have benefited from regulations to allow adjustments to development regulations. Task Force member Kelley suggested allowing new development to proactively
address sea level change in their design and adjust, and noted it would be ideal if the County could fund a survey to mark the sea level rise boundary.
Task Force member Rempel moved to approve Option 2, and Kelley seconded the motion. Seven Task Force members voted Aye to the motion. Four Task Force members voted Nay including Durgan,
King O’Brien, and Vadopalas. The motion passed.
Scoping Item C, Climate change and sea level rise. Option 2: Add in Comprehensive Plan climate policies like Option 1. Plus, strive for consistency with Port Townsend’s SMP. Ensure that
policies and permit standards do not limit projects that are proactively addressing projections in sea level rise due to climate change. Consider elevation, not just distance from the
ordinary highwater mark, for shoreline permitting.
Task Force Scoping Item D: Marine Trades and Economic Development. The Task Force discussed options to address marine trades. Consultant Grueter discussed what is included in marine
trades per a study identified in past Task Force materials: ship and boat building/maintenance/repair, passenger ship/charter ship activities, fishing and seafood processing, marina
and recreational boating, maritime education, and training. It also includes aquaculture as part of seafood. Undue burden was discussed and Consultant Grueter described that since some
activities occur in water where there is habitat care should be taken to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological function, but not put barriers beyond what’s necessary. Ecology Shoreline
Planner McConnell noted that in her research of other counties there have not been no known shoreline permits for new marine trade activities. Task Force Member Smith indicated support
for marine trades and also a concern that encouraging marine trades should not exclude public from the shoreline.
Craig Durgan made a motion to approve Option 1. Christopher Kelley seconded the motion. There were 8 Ayes and 3 Nays, including SMP Task Force members Rempel, Smith, and Wilkinson.
Scoping Item D, Marine trades and economic development. Option 1: Ensure SMP permitting process does not unduly burden marine trades.
Task Force Scoping Item E. Boat Launches. Consultant Grueter reviewed options. Task Force member Rempel moved to use Option 1. Cliff O’Brien seconded. The motion passed with 9 Ayes and
2 Nays including Task Force Members Durgan and Kelley.
Scoping Item E, Boat Launches. Option 1 – Original: Encourage development of new public boat launches and improvement of existing boat launches in SMP.
Task Force Scoping Item F Shorelines of Statewide Significance. The Task Force discussed the broad nature of the scoping item. Consultant Grueter indicated the main idea is for consistency
with the Shoreline Management Act principles, and if there’s a finding of inconsistency then there would be a proposal for amendments. Associate Planner Johnson indicated that this
task might also help clarify the Shorelines of Statewide Significance better. Task Force Member King indicated that without the specifics, he was uncomfortable supporting this. Task
Force Member Kelley moved to accept Item F and Task Force Member Rempel seconded. The motion passed with 9 Ayes and 2 Nays including Task Force Members Durgan and Kelley.
Scoping Item F Shorelines of Statewide Significance. Review how Shoreline Management Act purposes are carried out with use allowances and permitting.
Task Force Scoping Item G Priority Aquatic Environment. Consultant Grueter noted this item was to identify an area for review between Priority Aquatic and Aquatic Environments. Task
Force Member King indicated that it’s unclear if changes will be more conservative or more liberal; all this does is tell the Planning Commission to change however they feel. Task Force
Member Kelley indicated he thought this Scoping Item was not necessary since questions about this topic were answered in prior meetings, e.g. Industrial Piers and Utility Pipelines.
Task Force member Kelley moved to discard Item G which was seconded by Task Force member Vadopalas seconded. The Task Force voted unanimously to discard this item.
Scoping Item G. Priority Aquatic Environment. Review allowed activities given purpose of environment. Review in relation to Aquatic Environment.
Meeting Extension. Consultant Grueter noted it was close to the end time of 7:30 and asked for a motion to extend the meeting for 20 minutes to finish this evening, or another meeting
could be scheduled. Task Force member King moved to extend the meeting by 20 minutes, which was seconded by Task Force member Rempel. The meeting was extended with unanimous approval.
Task Force Scoping Item H, Aquaculture. Consultant Grueter reviewed the item to review net pen policies and indicated that the state was still working on guidance. Task Force member
Smith moved to delay consideration until there is state guidance, and Rempel seconded. The motion carried with 10 Ayes and 1 Nay by Task Force member Durgan.
Scoping Item H, Aquaculture: Review net pen policies to expand County capacity for aquaculture.
Task Force Scoping Item I, Consistency in the CAO and SMP regarding existing landscaping and noxious weeds. Consultant Grueter indicated this item was proposed by Task Force member Rempel
to align CAO and SMP provisions on landscaping and noxious weeks. Rempel moved to include in the scoping document. There were no seconds. Durgan moved to table the motion, and
Rempel objected. No others objected to tabling the Scoping Item.
Item #35, Attachment D Shoreline Master Program Docket/Code Interpretations. Consultant Grueter described Item #35 in Attachment D, and the email from Task Force member Ron Rempel in
the packet. Attachment D includes an item about a planting plan and references the need to refer to Habitat Management Plans. Task Force member Rempel is concerned about the cost of
such plans. Task Force member Leitman indicated such plans are much less costly if the changes proposed to the shoreline are minor or specific standards are included in the SMP. Task
Force member Durgan moved to table. No one provided a second. Task Force member Rempel moved to accept the change to Item 35 on the staff list, and Task Force member Smith seconded.
The motion passed with 6 Ayes, 2 Abstentions by Vadopalas and King, and 3 Nays by Durgan, Leitman, and O’Brien.
Item #35 Staff Docket/Code Interpretations. Define what is needed in a "planting plan" in subsections 18.25.660(8) & (9).Clarify planting plan related to other SMP standards and definitions
with attention to regulatory reform to address implementation needs and avoid unnecessary paperwork and expense.
Commissioner Brotherton especially thanked the SMP Task Force for spending their evenings in the Task Force meetings, and their work on the SMP Scoping Document and encouraged them to
stay involved. Consultant Grueter extended her appreciation for Task Force members and the great amount of material reviewed over the four meetings.
Consultant Grueter adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
____________________________________ ___________
David Wayne Johnson, DCD Date