HomeMy WebLinkAbout_Staff Report_2021_0514 1
Jefferson County
Shoreline Master Program
Periodic Review
Staff Report
By: BERK Consulting, Inc., Shannon & Wilson, and Jefferson County Community Development Department
Purpose of Periodic Review
Jefferson County is undertaking a periodic review of its Shoreline Master Program (SMP; Chapter 18.25
Jefferson County Code), as required by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), RCW
90.58.080(4) (see Appendix A). The SMA requires each SMP be reviewed and revised, if needed, on an
eight-year schedule established by the Legislature. The review ensures the SMP stays current with
changes in laws and rules, remains consistent with other Jefferson County plans and regulations, and is
responsive to changed circumstances, new information and improved data.
This staff report describes the County’s public outreach efforts, summarizes proposed SMP amendments
and evaluates how the draft amendments are consistent with county and state requirements.
Specific sections of this report are listed in the table of contents below:
Purpose of Periodic Review .................................................................................................................. 1
Summary of Public Outreach ................................................................................................................ 2
Summary of Amendments .................................................................................................................... 3
Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Appendices............................................................................................................................................ 7
DRAFT May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review Staff Report 2
Summary of Public Outreach
In summer 2020, Jefferson County prepared a public participation plan designed to help the County
meet the following period review requirements:
In conducting the periodic review, the department and local governments, pursuant to
RCW 90.58.130, shall make all reasonable efforts to inform, fully involve and encourage
participation of all interested persons and private entities, tribes, and agencies of the
federal, state or local government having interests and responsibilities relating to
shorelines of the state and the local master program. Local governments may follow the
public participation procedures under either the standard local process outlined in
WAC 173-26-100, or the optional joint review process outlined in WAC 173-26-104.
The County is preparing its periodic review as part of the optional joint review process where the County
and the Washington Department of Ecology are developing the draft amendments in coordination and
conducting a unified comment period and hearing. The County has also developed the SMP amendments
as part of a state grant.
Public outreach efforts designed to encourage public, agency, and tribal participation include:
▪ A project website where information and events are posted:
https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-Master-Program-Periodic-Review#.
▪ A Story Map and Survey were posted to the website and a postcard advertising the survey was
emailed to interested persons and published in media. See Appendix B for survey results. About 93
persons responded to the survey from September to December 2020. About two thirds
lived/owned/had access to a shoreline within 200 feet, primarily along marine waters. Only about
11 had sought shoreline permits. Protecting shoreline ecological functions and respecting property
rights were supported principles. Improved or maintained water quality, public access, and
fishing/crabbing were identified as desired activities. Several topics of concern around permitting,
clarity of shoreline and critical area regulations, climate change, boating regulations, and others
were identified as areas of potential review.
▪ Shoreline Task Force with representatives from across the county and with expertise and interest in
shoreline ecology, marine industries, etc. The Task Force met over fall 2020 and developed a scope
to shape the focus of the proposed SMP amendments to address local conditions and regulatory
reform meant to retain environmental protection and reduce unnecessary procedures. See Appendix
C for a scoping summary.
▪ Agency, Tribe, and Stakeholder Meetings that include but are not limited to: Jefferson County
Chamber of Commerce (October 2020), Jefferson County Association of Realtors (October 2020),
Marine Resource Committee (November 2020), and a multi-agency meeting with Skokomish Tribe,
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, WDFW, DNR, Ecology, Port Townsend, Kitsap County, and others in
January 2021. For more information on these meetings, please see the project website above.
DRAFT May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review Staff Report 3
Summary of Amendments
The consultants and County reviewed the current SMP in relation to the Periodic Review Checklist
(Appendix D) and the Task Force scoping results (Appendix C). A first draft of amendments was shared
with the Washington Department of Ecology (November), the Task Force (December 2020) and with
stakeholders (October 2020-January 2021). After early review with Washington Department of Ecology
as of January and April 2021, a draft set of revisions were prepared. A summary appears in the table
below. See details of the proposed changes in Appendix E.
Exhibit 1. Summary of Draft SMP Amendments May 2021
Section Summary of Proposed Key Changes
General Format As amended through the periodic review, the codified version at Jefferson
County Chapter 18.25 would replace the previously approved 2014
consolidated program version.
The Official Shoreline Map (Appendix A) in Article XI retains the 2014
Appendix but will be republished. Appendix B JCC 18.22 critical areas
ordinance as it existed in 2014 will be replaced with County Ordinance 05-
0310-20 that repealed and replaced the critical areas ordinance in 2020.
Article I. Introduction Clarify SMP does not apply to lands under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Remove detail on critical areas regulations – refer to later section where
incorporation by reference of critical areas is addressed.
Article II. Definitions Update definitions for greater consistency with State law and rules, and to
improve clarity and implementation.
Article III. Master Program Goals Add in goals addressing climate change and adaptation, largely from the
Comprehensive Plan. Support marine trades.
Article IV. Shoreline Jurisdiction
and Environment Designations
Retain shoreline environment designations. Clarify west end rivers are aquatic
below the ordinary high water mark.
Amend Table 18.25.220 – Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses consistent
with other changes responding to state laws/periodic checklist (e.g. geoduck
aquaculture, ocean uses) as well as regulatory reform and task force proposals
(e.g. beach access, boat launches, mooring buoys).
Article V. Shorelines of
Statewide Significance
Add management principles to assist in applying use preferences for shorelines
of statewide significance.
Article VI. General Policies and
Regulations
Amend policies to support protection of critical areas to assure no net loss of
shoreline ecological function. Buffers are retained and language clarified for
interpretation. Update the incorporation by reference to 2020 set of critical
area ordinance. Define existing term of active use applied to buffer usage.
Clarify modest home provision on new and existing single-family homes.
Incorporate County interpretations regarding nonconforming septic repair and
stormwater improvements, similar to critical area regulations.
Clarify side yard widths are consistent with zoning.
DRAFT May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review Staff Report 4
Section Summary of Proposed Key Changes
Allow for changes in height with a variance to respond to sea level rise.
Clarify normal maintenance of vegetation. Clarify both new and existing
development should retain vegetation.
Article VII. Shoreline
Modifications Policies and
Regulations
Beach access structures: Modify permit types for regulatory reform goals while
retaining requirements and protections including prohibition waterward of the
ordinary high water mark.
Boat launch: Adjust permit types for regulatory reform goals while retaining
requirements and protections. Add reference to state rules that apply to boat
launches.
Mooring buoys: Amend performance standards to require consistency with Corps
of Engineers. Limit residences to two mooring buoys to stabilize a single boat to
minimize damage. Clarify avoid and minimize effects to eelgrass patches as
well as beds to improve implementation.
Encourage Restoration: Reference state rules that allow for relief from SMP for
restoration in urban growth areas.
Shoreline Stabilization: Clarify requirements for geotechnical analysis for
shoreline stabilization and match state rules. Match state rules on soft shoreline
stabilization approaches.
Article VIII. Use-Specific Policies
and Regulations
Agriculture: Add in policies addressing climate change and adaptation, largely
from the Comprehensive Plan. Cross-reference agriculture/critical area
regulations.
Aquaculture: Match 2011 state shoreline rules regarding (new) geoduck
aquaculture. Relocate finfish aquaculture maps to Article XI. Reduce redundancy
and improve consistency with state rules on review criteria and permit
requirement for geoduck conditional use permits.
Commercial use: Clarify that maritime education and public uses should follow
commercial standards.
Forst practice: Match state law on forest practice requirements.
Transportation: Incorporate Comprehensive Plan policies on sea level rise and
adapting/mitigating transportation facilities.
Article IX. Permit Criteria and
Exemptions
Update exemptions to match state rules (e.g. fair market value, add ADA
retrofit, cross reference state requirements).
Article X. Administration and
Enforcement
Clarify permit type and review procedures. Add required changes per state
laws and rules on development not required to obtain shoreline permits (e.g.
WSDOT facility maintenance) or that have special review requirements.
Non-conforming single family home expansions one-time enlargement:
Minor expansions, non-waterward: Allow for lateral expansion subject to the
square footage limitations subject to a Type II permit that includes notice. Add a
more specific planting plan intended to provide no-net-loss through equivalent
enhancement of the shoreline buffer. Also add a monitoring plan to help
respond to tribal and agency input.
DRAFT May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review Staff Report 5
Section Summary of Proposed Key Changes
Minor expansions, waterward: Retain provision to allow filling in a notch in
existing structure foundation wall. Allow for no more than 200 square feet
enclosure of existing porch on existing legally installed impervious area, if
landward of the common line setback, and if providing a planting plan and
revegetating the area with 80% native plantings; similar to modest home
provision but for small expansions (e.g. expand kitchen in only place possible).
Moderate expansions: Retain provisions allowing lateral, vertical, or landward
expansion, with discretionary permit; add details and standards for a planting
plan and add monitoring and retention of enhanced vegetation.
Recognize existing residential development with no change as conforming per
2011 state rules.
Add state rules on transmittal of permits to Ecology. Clarify SMP amendment
process per state rules.
Article XI. Shoreline Mapping
Relocated finfish maps are here. Per state requirements, added a list of
waterbodies subject to SMP based on the Inventory and Characterization
Report.
Article XII. Ocean Management
The Ocean Resources Management Act (ORMA; RCW 43.143) and WAC 173-
26-360 have long been in effect; the current SMP’s ORMA cross reference
provision was adequate for 2014 approval. Since then the Washington Marine
Spatial Plan (MSP) was adopted in 2018, and the SMP now needs adequate
provisions to fully implement ORMA & the MSP as required by state law and
rules.
Evaluation
The SMP Periodic update is meant to address requirements of state law and county code. The legal
frameworks are excerpted below with staff evaluation in italics.
Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58.080: local governments shall conduct a review of their master
programs at least once every eight years as required by (b) of this subsection. Following the review
required by this subsection (4), local governments shall, if necessary, revise their master programs. The
purpose of the review is: (i) To assure that the master program complies with applicable law and
guidelines in effect at the time of the review; and (ii) To assure consistency of the master program with
the local government's comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted under
chapter 36.70A RCW, if applicable, and other local requirements.
Evaluation of RCW 90.58.080: The Jefferson County SMP Periodic Review amendments
are based on an evaluation of state laws and rules using the Washington Department of
Ecology’s Periodic Review Checklist. As a result of SMP Task Force input on the scope
several Comprehensive Plan policies were integrated into the SMP. As well, the latest
critical area regulations in 2020 would be incorporated by reference.
Shoreline Master Program Rules, WAC 173-26-090: (1) Locally initiated master program review. Each
local government should review its shoreline master program and make amendments deemed necessary
DRAFT May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review Staff Report 6
to reflect changing local circumstances, new information or improved data. Local governments are
encouraged to consult department guidance for applicable new information on emerging topics such as
sea level rise.
Evaluation of WAC 173-26-090: The Jefferson County SMP Periodic Review
amendments were reviewed for changing circumstances, new information, or emerging
topics (e.g. through Task Force review, and an evaluation of permit histories). For
example, the County’s track record of producing the most shoreline conditional use
permits and variances for certain permit types (single family homes and others) was new
information. Changing circumstances and emerging topics included sea level rise.
Jefferson County Code criteria, 18.45.080 final docket for Comprehensive Plan: (1) Planning
Commission Review. All proposed amendments on the final docket shall be reviewed and assessed by the
planning commission, which shall make a recommendation to the board of county commissioners after
holding at least one open record public hearing.
(b) Required Findings – Generally. For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall develop
findings and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management indicators set
forth in JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii), as well as the following:
(i) Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have
substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan;
(ii) Whether the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer
valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or
any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and
(iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County.
Evaluation of JCC 18.45.080: The SMP goals and policies are considered an element of
the County’s comprehensive plan and the SMP regulations are considered part of the
County’s development regulations. They can be amended more than once a year and are
not part of the annual docket of Comprehensive Plan changes. Regardless, a review of the
docket criteria is made.
• Circumstances have changed including experience with the 2014 SMP
implementation permit process results. Through application of the SMP the County
found some inconsistencies and need for interpretation.
• Assumptions have changed and new information was available such as adoption of
the County Comprehensive Plan in 2018, and new state laws.
• Amendments have been proposed based on the various SMP public outreach
results.
Regarding the SMP draft amendments, a SEPA checklist has been developed to screen the legislative
proposals for environmental implications. The proposed SMP amendments are meant to increase
consistency with state laws and reflect local circumstances, while retaining no-net-loss of shoreline
ecological function. No adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing or
DRAFT May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review Staff Report 7
amended code provisions has been identified. At the time of a site-specific development proposal within
shoreline jurisdiction, mitigation may be necessary and may be imposed. The checklist is available under
separate cover. See the project website: https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-Master-
Program-Periodic-Review#.
Appendices
SMP Amendment Code Excerpts
SMP Periodic Review Survey
Task Force Scoping Report
Periodic Review Checklist
Periodic Review Proposed Changes