Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTask Force Meeting 3 2020_10_05_subJEFFERSON 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 3 Summary | Monday, October 5 | 5:30 pm – 7:30 pm Location: Virtual Meeting Attendees TASK FORCE MEMBERS 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. 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 OBJECTIVES Review compiled draft scoping document. Discuss additions and modifications needed for draft scoping document. AGENDA Time Topic of Discussion Presenter(s)  5:30 – 5:35 pm Review meeting objectives Lisa Grueter, BERK  5:35-5:40 pm Approve Minutes Task Force  5:40 – 5:50 pm Public Comment Public Attendees  5:50 – 6:05 pm Results on Story Map and Survey as appropriate David Wayne Johnson, Jefferson County DCD  6:05 – 6:30 pm Group Discussion Pt 1: Responses to prior meeting and Draft scoping document Lisa Grueter, BERK and team; All  6:30 – 6:40 pm Break All  6:40 – 7:20 pm Group Discussion Pt 2: Draft scoping document All  7:20 – 7:30 pm Questions, Next Steps, and Adjourn Lisa Grueter, BERK  Minutes APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MEETING 2 All approve the minutes from Meeting 2. PUBLIC COMMENT No public comment. STORY MAP AND SURVEY David Wayne Johnson: Survey results to date are in inbox. No surprises to date. Divergent view on some things, but overall aligned with the County’s understanding of needs. Most respondents likely don’t know details about shoreline policy. Purpose of the Task Force is to provide guidance from people who are more well-versed in shoreline policies. GROUP DISCUSSION PT 1 – FOLLOW-UP TO PRIOR MEETING Lisa Grueter: Industrial piers are allowed in Aquatic and Priority Aquatic areas. David Wayne Johnson: Exception is on Hood Canal. Navy purchased an easement. Lisa Grueter: Generally, the County allows for aquaculture. But based on State law and studies that the State has recently conducted there will be limitations on the progress the County can make via this process. Michele McConnell: County has an outright prohibition on all fin fish net pen aquaculture. The challenge for approving that is that everything in the SMA points to aquaculture of all types as a preferred water use for State waters. Phil Andrus: Any decision to expand opportunities for salmon or other fin fish net pens would be met with strong opposition from citizens of Jefferson County. Phil has experience with this back to 1980s: no citizen support, only industry support and support from Ecology. Lorna Smith: Right now, new leases for Atlantic salmon net pens in any Washington marine waters are prohibited. Some operations that are currently still within their leases are being shut down for lack of compliance with permit requirements. Jury is clear with Atlantic salmon and net pens, but there are current lawsuits and questions about other finfish. We would be wise to steer clear of changes during this review. Dust hasn’t settled at a State level. Lisa Grueter: This likely can’t be addressed during the SMP periodic review time frame. Michelle McConnell: Historically, industry hasn’t had much interest in net pens in Jefferson County due to water conditions. Need experimental trials to look at native finfish operations – black cod, steelhead. This is something that could come up in the future again. Agrees that this topic could use more resources than this periodic review allows. The County can have a locally initiated amendment at any time outside of the periodic review, but isn’t currently the greatest example of how to proceed. Gordon King: Part of the issue with the last SMP was that Ecology allowed Whatcom County to ban salmon net pens, which they shouldn’t have been allowed to do. That enabled Jefferson County to in turn ban net pens. County staff tried to come up with a policy on net pens that would satisfy prior Commissioner. This held up Ecology’s passage of the SMP. It was a real sticking point. Every time County staff came up with a potentially acceptable policy, Commissioner didn’t think it was conservative enough. Michelle McConnell: Clarifies that she was on staff for Jefferson DCD during the prior Ecology review. Because Ecology had passed Whatcom’s SMP, which included a ban on net pens, that put Ecology in a tough position. Amy Leitman: What does the SMP say about raising finfish (e.g., black cod or steelhead) upland versus in net pens? Michelle McConnell: Net pens prohibited in Priority Aquatic. Upland prohibited in Natural and Shoreline Residential. Lisa Grueter: SMP allows for boat launches. The SMP may not be a barrier – the issue may be funding or opportunities for locations. One option might be to propose that the County consider this in its next Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Greg Brotherton: There is an ongoing project at Point Whitney to replace the boat launch. That process could include regulatory reform that might ease the County’s work. Amy Leitman: Works with a lot of boat launch replacement projects, including with WDFW and Army Corps. Both have stringent regulations regarding replacing boat ramps. One issue is that different jurisdictions have different levels of scrutiny/review. To replace boat ramps is now a very difficult multiyear process. Greg Brotherton: Jurisdictions may also have different timelines for their processes. Amy Leitman: WDFW will not even process a proposal until the County has made its recommendation. WDFW and County typically work on the process sequentially. Policy could include language that not all design types for boat launches will be permitted. Lorna Smith: Asked about why the JARPA application would not suffice to gather coordinated comments from WFW? David Wayne Johnson: Issue is that WDFW wants to see SEPA determination. All boat launches would need SEPA review regardless of whether a SDP or CUP. Amy Summe: More recently, WDFW has a process through the HPA online application for a pre-application. Don’t have to have SEPA determination by the time you submit this pre-application, so you can submit concepts and other ideas to solicit FWS input on design review. Michelle McConnell: WDFW recently shifted. Has a new online process/portal. This may create a new opportunity for coordination. Somewhere in the SMP (in administration?), there were some provisions requiring multiagency permitting for some types of development. Lisa Grueter: Through the Periodic Review, we can do a case study of how this works and make sure there’s no unintended hang-ups on processes. David Wayne Johnson: Plan to talk to State agencies separately so can incorporate conversations with WDFW in that plan. Christopher Kelley: Last year, there was a move to install a boat ramp in Fort Worden. What happened to that? There was a petition to get signatures against that boat ramp. David Wayne Johnson: Fort Worden has a boat ramp already. It is a State Park. Michelle McConnell: Fort Worden is within City of Port Townsend Jurisdiction. Parks are doing a scoping/design process to determine how they can best replace/repair/eliminate the large pier structure that is causing some obstruction of the net shore drift. Last heard, they had not finalized their design. Lisa Grueter: Generally, the SMP promotes water-oriented uses. Of all the permits in the past few years, there have been just a few related to maritime trades (e.g., marinas). To the extent that there have been these kinds of permit processes, we can review and identify improvements. Ron Rempel: Has anyone talked with the Port Townsend Port Authority about whether they see impediments to marine trade expansion? David Wayne Johnson: Yes, have spoken about the Quilcene marina. Issue was not about the Shoreline regulations but about the zoning upland. Saw a lot of opportunity for commercial redevelopment if it was rezoned. But didn’t discuss anything specific to shoreline regulations. Greg Brotherton: Are there other counties we can look to as examples of the other types of marine industries being pulled? Michelle McConnell: Can help track this down. Permits would come in as commercial use, industrial use, modification of structure. Would be interesting to look at other places – if permits are granted, and how many? David Wayne Johnson: Would be especially interested in promoting new development. Phil Andrus: There is a large expanse of shoreline that could turn into a marine trades center. This could include the mill if it ever fails. How does this periodic review interface with other reviews of the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan could discourage the very types of activities we might want to encourage on the shoreline. Lisa Grueter: The SMP is an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The County isn’t doing a periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan, but there is an opportunity to make annual adjustments to the Comprehensive Plan. Ron Rempel: Do we have many people dropping out of the pre-application permit process because they identify they’ll have their permits rejected? David Wayne Johnson: There is no formal tracking of pre-applications. Michelle McConnell: Suggests promoting the survey to people in the marine trades. May help gather input from people in the industry and if they perceive regulations as an obstacle. David Wayne Johnson: Would be helpful to hear from the Port of Port Townsend. Gordon King: Is there an unmet need for more permits? Or, are marine trades’ needs already met? One of Port Townsends’ issues is runoff. This is one of the most disruptive things on the Jefferson County shoreline. Extremely altered shoreline. Not that it additional permitting should never be granted, but maybe the County should wait until there’s a real need before worrying about it so much. Phil Andrus: Need to be proactive. Don’t just look at established patterns, but also look at what successors will need. Lisa Grueter: Reviewed provisions on sea level rise in the SMP and for Port Townsend. David Wayne Johnson: Code interpretations are when staff tries to clarify the meanings of code. There are both informal and formal code interpretations. E.g., staff didn’t anticipate permit issues around failing septic systems. Permit process required a variance for septic systems, but the County didn’t want people to have to do this. Wrote the code interpretation to allow this to be done as an exemption to encourage people to repair. Strict interpretation of the code would have required an expensive and lengthy process, but this wasn’t the intent. This kind of clarification is simply a matter of correcting the code. Otherwise, no major code interpretations required – just about clarification. Only other formal code interpretation dealt with development for buffers. Wrote another informal interpretation about vesting shoreline permits. Ron Rempel: How do we notify the public of the interpretation so it can be used on other projects? Currently, code interpretations are neither public nor posted. Can the SMP include language requiring code interpretations about the SMP to be made publicly available? Not through a public records request. Craig Durgan: Currently involved in a code interpretation request. Has cost a bit of money. Code interpretations should be inserted directly into the code with a footnote in the code that refers to that interpretation. Lisa Grueter: There’s an opportunity to incorporate SMP-related code interpretations into the code. Code interpretations are typically given to the applicants and hearing examiner as needed. But needs to hear from DCD about protocol and if there can be a policy to publish those. David Wayne Johnson: Interested in making Code Interpretations public. Greg Brotherton: Could code interpretations be published on a DCD website? Then wouldn’t have to involve the SMP or the code but could publish. Michelle McConnell: There is a lot of local discretion about requirements. There is a requirement in WAC that when you make interpretations you coordinate with Ecology. Would recommend that if you’re going to add a footnote in the SMP to a code interpretation, you should just modify the actual text. Is there an annual amendment cycle that could incorporate this? Again, County has the discretion to incorporate a locally initiated amendment. David Wayne Johnson: Have an annual amendment cycle through which could do this. Ron Rempel: Public needs the interpretation documents before it’s time to update the SMP. DCD doesn’t notify citizens about code interpretations unless the public asks. Craig Durgan: Agrees. Doesn’t want to have to engage in a public records request. Lisa Grueter: County can provide a list of all the relevant ones code interpretations to this group in the meanwhile. DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT Lisa Grueter: Reviews operating principles. Goal is consensus as much as possible. If consensus is not possible, will go with majority. First portion of scoping document shows topics discussed in this task force. Second portion reviews topics that staff have considered. A scoping document is a menu – it doesn’t need to direct the County on the exact code changes, but should provide enough detail to guide. Item A: Reviewing different permit levels. Ron Rempel: The description doesn’t indicate that you could eliminate CUPs for certain issues. Mooring buoys may fit into this topic. Do you need a CUP for a mooring buoy or could you take it out of the permitting process to put it in something that’s less burdensome? Lorna Smith: Requests clarification on the difference between an administrative CUP versus a CUP that occurs through the hearing examiner. David Wayne Johnson: Approval criteria is the same. Difference is if expertise is needed and public hearing would be beneficial. Phil Andrus: Why should there be the more stringent category at all? What is the public good? Lisa Grueter: There are some items in the SMP rules that guide us from the WAC. There are certain things that require CUPs, e.g., single family home in a natural environment. There are some uses that are preferred, and some that are less preferred (e.g., water-dependent versus not water-dependent). We could tweak requirements to achieve same goal of no net loss. Amy Leitman: There are two CUP strategies. What’s the difference there? Why is one discretionary and one through a process? Is there a way to streamline that as well? Why two different processes, one discretionary? David Wayne Johnson: Has to do with the level of expertise in the decision-maker. Allows the DCD to make the decision themselves or bump it up to the hearing examiner. Must come up with required findings before issuing a discretionary CUP. Phil Andrus: Some permits are relatively innocuous, whereas others might need public input. Ron Rempel: Other examples are going vertical with an addition. Part of the CUP. Want to make sure we don’t limit what we’re reviewing. Craig Durgan: Requests a reminder about David Wayne Johnson’s comment at a prior meeting that there are some conditional uses that don’t need to be conditional uses. David Wayne Johnson: Expansions of legal nonconforming single-family residential homes in the shoreline buffer. E.g., 30 years ago, someone built a home with a different shoreline setback than today. No longer conforming. If you want to expand, have to get a CUP. Lisa Grueter: Refers group to comparison table from different counties Lisa Grueter: Could add a sentence clarifying the goal is to reduce CUPs/Variances and to streamline administrative versus discretionary CUPs. Phil Andrus: CUP permitting code was created intentionally. Okay to modify, but need to be intentional about the changes we make. Lorna Smith: Agrees. Lisa Grueter: Offers removing “beach access” in response to Task Force Discussion. Michelle McConnell: In terms of which types of development require a CUP and which are administrative or discretionary. Potential change would be to clarify which things require a CUP because of WAC versus county regulations. WAC establishes review criteria for CUP. The purpose of a CUP is to provide a system within the master Program that allows flexibility in a manner consistent with the SMA. Craig Durgan: Clarifies that he would like to move some things away from the CUP process. David Wayne: Most CUPS are for legally nonconforming single family houses doing lateral expansions. Doesn’t see the value of doing a CUP for a lateral instead of a landward expansion. Lorna Smith: Some lateral expansions could potentially get out of hand, e.g., if there is a major expansion of a small house. Amy Leitman: If you remove the requirement for a CUP for lateral expansions, you also end up removing some requirements for permits for bulkheads. Ron Rempel: Major lateral expansions don’t typically occur for home expansions. Typically push homeowners into an expensive process. Can we write standard conditions to ensure that some small expansions don’t have to go through a CUP? Also suggests removing “review” from the language to ensure that the full permit process, not just the permit review process, is Lorna Smith: There is a difference between a trail through vegetated buffer compared to stairways down a bluff. “Beach access” might be too broad. David Wayne: Suggests wording “beach access requiring structures.” Amy Leitman: The whole reason there are permits for structures going to the beach is that you’ll have to impact the bluff and remove vegetation. Even with a trail, you can impact land and vegetation. Depends on the project. Amy Summe: Other jurisdictions have taken a variety of approaches. Phil Andrus: There are other considerations besides removing vegetation. Lorna Smith: If you’re building a structure on a slope, stability is the major factor. Amy Summe: Jefferson has some of the more robust beach access structure regulations. Craig Durgan: Clarifies that we are interested in retaining high environmental protection with lower level of permit review. Lorna Smith: Requests additional detail for environmental protections. Lisa Grueter: Goal is to achieve no net loss of ecological function. We can provide guidance to specific items of the SMP that are relevant. Item B: Mooring Buoys Amy Leitman: Oftentimes, if there is eelgrass, the only option is a mooring buoy. The way they can be placed can have a small impact. Can we remove the requirement for the permit? In most cases, it’s a much more benign system than anything else you would do, even if it is near eelgrass. Lisa Grueter: Suggests “Review permit level and standard” language. Ron Rempel: What is the appropriate thing to encourage in an area? Mooring buoy or anchorage? Gordon King: Where do the Tribes come in when it comes to issuing mooring buoy permits? Does the County issue a CUP then ask the Tribes? Tribes are likely to object to mooring buoys. David Wayne Johnson: CUPs require you notify the public. All Tribes get noticed through notices via SEPA. That’s their opportunity to review the project and comment. Craig Durgan: Unless you can make an area a no-anchor area, we risk having anchors tear up the floor. Lisa Grueter: Suggests language for Scoping Language: “What’s the appropriate process for mooring buoys?” and “are the standards for other boats causing unintended consequences?” WRAP-UP Ron Rempel: Will we have the opportunity to discuss the changes that the County have suggested? Such as #35: Planting plan to habitat management plan. Adding thousands of dollars and months to the process for square footage of plants. Impacts don’t seem worth it. Greg Brotherton: Ian Miller will present tomorrow evening on Sea Level Rise. Ron Rempel: Clarify discrepancies between CAO and SMP. Lisa Grueter: Suggests broader terminology than what’s included in permit checklist to incorporate this need in the scoping document.