HomeMy WebLinkAboutOLD Jefferson County Draft PR Checklist_2020_1125
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 1
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW
Periodic Review Checklist
This document is intended for use by counties, cities and towns subject to the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA) to conduct the “periodic review” of their Shoreline Master Programs
(SMPs). This review is intended to keep SMPs current with amendments to state laws or rules,
changes to local plans and regulations, and changes to address local circumstances, new
information or improved data. The review is required under the SMA at RCW 90.58.080(4).
Ecology’s rule outlining procedures for conducting these reviews is at WAC 173-26-090.
This checklist summarizes amendments to state law, rules and applicable updated guidance
adopted between 2007 and 2019 that may trigger the need for local SMP amendments during
periodic reviews.
How to use this checklist
See the associated Periodic Review Checklist Guidance for a description of each item, relevant
links, review considerations, and example language.
At the beginning of the periodic review, use the review column to document review
considerations and determine if local amendments are needed to maintain compliance. See
WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i).
Ecology recommends reviewing all items on the checklist. Some items on the checklist prior to
the local SMP adoption may be relevant.
At the end of your review process, use the checklist as a final summary identifying your final
action, indicating where the SMP addresses applicable amended laws, or indicate where no
action is needed. See WAC 173-26-090(3)(d)(ii)(D), and WAC 173-26-110(9)(b).
Local governments should coordinate with their assigned Ecology regional planner for more
information on how to use this checklist and conduct the periodic review.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 2
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
Prepared By Jurisdiction Date
draft Jefferson County 11/25/2020
Row Summary of change Review Action
2019
a. OFM adjusted the cost threshold
for building freshwater docks
JCC 18.25.560 Exemptions
Listed #9 reads: “Residential
Docks. … The private dock
exemption applies to dock
construction cost as specified
in RCW 90.58.030(3)(e).”
No action required
b. The Legislature removed the
requirement for a shoreline
permit for disposal of dredged
materials at Dredged Material
Management Program sites
(applies to 9 jurisdictions)
JCC 18.25.360 Dredging
Dredge Disposal Regulation
#4.d reads: “When consistent
with this program, disposal of
dredged materials in water
areas other than PSDDA sites
may only be allowed for the
following reasons:
(i) To restore or enhance
habitat; or
(ii) To reestablish substrates
for fish and shellfish
resources; or
(iii) To nourish beaches that
are starved for sediment; or
(iv) To remediate
contaminated sediments.”
DMMP not applicable to
Jefferson County
No action required
c. The Legislature added restoring
native kelp, eelgrass beds and
native oysters as fish habitat
enhancement projects.
JCC 18.25.560 Exemptions
Listed #18 reads: “A public or
private project, the primary
purpose of which is to
improve fish or wildlife habitat
or fish passage, when all of
the following apply:
(a) The project has been
approved in writing by the
Department of Fish and
Wildlife as necessary for the
improvement of the habitat or
passage and appropriately
designed and sited to
No action required.
Per Ecology, consider the
expanded language at WAC
173-27-040(2)(p) with the
more explicit citation to RCW
77.55.181.
Change proposed to cross
reference 173-27-040(2)(p).
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 3
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
Row Summary of change Review Action
accomplish the intended
purpose;
(b) The project received
hydraulic project approval by
the Department of Fish and
Wildlife pursuant to Chapter
75.20 RCW; and
(c) The administrator has
determined that the project is
consistent with this program.
The administrator shall make
such determination in a timely
manner and provide it by
letter to the project
proponent. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A
(Art. IX § 3)]”
2017
a. OFM adjusted the cost threshold
for substantial development to
$7,047.
JCC 18.25.100 Definition
#19.tt reads: “Substantial
Development…$5,718 or as
adjusted by the state
legislature…”
JCC 18.25.560 Exemptions
Listed #1. Fair Market Value
reads: “…does not exceed
$6,416 or as adjusted by WAC
173-27-040…”
No action required.
Optional revision to replace
both outdated figures with
current value of $7,047 for
clarity & document
improvement.
Ecology suggests changing
value or changing to citation;
approach up to County but
Ecology would require a
change.
Change proposed to add new
value.
b. Ecology permit rules clarified the
definition of “development”
does not include dismantling or
removing structures.
JCC 18.25.100 Definition
#4.g reads: “(g)
***“Development” means a
use consisting of the
construction or exterior
alteration of structures;
dredging; drilling; dumping;
filling; removal of any sand,
gravel, or minerals;
bulkheading; driving of piling;
placing of obstructions; or any
project of a permanent or
temporary nature which
interferes with the normal
No action required.
Optional revision to add text
“Development” does not
include dismantling or
removing structures if there is
no other associated
development or re-
development for clarity &
document improvement.
Change added to draft SMP
revisions.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 4
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
Row Summary of change Review Action
public use of the surface of
the waters overlying lands
subject to this program at any
state of water level.”
c. Ecology adopted rules clarifying
exceptions to local review under
the SMA.
JCC 18.25 does not address
these exceptions from WAC
173-27-044
No action required - the
exceptions apply regardless of
SMP inclusion.
Optional text revision to add
the example language for
clarity and to ensure
consistent implementation:
Developments not required to
obtain shoreline permits or
local reviews. Requirements
to obtain a substantial
development permit,
conditional use permit,
variance, letter of exemption,
or other review to implement
the Shoreline Management
Act do not apply to the
following:
(i) Remedial actions. Pursuant
to RCW 90.58.355, any person
conducting a remedial
action at a facility pursuant to
a consent decree, order, or
agreed order issued pursuant
to chapter 70.105D RCW, or to
the department of ecology
when it conducts a
remedial action under chapter
70.105D RCW. (ii) Boatyard
improvements to meet NPDES
permit requirements.
Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355,
any person installing site
improvements for storm
water treatment in an
existing boatyard facility to
meet requirements of a
national pollutant discharge
elimination system storm
water general permit.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 5
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
Row Summary of change Review Action
(iii) WSDOT facility
maintenance and safety
improvements. Pursuant to
RCW 90.58.356, Washington
State Department of
Transportation projects and
activities meeting the
conditions of RCW 90.58.356
are not required to obtain a
substantial development
permit, conditional use
permit, variance, letter of
exemption, or other local
review.
(iv) Projects consistent with an
environmental excellence
program agreement pursuant
to RCW 90.58.045.
(v) Projects authorized
through the Energy Facility
Site Evaluation Council
process, pursuant to chapter
80.50 RCW.
Change added to draft SMP
revisions.
d. Ecology amended rules clarifying
permit filing procedures
consistent with a 2011 statute.
JCC 18.25.750 Notice of
decision, reconsideration and
appeal. #1. A notice of
decision for action on a
shoreline substantial
development permit,
shoreline variance, or
shoreline conditional use
permit shall be provided to
the applicant/proponent and
any party of record in
accordance with the
procedures of Chapter 18.40
JCC and at least 10 days prior
to filing such decisions with
the Department of Ecology
pursuant to WAC 173-27-130.
Decisions filed with the
Department of Ecology shall
Revision required to clarify
current standards for date of
filing by permit type,
concurrent filings, ECY notice
by phone/email & written,
and submittal to ECY by return
receipt requested. Incorporate
example language:
After all local permit
administrative appeals or
reconsideration periods are
complete and the permit
documents are amended to
incorporate any resulting
changes, the County will mail
the permit using return
receipt requested mail to the
Department of Ecology
regional office and the Office
of the Attorney General.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 6
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
Row Summary of change Review Action
contain the following
information:
(a) A copy of the complete
application;
(b) Findings and conclusions
that establish the basis for the
decision including but not
limited to identification of
shoreline environment
designation, applicable master
program policies and
regulations and the
consistency of the project with
appropriate review criteria for
the type of permit(s);
(c) The final decision of the
local government;
(d) Where applicable, local
government shall also file the
applicable documents
required by SEPA, or in lieu
thereof, a statement
summarizing the actions and
dates of such actions taken
under Chapter 43.21C RCW;
and
(e) When the project has been
modified in the course of the
local review process, plans or
text shall be provided that
clearly indicate the final
approved plan.
JCC 18.25.760 Initiation of
Development #2 “Date of
Filing. “Date of filing” of a
substantial development
permit is the date of actual
receipt of the decision by the
Department of Ecology. The
“date of filing” for a shoreline
variance or shoreline
conditional use permit shall
mean the date the permit
decision rendered by the
Department of Ecology is
Projects that require both
Conditional Use Permits and
or Variances shall be mailed
simultaneously with any
Substantial Development
Permits for the project.
(i) The permit and
documentation of the final
local decision will be mailed
together with the complete
permit application; a findings
and conclusions letter; a
permit data form (cover
sheet); and applicable SEPA
documents.
(ii) Consistent with RCW
90.58.140(6), the state’s
Shorelines Hearings Board
twentyone (21) day appeal
period starts with the date of
filing, which is defined below:
(A) For projects that only
require a Substantial
Development Permit: the date
that Ecology receives the
County decision.
(B) For a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) or Variance: the
date that Ecology’s decision
on the CUP or Variance is
transmitted to the applicant
and the County.
(C) For SDPs simultaneously
mailed with a CUP or VAR to
Ecology: the date that
Ecology’s decision on the CUP
or Variance is transmitted to
the applicant and the County.
Change added to draft SMP
revisions.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 7
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
Row Summary of change Review Action
transmitted by the
Department of Ecology to the
county and the
applicant/proponent. [Ord. 7-
13 Exh. A (Art. X § 17)]”
e.
Ecology amended forestry use
regulations to clarify that forest
practices that only involves
timber cutting are not SMA
“developments” and do not
require SDPs.
JCC 18.25.460 Forest Practices
Regulation #4.b. “Except as
provided in subsections (4)(c)
and (d) of this section, timber
harvesting and forest
practices activities that do not
meet the definition of
development in Article II of
this chapter shall not be
regulated by this program and
shall not require a shoreline
permit.” …
#4.e “Other activities
associated with timber
harvesting, such as filling,
excavation, and building roads
and structures, that meet the
definition of development
shall be regulated according to
the general provisions (Article
VI of this chapter), shoreline
modification provisions
(Article VII of this chapter)
and/or the other applicable
use-specific provisions (this
article) of this program and
shall require a shoreline
substantial development
permit or conditional use
permit as specified in this
program.”
No action required.
Optional text revision to
incorporate example
language:
A forest practice that only
involves timber cutting is not a
development under the act
and does not require a
shoreline substantial
development permit or a
shoreline
exemption. A forest practice
that includes activities other
than timber cutting may be
a development under the act
and may require a substantial
development permit, as
required by WAC 222-50-020.
Change added to draft SMP
revisions.
f. Ecology clarified the SMA does
not apply to lands under
exclusive federal jurisdiction
JCC 18.25.020 Applicability
#4. This program shall apply
to:
(a) All of the lands and waters
of Jefferson County that fall
under the jurisdiction of
Chapter 90.58 RCW; and
(b) Every person, individual,
firm, partnership, association,
organization, local or state
Exclusive Federal Jurisdicition
in Olympic National Park per
RCW 37.08.210) is not
explicitly addressd.
Optional text revision for
clarity to add example
language:
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 8
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
Row Summary of change Review Action
governmental agency, public
or municipal corporation, or
other nonfederal entity; and
(c) All nonfederal uses and
developments undertaken on
federal lands and on lands
subject to nonfederal
ownership, lease, or
easement, even though such
lands may fall within the
external boundaries of
federally owned lands
(Footnote1)*.
*Wording from WAC 173-27-
060(3).
Areas and uses in those areas
that are under exclusive
federal jurisdiction as
established through federal or
state statutes are not subject
to the jurisdiction of
chapter 90.58 RCW, including
Olympic National Park.
Per Ecology: Olympic National
Park is one of two such
locations established by
statute and County is
encouraged to address this
issue, likely in JCC 18.25.020
Applicability.
Change added to draft SMP
revisions.
g.
Ecology clarified “default”
provisions for nonconforming
uses and development.
JCC 18.25.660 No action required due to
State rule. This rule is a
default rule that only applies if
a local government has no
provisions in its local SMP
addressing nonconforming
uses.
h. Ecology adopted rule
amendments to clarify the scope
and process for conducting
periodic reviews.
JCC 18.25.840 Master
program amendments does
not address periodic review.
No action required – the
periodic review requirements
apply regardless of SMP
inclusion.
Optional text revision to add
example language for clarity:
The County will conduct the
SMP periodic review process
consistent with requirements
of RCW 90.58.080 and WAC
173-26-090.
Change added to draft SMP
revisions.
i. Ecology adopted a new rule
creating an optional SMP
amendment process that allows
for a shared local/state public
comment period.
JCC 18.25.840 Master
program amendments does
not address the optional joint
review process.
No action required – the
optional joint review process
per WAC 173-26-104 applies
regardless of SMP inclusion.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 9
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
Row Summary of change Review Action
j. Submittal to Ecology of proposed
SMP amendments.
JCC 18.25 does not address
Ecology submittal
requirements.
No action required – the
submittal requirements of
WAC 173-26-110 and -120
apply regardless of SMP
inclusion.
2016
a.
The Legislature created a new
shoreline permit exemption for
retrofitting existing structure to
comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
JCC 18.25.560 Exemptions
Listed does not include the
new ADA exemption.
No action required – the SDP
exemption applies regardless
of SMP inclusion.
Ecology suggests including in
full like other exemptions or
changing to citations.
Jefferson County can
determine approach. Change
of some kind would likely be
required.
Optional text revision for
clarity to add example
language:
The external or internal
retrofitting of an existing
structure with the exclusive
purpose of compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
Sec. 12101 et seq.) or to
otherwise provide physical
access to the structure by
individuals with disabilities.
Change added to draft SMP
revisions.
b. Ecology updated wetlands
critical areas guidance including
implementation guidance for the
2014 wetlands rating system.
18.25.060: SMP adopts critical
areas regulations by reference
(as of date of adoption) with
some exceptions.
JCC adequately reflects the
most current technical
guidance.
• JCC 18.22.710Hi (1)
references RCW 36.70A.175
regarding federal manual.
• JCC 18.22.710 (2)
references 2014 manual –
determine if edit need since
SMP references CAO.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 10
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
Row Summary of change Review Action
• JCC Buffers in Table
18.22.730(1)(a) matches
Ecology CAO comment
letter 1/21/20 page 2.
• Buffer reduction criteria JCC
Table 18.22.730(1)(b)
matches Ecology CAO
comment letter 1/21/20
page 4.
2015
a. The Legislature adopted a 90-day
target for local review of
Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT)
projects.
Neither JCC 18.25.520
Transportation nor JCC
18.25.650 Notice of
application and permit
application review specify this
timeline target.
No action required – the
review timeline target applies
regardless of SMP inclusion.
Optional text revision to add
example language.
Special procedures for WSDOT
projects.
(i) Permit review time for
projects on a state highway.
Pursuant to RCW 47.01.485,
the Legislature established a
target of 90 days review time
for local governments.
(ii) Optional process allowing
construction to commence
twenty-one days after
date of filing. Pursuant to RCW
90.58.140, Washington State
Department of Transportation
projects that address
significant public safety risks
may begin twenty-one days
after the date of filing if all
components of the project will
achieve no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions.
Change added to draft SMP
revisions.
2014
a. The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for floating
on-water residences legally
established before 7/1/2014.
JCC 18.25.220 Use Table does
not specify Floating Homes or
FOWRs, but does prohibit
Single-Family Residential use
(including appurtenances &
No action required.
Optional text revision to sync
up terms used and Definitions
with RCW 90.58.270.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 11
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
Row Summary of change Review Action
accessory structures), in both
the Priority Aquactic and the
Aquatic SEDs.
JCC 18.25.100 Definition
#6.m. “Floating house” means
any floating structure that is
designed, or has been
substantially and structurally
remodeled or redesigned, to
serve primarily as a residence.
“Floating houses” include
house boats, house barges, or
any floating structures that
serve primarily as a residence
and do not qualify as a vessel.
A floating structure that is
used as a residence and is
capable of navigation, but is
not designed primarily for
navigation, nor is normally
capable of self propulsion and
use as a means of
transportation, is a floating
house, not a vessel per WAC
332-30-103.
"Floating home" means a
single-family dwelling unit
constructed on a float, that is
moored, anchored, or
otherwise secured in waters,
and is not a vessel, even
though it may be capable of
being towed.
"Floating on-water residence"
means any floating structure
other than a floating home,
that: (i) Is designed or used
primarily as a residence on the
water and has detachable
utilities; and (ii) whose owner
or primary occupant has held
an ownership interest in space
in a marina, or has held a
lease or sublease to use space
in a marina, since a date prior
to July 1, 2014.
Per Ecology, though none exist
and the SMP prohibits new
residential in/over water,
County may want to revise the
existing term ‘floating house’
and definitions to reflect these
terms defined by
statute/WAC.
Change added to draft SMP
revisions.
2012
a. The Legislature amended the
SMA to clarify SMP appeal
procedures.
JCC 18.25.840 Master
program amendments.
Pursuant to RCW 90.58.190
and 36.70A.280, a decision by
the Jefferson County board of
county commissioners to
amend this master program
shall not constitute a final
appealable decision until the
Department of Ecology has
made a decision to approve,
No action required – the
statutory & rule requirements
apply regardless of SMP
inclusion.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 12
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
Row Summary of change Review Action
reject, or modify the proposed
amendment. Following the
decision of the Department of
Ecology regarding the
proposed amendment, the
decision may be appealed to
the Western Washington
Growth Management
Hearings Board. [Ord. 7-13
Exh. A (Art. X § 25)]
2011
a. Ecology adopted a rule requiring
that wetlands be delineated in
accordance with the approved
federal wetland delineation
manual.
18.25.060: SMP adopts critical
areas regulations by reference
(as of date of adoption) with
some exceptions.
See 2016 b.
b. Ecology adopted rules for new
commercial geoduck
aquaculture.
JCC 18.25.100 Definitions
#2.t “Bottom culture” means
all aquaculture systems that
are set on or securely and
rigidly attached to the
tidelands or bedlands and do
not extend higher than six feet
from the bottom (excluding
hoists and similar apparatus).
Bottom culture includes but is
not limited to geoduck tubes,
oyster longlines, clam netting,
oyster rack and bags, and clam
bags. Bottom culture does not
include aquaculture
suspended from rafts or buoys
or contained in floating net
pens.
JCC 18.25.220 Use Table
Geoduck aquaculture is
allowed in both the Priority
Aquatic and Aquatic SEDs,
requires an SDP when
adjacent to High Intensity SED,
and requires a CUP when
adjacent to Natural,
Conservancy, and Shoreline
Residential SEDS.
JCC 18.25.220 and -440 have
been revised to require a CUP
for new commercial geoduck
aquaculture and to add
supporting regulations
governing commercial
geoduck aquaculture per WAC
173-26-241(3)(b)(ii-iv)
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 13
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
Row Summary of change Review Action
JCC 18.25.440 Aquaculture.
General Regulations 4.a-f
apply, including:
• initial siting/planting SDP 5-
yr limit + 1-yr extension;
• ongoing operations
allowance;
• 25% / 10-yr expansion limit;
• activities allowed w/o SDP,
unless public use
interference, structures,
mechanical dredging, or
filling;
• JARPA & SEPA submittals to
allow case-by-case
assessment of use
interference w/ exceptions;
• Standards e(i – xv) re:
adverse impacts, cumulative
effects, nonWO structures,
OW sleeping quarters,
height limits, visual impacts,
interference w/ Nav, Public
Access, Tribal harvest, 600 -
1500 from NWR/other
protected areas, shading
kelp, helical anchors,
compensate use of public
facilities, predator control
methods, chemicals/GMOs,
non-Nav lighting, waste
disposal;
• f. “Prior to approving a
permit for floating/hanging
aquaculture’ use and
development or bottom
culture involving structures,
the county may require a
visual analysis prepared by
the applicant/proponent
describing effects on nearby
uses and aesthetic qualities
of the shoreline. The
analysis shall demonstrate
that adverse impacts on the
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 14
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
Row Summary of change Review Action
character of those areas are
effectively mitigated.”
c. The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for floating
homes permitted or legally
established prior to January 1,
2011.
See 2014.a above See 2014.a above
d. The Legislature authorizing a new
option to classify existing
structures as conforming.
JCC 18.25.660 Nonconforming
development.
JCC 18.25.500 Residential.
No action required.
Optional revision to add text
implementing WAC 173-26-
241(3.j) at (6.A)
Change added.
2010
a. The Legislature adopted Growth
Management Act – Shoreline
Management Act clarifications.
No action required
2009
a.
The Legislature created new
“relief” procedures for instances
in which a shoreline restoration
project within a UGA creates a
shift in Ordinary High Water
Mark.
JCC 18.25.170 Restoration
and enhancement – Purpose
& Goals
JCC 18.25.400 Restoration
Separate but related:
JCC 18.25.270 Critical areas,
shoreline buffers, and
ecological protection –
Regulations
#2.g allows an advance
restoration credit
No action required – the
process may be used
regardless of SMP inclusion.
Optional text revision to add
either version of example
language (i.w. option 1
below):
The County may grant relief
from shoreline master
program
development standards and
use regulations resulting from
shoreline restoration
projects within urban growth
areas consistent with criteria
and procedures in WAC
173-27-215.
Change added to draft SMP
revisions - see new section JCC
18.25.605.
b. Ecology adopted a rule for
certifying wetland mitigation
banks.
Referenced potential for
wetland mitigation bank in
SMP at JCC 18.25.270 (h). Fee
in lieu is rereferenced in CAO.
Language in JCC
18.25.270(2)(h) meets the
Ecology requirement; it could
be improved by adding the
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 15
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
Row Summary of change Review Action
word ‘certified’ (i.e.,
…certified mitigation
banks,…).
c. The Legislature added moratoria
authority and procedures to the
SMA.
JCC 18.25 does not address
moratoria
No action required – the
statutory provisions apply
regardless of SMP inclusion.
2007
a.
The Legislature clarified options
for defining "floodway" as either
the area that has been
established in FEMA maps, or the
floodway criteria set in the SMA.
JCC 18.25.100 Definitions
#6.r. “Floodway” means the
area of a river valley that
conveys flood waters with
reasonable regularity,
although not necessarily
annually. At a minimum, the
floodway is that which has
been established in Federal
Emergency Management Act
flood insurance rate maps or
Federal Emergency
Management Act floodway
maps. Other data and
information, including
topography, changes in soil or
vegetation, and other
indicators of past flooding,
may be used to define and
map a floodway that meets
the objectives of the Shoreline
Management Act, Chapter
90.58 RCW. The floodway
shall not include those lands
that can reasonably be
expected to be protected
from 100-year flood waters by
flood control devices
maintained by or maintained
under license from the federal
government, the state, or a
political subdivision of the
state.
The adopted SMP definition is
similar to Ecology example
language Option 1. Made edits
to be identical.
b. Ecology amended rules to clarify
that comprehensively updated
SMPs shall include a list and map
of streams and lakes that are in
shoreline jurisdiction.
JCC 18.25.870 Official
Shoreline Map
ICR List of Waterbodies?
No action required
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 16
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
Row Summary of change Review Action
c. Ecology’s rule listing statutory
exemptions from the
requirement for an SDP was
amended to include fish habitat
enhancement projects that
conform to the provisions of
RCW 77.55.181.
JCC 18.25.560 Exemptions
Listed
#18 “A public or private
project, the primary purpose
of which is to improve fish or
wildlife habitat or fish
passage, when all of the
following apply: …”
No action required
Additional amendments
Modify this section, as needed, to reflect additional review issues and related amendments.
The summary of change could be about Comprehensive Plan and Development regulations,
changes to local circumstance, new information, or improved data.
Two example formats:
SMP section Summary of change Review Action
County-Proposed Edits: SMP Task Force
SMP Section Summary of change Discussion
18.25.660 (8) (9) (10) Task Force A: 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.
Meet environmental protection and
address regulatory reform.
Result: Removed some CUP limitations on
beach access structures.
Table 18.25.220,
18.25.350
Task Force B: 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
Clarify SMP. Allow best practices that
minimize environmental impact. Address
regulatory reform.
Result: Shifted buoys from CUP to SDP in SR
and C environments. Minimally addressed
eelgrass and proposed limit on number of
buoys per residential lot to two (DNR allows
second buoy to help secure moorage to first
buoy).
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 17
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
SMP Section Summary of change Discussion
between areas with eelgrass patches
and full eelgrass coverage. Consider
appropriate number or density of buoys.
18.25.120,
18.25.180,
18.25.190,
18.25.300,
18.25.410(5)(e),
18.25.430, 18.25.520
Task Force C: 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.
Proactively address climate change and
sea-level rise particularly for activities with
long-life.
Result: Most Comprehensive Plan policies
added into SMP. Opportunity to request a
CUP to add height in response to sea-level
rise. Added policy on retreat,
accommodate, and protect.
Table 18.25.220,
18.25.450
Task Force D: Marine trades and
economic development. Ensure SMP
permitting process does not unduly
burden marine trades.
Recognize important sectors that support
economy and water oriented uses.
Result: Reviewed current use matrix; most
uses addressed appropriately. Also see
edits to bouys and launches. Also added
reference to maritime trades definition
and maritime education/training as a
scientific and educational activity subject
to commercial standards.
Table 18.25.220,
18.25.350
Task Force E: Encourage development of
new public boat launches and
improvement of existing boat launches
in SMP.
Lack of boat launches, condition of
existing.
Result: Changed CUP to P for public boat
launches in Conservancy. This should assist
with new launches and
modifications/expansions/improvements of
existing launches. After conversation with
WDFW, added reference to WAC design
standards to be used to extent feasible.
18.25.250 Review how Shoreline Management Act
purposes are carried out with use
allowances and permitting.
Clarify how SMP is carried out on
shorelines identified for optimal
implementation of SMP.
Result: Addressed policy updates which
should apply to all permits.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 18
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
County Proposed SMP Edits: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations
SMP Section Summary of Change Discussion
18.25.660 Non-conforming uses/development
clarification
Clarify with revised definition of
nonconforming in Article II,18.25.100.
18.25.270(4)(a)(i) SMP/Critical Area clarification This subsection was intended to mean that
critical area regulations in Chapter 18.22
are to be used, but where there are
discrepancies (such as those pertaining to
buffers, nonconforming development,
etc.), then the SMP prevails. Clarify how
the SMP subsections pertaining to critical
areas interact with critical area regulations
in Chapter 18.22.
Shoreline Designations for State Parks Review all shoreline designations for State
Parks considering designation
(conservancy or natural) and shoreline
access for conditions and revise where
warranted.
18.25.440(4)(d) References subsection (3)(c), but
reference for interference should be
(4)(c).
Change reference to (3)(c) to (4)(c)(i)
18.25.620 & .630 JCC 18.25.630(18) & (19) should be in
18.25.620 as (7) and (8)
Move subsections (18) & (19) of 18.25.630
to 18.25.620 and re-number as
subsections (7) & (8)
Parcel #921000001 on Indian Island is
State DNR Land, but does not have a
shoreline designation. Appears to
have been lumped in with N/A for
Federal Exempt Lands.
SMP considers Conservancy a default
when an area is undesignated. Anticipate
collecting information per WAC to assign
designation of Conservancy.
18.25.210(3) Clarify that west end rivers are
aquatic below OHWM
Review and revise where warranted.
JCC
18.25.100(19)(w)(i),(ii)
and (iv) and JCC
18.25.240
Definition of Shoreline of Statewide
Significance are duplicates in JCC
18.25.100(19)(w)(i) and (ii). JC
18.25.100(19)(vii) refers to both (i)and
(ii), should ensure the correct
subsections are reflected.
Delete subsection 18.25.100(w)(ii) and re-
number subsequent subsections. Delete
reference to (ii) in subsection (vii) (to be
new subsection (vi) after re-numbering).
Shorelines of statewide significance should
be verbatim from WAC
18.25.440(4)(e): 'not'
is consistent with (4)(c)
and reference change
Aquaculture: clarify when a SDP is
needed.
Review in concert with SMP Periodic
Review Checklist. Consider deleting
reference to (1) from (4)e to just read (b).
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 19
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
SMP Section Summary of Change Discussion
from (1)(b) to say
(4)(b)
Delete text "or conditional use permit
(CUP)"
18.25.100(14)(h), and
possibly
18.25.270(5)(a) and (b)
Revise nonconforming lot definition
from "…minimum lot size…" to
"minimum lot depth…", and check
how it is used relative to the modest
home provision and the common line
buffer.
Clarify with revised definition of
nonconforming in Article II,18.25.100.
Change the text "size" to "depth."
Incorporate Code Interpretation regarding
non-conforming lot if warranted.
18.25.410 Clarify that the applicant must
demonstrate erosion from wave
energy to approve soft shore
stabilization; also, revise policies to
include soft shore stabilization. Add
soft shore stabilization regulations.
Geotechnical report should suffice.
18.25.560(15), (16),
and (17)
Revise watershed restoration
exemptions to be consistent with
state law. Exemptions 15 and 17 are
definitions, not exemptions. Clarify
that exemption 16 has no shoreline
permitting fee, per RCW 90.58.515.
Revise 18.25.560 Exemptions to
consolidate subsections (15), (16) & (17).
18.25.270 Specify report requirements for NNL;
consider referencing requirements for
CAO report requirements in 18.22.
Consultant recommendations: A stand-
alone NNL report is not necessary. If
desired, it could be limited to CUPs and
Variances – and then it should focus on
the specific ecological effects, if any (and
how they are mitigated), of the
conditional use or variance beyond those
that would have resulted either without
the variance or from another
allowed/non-CUP use. The CUP and
Variance criteria require applicants to
demonstrate no adverse effects, which
appears to address NNL. Otherwise,
compliance with the SMP, including the
mitigation sequencing provisions, should
satisfy NNL as was demonstrated in the
original Cumulative Impacts Analysis.
18.25.440((4)(b)(i) Clarify area included in 25% increase
for both in-water and above OHWM
development.
Add text, "This applies to both in-water
and above OHWM development."
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 20
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
SMP Section Summary of Change Discussion
JCC 18.25.410(5)(iii) JCC 18.25.410(5)(iii) has wrong code
reference to flood regulations.
Change text reference in JCC
18.25.410(5)(c)(iii) from "JCC 18.30.070"
to "JCC 15.15."
JCC 18.25.410(6)(h) Review if text should reference fewer
than 4 residential lots as it would
otherwise be inconsistent.
Change text reference in JCC
18.25.410(6)(h) from "more" to "less."
Provide guidance on requirements
and/or evaluating aesthetic reports.
Add text to 18.25.440(6)(b) "including
what views in the vicinity would be altered
or obstructed and propose measures to
reduce impacts," after "aesthetic qualities
of the shoreline."
JCC 18.25.650 Why is section is silent on notices for
Type II permits, but spells out process
on Type I and III permits?
Add text "II &" to 18.25.650(1)(b) "Type III
project permit…". Permit procedures
should reference other processes in UDC
and not duplicate or create new.
JCC 18.25.300(2)(b) Side yard setback language is
confusing. SMP does not establish
side yard setbacks, and JCC 18.30
does not identify side yard setbacks
based off of zoning which makes it
confusing for in water.
Replace text in 18.25.300(2)(b), "Five feet
of the total required side yard setbacks
may be provided on one side and the
balance on the other side," with, "The
standard side yard setback is five feet."
Review for consistency with zoning.
JCC 18.25.620 Unclear if C(a) permit and SSDP
requires a Type III process. What is
the process for stand-alone SSDP (yes
use, but SSDP required)?
JCC 18.25.620(3) & (4) are clear that C(a)
and C(d) are processed as Type IIs. Add
new subsection that SDPs shall be
processed as a Type I permit. Delete text
"substantial development permits and,"
from 18.25.620(2). Re-number existing
subsections to include new subsection.
JCC 18.25.100 Consider adding in definitions in for
waterward and lateral as associated
with implementing code language.
Add definition under 18.25.100(12) for
"Lateral," to define expansion in relation
to the OHWM.
JCC 18.25.310 Provide clarification on vegetation
maintenance requirements and how it
is applicable to clearing for new
development, such as a single family
residence, or just for views.
Delete "new" from 18.25.310(2)(d).
JCC 18.25.270(4)(l) Revise CASP from a Type III to a Type I
process and when it is used in
shoreline jurisdiction - current
language is awkward.
Replace text of last sentence in
18.25.270(4)(l) to read, "such buffer
modification shall require a Type I
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 21
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
SMP Section Summary of Change Discussion
Substantial Development Permit (SDP).”
Address consistency with CAO.
JCC 18.25.660(9) Clarify if non-conforming lateral
expansion is a C(a) or a C(d)
Replace text in 18.25.660(9) that reads,
"with a Conditional Use Permit," to read,"
with a Type I Substantial Development
Permit (SDP)"
JCC 18.25.660 Non-conforming expansion: change
foundation walls to roof line to (8)
and (10), and consider adding similar
roof line language to (9).
Revise text in 18.25.660(8)(b) that reads,
"beyond the existing structures'
foundation walls," to read, " beyond the
structures' legally permitted development
footprint." Add revised text above to
18.25.660(9), and revise same to
18.25.660(10)(a).
JCC 18.25.270(5) Clarify that expansions to existing
residential development can use the
modest home provisions; not just new
SFR development.
Delete the text "New" under
18.25.270(5)(a).
JCC 18.25.600;
possibly, JCC
18.25.100(3)(q)
Clarify if an unclassified conditional
use is a C, C(a), or C(d). If it is
determined to be a C (i.e., Type III),
then the CUP definition in JCC
18.25.100(3)(q) needs to be revised.
If there is no C (Type III) in the
shoreline regulations, that should be
clarified in JCC 18.25.600.
Revise text in 18.25.600 that reads, "may
be authorized as conditional uses…" to
read, "may be authorized as a
Discretionary Conditional Use "C(d)"
permit, provided…"
JCC 18.25.270(4)(i) Need to add a definition for "active
use" within the shoreline buffer.
Create definition for "active use" in
18.25.100(1)
JCC 18.25.270(5)(a)(iii) Revise to say …common-line buffer, if
applicable...
Addition text to 18.25.270(5)(a)(iii) to
read, "common-line buffer, if applicable;
and"
JCC 18.25.440(4)(d) Change reference from 3(c) to 4(c)
(page 18-168.26)
Replace "(3)" in 18.25.440(4)(d) to "(4)."
JCC 18.25.340(2) and
(4)(j)
These two sections contradict each
other. If new beach access is
prohibited in marine feeder bluffs,
why would it be allowed if the project
is shown not to adversely affect?
Possibly the intent is to allow these
structures on feeder bluffs if geotech
Redefine "feeder bluff" under
18.25.100(6)(d). Delete subsections
18.25.340(2) and (4)(d)(ii). Revisit the
prohibitions for feeder bluffs.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 22
July 2019
Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020
SMP Section Summary of Change Discussion
says there is no adverse impact.
340(2) is too restrictive.
JCC 18.25.270(4)e(iii) Clarify if all streams requires a 150-
foot buffer in all shoreline
environments or if it is only those
identified as "shorelines" in 90.58
RCW (>20cfs)
Shoreline buffers apply to S type streams
only. Add text to 18.25.270(4)(e)(iii) to
read "Stream/River (mean annual flows
greater than 20 cubic feet per second)
Shores." Similarly, added note to clarify
lakes 20 acres or larger have shoreline
buffers.
JCC 18.25.310(2)(d) Maintenance trimming seems to only
be allowed for "new" shoreline uses.
Should also extend to existing uses.
Delete the text "new" under
18.25.310(2)(d).
JCC 18.25.560 and
Appurtenance
definitions
Exempt ADU's as appurtenances. Add the text "Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADU)," to 18.25.100(1)(aa).
City of Bonney Lake is doing this for
example.
JCC 18.25.660(8) & (9) JCC 18.25.660(8)(9) planting plan
needs to be more explicit re: if a
habitat management plan by a
biologist is required.
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.
Other: Staff discussions
and clarifications
In limited locations flagged in
corresponding SMP edits, made
clarifications to respond to staff
experience and questions regarding
implementation.
Various.