Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBriefing re Shoreline Master Program JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Josh D.Peters,AICP,Community Development Director DATE: December 11,2023 SUBJECT: Briefing on Shoreline Master Program(SMP)Periodic Review Transmittal of Planning Commission Recommendation STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Jefferson County has been working on an SMP Periodic Update, as required by the state Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The attached joint staff report from our SMP consultants and Department of Community Development(DCD) staff provides background on this process and lists attached documents and referenced background information stored elsewhere (i.e.,through the SMP project webpage or within the Planning Commission directory in Laserfiche). Hyperlinks are provided in the staff report. This briefing includes transmittal of the Planning Commission recommendation for SMP amendments, as described in the attached letter signed by the Planning Commission Chair. A majority of the Planning Commission reached a recommendation on November 15, 2023 following a duly-noticed public hearing on October 4, 2023. Following a presentation from DCD staff and our SMP consultants at this briefing, along with potential Planning Commission statements concerning the Planning Commission recommendation,the decision before the Board is between the following options: 1. Accept the Planning Commission recommendation, forgoing a public hearing before the Board. 2. Schedule a public hearing before the Board. After any questions that the Board may have following the presentation(s), staff recommends the following process: make a motion regarding one of those options, accept public comment, then act on the motion. Note: You may wish to emphasize before the regular 9:00 AM public comment period that SMP-related comments will be accepted during the 10:30 AM SMP briefing, following the staff presentation and once a motion is under consideration. ANALYSIS: State adoption process Regardless of whether the Board holds its own public hearing or not, once the Board adopts amendments to the SMP at a later meeting through ordinance, staff and consultants will coordinate completion of supporting documentation, then forward the package to the Washington State Department of Ecology for review. Pursuant to the SMA, Ecology has the final authority to approve local government SMPs or require 1 changes. Ecology will arrange for a written public comment period before taking final action on Jefferson County's SMP. The choice for the Board is between moving the Planning Commission-recommended proposal to Ecology in the immediate future (through ordinance adoption; tentatively scheduled for January 2) or postponing that action until a public hearing is scheduled and held (tentatively scheduled for January 8), followed by Board deliberation(tentatively scheduled for January 16), and, finally, ordinance adoption based on Board decision. Depending upon the nature of the set of SMP amendments adopted by the Board, staff and consultants may need to update/modify supporting materials—such as the Cumulative Impacts Analysis—before submitting the complete package to Ecology. FISCAL IMPACT: DCD has budgeted for this activity, irrespective of the Board decision to hold a public hearing. Long-Range Planning is paid for through the General Fund. (Ecology provided grant funds for this process, yet those funds were expended at the end of the last state fiscal biennium.) If the Board chooses to send SMP amendments recommended by the Planning Commission to Ecology,there would be a smaller expenditure for consultant assistance and less staff time needed. That said, staff considers the difference unsubstantial considering the relative importance of the SMP Periodic Review process. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Board, at the appropriate time in the briefing, make a motion for one of the following options: 1. Accept the Planning Commission recommendation. 2. Schedule a public hearing before the Board. REVIEWED BY: Mark McCaule ounty Administrator Date 2 °� ��G2 Jefferson County NI zz,5'� Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Staff Report December 7, 2023 By: BERK Consulting, Inc., Shannon & Wilson, and Jefferson County Department of Community Development Meeting Board of County Commissioners Briefing: ■ December 11, 2023, 10:30 AM • https:ZZwww.co.jefferson.wa.usZ492/Board-of-County-Commissioners Purpose 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). 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. Review Process 2020-2022 — Development of Periodic Update Proposals and Ecology Review A 30-day Joint Review with Jefferson County Planning Commission & Washington Department of Ecology was held May 17-June 16, 2021. A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on June 16, 2021. After the public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated at several sessions and made recommendations regarding the SMP Periodic Update in October 2021. On September 30, 2022, Ecology transmitted its Initial Determination of Consistency on the Draft Jefferson County SMP just about a year after the submittal of the Planning Commission recommendations. 2023 Grant Support and SMP Revisions In Spring 2023, Jefferson County secured some grant funds to help support completion of the SMP Update process. The Planning Commission reviewed Ecology's comments and discussed key issues and potential options at meetings on June 7, June 29, and August 2, 2023. A set of revisions was incorporated into a Hearing Draft, which was published on September 20, 2023. Public comments were solicited through October 4, 2023. :III II Following the Planning Commission hearing and deliberations through November 15, 2023, the recommendations are now forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. The County intends to complete the SMP Periodic Update by early 2024 following the Board's consideration. The revised amendments would then go to Ecology, which will hold its own comment period and consider the amendments as an approving agency per the SMA. Materials This report transmits several elements of the proposal or process. See also: SMP Periodic Review webpaae. Attached for December 1 1 briefing 1. Planning Commission recommendation transmittal letter,signed December 5, 2023. 2. Staff report for November 15. 2023 Planning Commission meeting along with notations for results of Plannina Commission motions on specific SMP issues/sections. 3. Summary of written comments submitted during the September 20 through October 4, 2023 comment period. 4. SMP with proposed amendments shown in Track Changes format, including margin annotations. 5. Corresponding Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.40 Amendment—Permit Type— Proposed amendments to JCC 18.40.040 that change shoreline substantial development permits (SDPs) under the SMP from a Type III permit decision to a Type II permit decision. Referenced with hyperlinkslfile storage information 6. SMP clean version with proposed amendments included (i.e., what the language will be if and when amendments are adopted). 7. SMP Periodic Review Checklist—Tool for cities and counties subject to the SMA to ensure their SMP complies with current state laws, rules, and guidance and is consistent with the local comprehensive plan and development regulations.The June 30, 2023 Periodic Checklist and Ocean Management Checklist will be updated prior to Ecology submittal; the checklists are largely still applicable. 8. Initial Determination of Consistency Matrix—Set of required and recommended changes from Department of Ecology's review of previous SMP update draft.The June 30, 2023 copy of Ecology's comments with consultant notes will be updated prior to Ecology submittal. The responses are largely still applicable. 9. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist issued September 20, 2023 for the SMP Proposals evaluated with the Planning Commission hearing draft. 10. Cumulative Impacts Analysis (CIA)—Addendum to 2009 CIA based on 2023 proposal.This will be finalized based on the Planning Commission recommendations after the Board's consideration. 11. Complete set of written comments submitted during the September 20 through October 4 comment period. MB PDF file stored on Laserfiche.] 12. Correspondence to the Planning Commission after the comment period closed on October 4, 2023. 13. Planning Commission meeting minutes for October 4, 2023, at which time a public hearing was held on proposed SMP amendments (found here on Laserfiche within October 18, 2023 agenda packet folder). 14. Select Planning Commission packet information,including staff reports and presentations from DCD and consultants concerning aspects of the SMP Periodic Review: ■ Agenda Packets: June 29,August 2,October 4,October 18, November 1,and November 15 meetings (agenda packet folders found here on Laserfiche by meeting date). :111 December 7, 2023 Jefferson County I SMP Briefing 2 ON JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend,WA 98368 0? 360-379-4450 1 email: PlanComm@co.jefferson.wa.us i^'6 www.co.jefferson.wa.us/580/Planning-Commission December 5, 2023 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Planning Commission Recommendation for Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Dear County Commissioners: The Jefferson County Planning Commission is pleased to forward the following findings and recommendations regarding periodic review of the county's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). We provide these recommendations for consideration in your final deliberations regarding the proposed SMP amendments. Planning Commission Review: All proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations, including the SMP, are assessed by the Planning Commission, which makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC)after holding at least one open record public hearing. Periodic Review of the SMP began in the 2019-2021, continued through the 2021-2013 biennium, and extended into the current 2023-2025 biennium. See the image below, created by BERK Consulting, for a graphic representation of the planning process to date. History Develop Priorities and Proposed Changes Ecology Review&Comment OCy O^ O^-V O^4-*3 Re-initiate 000000001N N N N a 0 0 0 0 0 we 0 0 0 'A y F i 4 a vt PC_ Plonning Commission TF=Task Force Starting in June 2023, the Planning Commission held a series of meetings that included the SMP Periodic Review on the agenda. These meetings included staff reports and presentations from the Department of Community Development(DCD) and consultants, as well as public comment and Planning Commission discussion. On September 20, DCD initiated a duly-noticed formal public comment period that lasted to midnight on October 4, 2023. During the Planning Commission meeting on October 4, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed amendments as published on September 20. During our meeting on October 18, we deliberated on the proposal, using the staff report from DCD and the consultants as a guide. At the conclusion of that meeting, we agreed in principle to a recommendation and requested that staff prepare complete versions of the proposed SMP update, including a Track Changes version and a clean version with all changes accepted. However, at our November 1 meeting, we were unable to reach a recommendation on a full SMP amendment proposal supported by a majority of the Planning Commission. Subsequently, DCD staff and consultants prepared a memorandum that included 2-3 options for us to decide among for remaining, unresolved issues. At our November 15 meeting, we voted on each of those issues and, ultimately, reached a recommendation for a complete set of SMP amendments by a vote of seven (7)for and one (1) against, with one (1) abstention. The staff memorandum has since been updated to include the results of each issue vote, for your consideration. Planning Commission Findings: Pursuant to Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.45.090, when making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) that involves amendments to the county's development regulation, the Planning Commission considers the criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (c), as applicable.' JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) (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; Planning Commission Finding:This criterion does not apply to an SMP periodic review required by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act(SMA) and associated Washington Administrative Code (WAC). That said, circumstances have not changed significantly since the 2018 Comprehensive Plan periodic review. (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 Planning Commission Finding:This criterion does not apply to an SMP periodic review required by the SMA and associated WAC. That said, circumstances have not changed significantly since the 2018 Comprehensive Plan periodic review. (iii)Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County. Planning Commission Finding:The importance of the county's SMP is recognized in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. We believe that the widely held values of the residents of Jefferson ' Notwithstanding the reference in 18.45.080(1)(b),the growth management indicators set forth in JCC 18.45.050 are not applicable to an SMP periodic review required by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act. 2 County include complying with the SMA and keeping the county's SMP up-to-date. The depth of public comment received during this planning process demonstrates the level of interest in the community. That said, there are differences of opinion for addressing a number of policy questions. We believe that the proposed SMP amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission reflect widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission hereby transmits a recommendation to the BoCC for adoption of amendments to the SMP as a result of SMA-required Period Review. The Planning Commission wishes to commend the Department of Ecology, the BoCC, the SMP Task Force, DCD staff, the consultants (BERK Consulting and Shannon & Wilson), stakeholders, and the public for their contributions to this process. Our understanding is that staff will transmit an annotated line-in/line-out version of the SMP that reflects our amendment recommendations, along with the aforementioned "results memo" from our November 15, 2023 meeting and other supporting information. Thank you for your consideration. r _ oA 'Richard Hull, Chair Jefferson County Planning Commission 3 �_soN �GG2 Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Staff Report I November 10, 2023 By:BERK Consulting, Inc., Shannon & Wilson, and Jefferson County Department of Community Development Meeting Date ■ Location: Tri-Area Community Center, 10 W Valley Rd Chimacum, WA 98325 ■ Hybrid Meeting Zoom Option: Zoom Meeting: Meeting ID: 886 7104 7253 Passcode: 894561 https://us02web.zoom.us/*/88671047253?pwd=OU8vTWZGWTVRRGNRVEQl c2kOWDVadzO9 • Date and Time: Wednesday, November 15, 2023, 5:30 PM Key Topics and Options Staff and consultants prepared a compete Shoreline Master Program (SMP) proposal (posted October 27, 2023) based on Planning Commission deliberation at its October 18, 2023 meeting. The October 27, 2023 material was discussed at the November 1, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, but the Planning Commission could not complete a recommendation. Links to those materials appear below: ■ 2023 11 Ol Track Changes Draft SMP - PC Recommendation ■ 2023 11 01 Clean Draft SMP - PC Recommendation The County Administrator, in consultation with the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners with respect to the Board's calendar, requested that the Planning Commission use its November 15, 2023 meeting to reach a recommendation. The topics that have generated discussion — geoduck aquaculture and marine shoreline buffer/setback provisions — are addressed in the table below (as well as errata noticed during Planning Commission review). The context of the comments and potential options are provided. The final column is blank and would be filled in per actions taken by the Planning Commission at its November 15 meeting. AI Exhibit 1. Potential Options to Amend the 11/1/2023 Draft SMP with Planning Commission Recommendations OptionsCommission Recommendation Topic Context: State Rules, Comments Conditional Use Permit— ■ WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(iv)—CUP required for new 1. Maintain approach in 11/1/23 draft Option 1: 5 yea, Geoduck Operations geoduck operations. Optional for conversions. Silent with a mix of standard and discretionary CUPS for new,conversion or expansions 4 nay; motion on expansions. � � p depending on shoreline environment passes ■ Shine Residents: Make all geoduck standard CUP. designation. Expansions are like new proposals. 2. Maintain approach in 1 1 1 23 draft PP / / Option 3: 4 yea,5 ■ Producers: Do not use standard CUP. Upland EXCEPT treat expansions like new nay; motion fails environment designations should not direct form of geoduck operations. permitting for tidelands. Historic or ongoing farms 3. Treat all geoduck aquaculture with Amend line 4580 should not require permits. standard CUP. and 4585 (re: upland Geoduck —Aesthetics WAC 1 73-26-241(3)(b)(C) says: "Aquacultural 1 . Maintain approach in 1 1/1/23 draft regulations)to Standard facilities should be designed and located so as not to with aesthetics analysis as a submittal match 4591: 8 spread disease to native aquatic life, establish new requirement with the allowance that: La,Oy, 1 nonnative species which cause significant ecological Applicants may omit information from n; motion impacts, or significantly impact the aesthetic qualities Table 18.22.400 that is demonstrably not of the shoreline. (emphasis added) applicable to a specific aquaculture proposal. An aesthetics analysis would be Option 1: 7 yea, ■ Producers: Remove visual analysis requirements. an important tool to determine first if Priority is on water-dependent uses over aesthetics there are conflicts, and second if and how 0 nay, 2 analysis when there is a conflict according to WAC they could be reconciled. abstentions; 173-26-221(4)(d)(iv), which says: "Where there is an Remove submittal requirement for motion passes irreconcilable conflict between water-dependent aesthetics analysis, but retain a shoreline uses or physical public access and performance standard that the geoduck maintenance of views from adjacent properties, the aquaculture not significantly impact the water-dependent uses and physical public access aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.' shall have priority, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary." Remove Row (d) Visual Analysis in Table 18.25.440.Amend 1 8.25.440(6)(a) with the addition of another CUP criteria of approval (vi): The county shall review the considerations listed in WAC 1 73-26-241(3)(b)(i)(C) regarding ecological functions, design and location impacting ecology or aesthetic qualities of the shoreline and requirements for mitigation of impacts to ecological functions. :111 November 10, 2023 2 Commission Recommendation Topic Context: State Rules, Comments Options 11/15/23 Common Line Provisions ■ Ecology—clarify use and avoid overlap of modest 1. Maintain approach in 11/1/23 draft home and common line provisions. See Initial (Option A). Determination. 2. Maintain approach in 1 1/1/23 draft but • WDFW —concerned with buffer width and code amend modest home criteria allowances for encroachment. 1 8.25.270(5)(a)(viii) to address common line as a factor in setting the allowed ■ SMP 9/20/23 hearing draft included Option A buffer reduction provided other removing common line and Option B to amend enhancement requirements apply.z Option 3: 7 yea, common line to be distinct and apply to conforming Implement Option B like in hearing draft, 0 nay, 2 lots only. See 7/28/23 memo by Shannon & Wilson which allows common line with conforming abstentions; for more information on the Common Line Provision, lots whereas modest home is for non- included in the 8/2/23 meetingpacket. motion passes p conforming lots. MODEST HOME—Criteria 18.25.270(5)(a)(viii):The standard shoreline buffer is reduced by the minimum necessary to ensure that all structures are as far landward as possible and not closer than the greater of either the average of the nearest abutting residential structures per subsection 18.25.270(J(bl common line. or 30 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The standard building setback of JCC 1 8.25.300 still applies to the reduced buffer; and *** Retain portions of: 18.25.270 (5)(b) NONCONFORMING LOTS—COMMON LINE BUFFER to set the buffer distance on MODEST HOME lots per Criteria 18.25.270(5)(a)(viii): For the purpose of accommodating shoreline views on properties suboect to modest home provisions in subsection (5)(a)(viii)_ta be adequate and comparable to adjacent residences, but not necessarily equivalent,the administrator may reduce the standard buffer for a new single-family residence on nonconforming lots consistent with the following criteria: (i) The proposed residence must be located within 300-150 feet of an adjacent legally established single-family residential primary structure constructed prior to adoption of this program that encroaches on the standard buffer.The mere presence of nearby shacks,sheds or dilapidated buildings does not constitute the existence of a residence,nor can such structures be used to determine a common line buffer.The nearest corners of the adjacent residences are those closest to the side-yard property line of the proposed residence. (ii) Existing Homes on Both Sides.Where there are existing residences adjacent on both sides of the proposed residence,the modest home provisions common line buffer shall be determined as the greater of either (A) a common line drawn between the nearest corners of each adjacent residence (see Figure 18.25.270(1)),or(B)a common line calculated by the average of both adjacent residences'existing setbacks(i.e., (y+z)/2=x buffer;see Figure 18.25.270(2)). (iii) Existing Home on One Side.Where there is only one existing residence adjacent to the proposed residence,the modest home provisions common line buffer shall be determined as the greater of either (A) a common line drawn between nearest corner of the foundation for the adjacent residence and the nearest point of the standard buffer on the adjacent vacant lot(see Figure 18.25.270(3)),or (B) a common line calculated by the average of the adjacent residence's setback and the standard buffer for the adjacent vacant lot(i.e.,(y+z)/2=x buffer; see Figure 18.25.270(4)). (iv) Figures 18.25.270(1)through(4) illustrate examples of the common line buffer allowance.When discrepancy between the text and the graphic exists,the text shall govern. Graphics are for illustration only; buffer shall be measured perpendicularly from the ordinary high water mark as per this section. Figures 18.25.270(1)—(4) *** :111 November 10, 2023 3 OptionsCommission Recommendation Topic Context: State Rules, Comments Clarify standard buffer ■ Add 50% threshold maximum percent reduction as a 1. Maintain approach in 11/1/23 draft. Option 2: 6 reduction result of special report to support no-net-loss of 2. Clarify that a 25% reduction of the yea, 0 nay, 3 shoreline ecological function. Otherwise, a variance standard buffer is the standard per the applies. critical area regulations and 50% is a abstentions; maximum if preparing a special report.s motion passes Errata Clean up errata. 1. 11/1/23 clean copy: Lines 399 to 419 appear to not be in alphabetical order. Consensus 1 1/1/23 clean copy: On line 6037 the approval; no symbol for European currency "€" is used need for motion instead of "th" to make the word "that". * Motion to approve proposed amendments to 11/1 SMP version with changes per above: 7 yea, 1 nay, 1 abstention; passes 3 Qi) Buffer Reduction or Averaging. Proposals that request a decrease in the standard shoreline buffer of this program shall not require a shoreline variance if all of the shoreline critical area approval criteria in JCC 18.22.640(1) and (2) are met:, with the addition of a 50% maximum buffer reduction in JCC 18.22.640(1)(b) when a special report is prepared by a qualified professional. All other shoreline buffer reduction or shoreline buffer averaging proposals shall require a shoreline variance. :111 November 10, 2023 4 -XI Jefferson County Sf/l NG'C � Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Staff Report I October 16, 2023 By: BERK Consulting, Inc., Shannon & Wilson, and Jefferson County Department of Community Development Meeting Date • Location: Tri-Area Community Center, Library Room, 10 W Valley Rd Chimacum, WA 98325 ■ Hybrid Meeting Zoom Option: Zoom Meeting: Meeting ID: 886 7104 7253 Passcode: 894561 https://us02web.zoom.us./i/88671047253?pwd=OU8vTWZGWTVRRGNRVEQ1 c2kOWDVadzO9 • Time and Date: October 18, 2023, 5:30 PM Summary The Planning Commission held a hearing on October 4, 2023, which was noticed on September 20, 2023. The Commission received 23 written comments during the comment period. • Written public comment received from September 20 through October 4 has been compiled into one PDF file (34 MB), found here on Laserfiche. Several commenters also testified orally at the hearing, and the recording is available on Laserfiche. The persons or agencies below with asterisks also submitted written comments. 1) Neil Harrington —Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe* 2) Bernadette Olson — Hood Canal Environmental Council* 3) Gordon King — Port Townsend resident* 4) Marilyn Showalter—Shine resident* 5) Darlene Schanfald — Sequim resident 6) Kim Thompson — Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association (PCSGA)* 7) Sue Corbett—Shine resident* 8) Jan Wold — Jefferson County resident* 9) Steve Dittmar— Port Ludlow resident* 10) Anne Dutton — Port Ludlow resident VII This document summarizes the comments and provides responses or options to address the comments. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will deliberate and decide on specific SMP provisions during the October 18 meeting, which would result in changes to the September 20 hearing draft of the SMP proposal. Following Planning Commission deliberation, staff would coordinate with BERK Consulting to prepare a revised draft SMP that reflects Planning Commission recommendations. The revised draft would be presented to the Planning Commission for confirmation of the changes and a formal vote on the proposal, an action anticipated for the November 1, 2023 meeting. Following the Planning Commission deliberations, the recommendations would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. The County intends to complete the SMP Periodic Update by December 2023. The revised amendments would then go to Ecology, which will hold its own comment period and consider the amendments as the approving agency per the Shoreline Management Act. Table 1. Comment Summary and Response Matrix Number Commenter Topic Response or Options Letters 1 Val and Donn Require CUP for new Geoduck Response: The WAC rules require Martinson Operations and/or any shellfish new geoduck operations to have a operation shoreline conditional use permit (CUP).' Per the WAC rules, if there is a conversion,the requirement for a conditional use permit is at the discretion of local government. Options for conversions or expansions are under review per below. 2 Nezam Tooloee Support of adopting the standard Response: See response to CUP process for new geoduck Comment 1. operations. 3 Taylor Shellfish Company, Inc., by Plauche & Carr LLP (Jesse DeNike) 3-1 Shellfish Farming Provides Response:Agreed. Aquaculture Important Benefits to Jefferson including shellfish farming is County. important to Jefferson County. '173-26-241 (3) (b)(iv) (A) Conditional use permits are required for new commercial geoduck aquaculture only.Where the applicant proposes to convert existing nongeoduck aquaculture to geoduck aquaculture,the requirement for a conditional use permit is at the discretion of local government. (B) All subsequent cycles of planting and harvest shall not require a new conditional use permit. (C) Conditional use permits must take into account that commercial geoduck operators have a right to harvest geoduck once planted. (D)A single conditional use permit may be submitted for multiple sites within an inlet,bay or other defined feature,provided the sites are all under control of the same applicant and within the same shoreline permitting jurisdiction. :111 October 16, 2023 Jefferson County I SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 2 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options 3-2 Provisions must be consistent with Response:Agreed. However, state state law and supported by law does not prevent the County scientific and technical from making its own determinations information. about the level of review a project receives.Available scientific/technical information also does not preclude the County from being specific about the types of information needed to evaluate a proposal's consistency with the Shoreline Management Act and the Shoreline Master Program. 3-3 Changes to SMP were based on Response: See link.The comment comments after comment period matrix submitted to Ecology on and about a poorly managed October 1, 2021, included comments farm that is not following laws. from the public during the comment period and the hearing that addressed aquaculture standards and permitting. One letter post-hearing was a concern about what had been presented at the hearing, but was not a new topic. 3-4 The County should revert back to Response:The amendments the proposed amendments that proposed in May 2021 reflected were proposed in May 2021. Task Force input, but did not yet reflect comments from the public or Planning Commission. 3-5 County has imposed the burden Proposed Changes: See the on shellfish farmers to attached potential amendments that demonstrate why any would identify minimum standards objectionable proposed revisions with the ability for the Administrator should be removed.The County to request additional information if should demonstrate that new needed, rather than listing aquaculture restrictions are requirements that then can be supported by scientific and waived. technical information and support water-dependent use of statewide interest. �i,l October 16, 2023 Jefferson County SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 3 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options 3-6 18.25.220,Table 18.25.220:The Proposed Changes: The law County's original proposal to requires a CUP for new geoduck require a discretionary CUP for aquaculture and leaves it to County new geoduck aquaculture aligns discretion whether or not to require with state law,WAC 173-26- a CUP for conversion. The WAC 241(3)(b), and provides the leaves the mechanics of local County with the ability to require government's CUP review and heightened review by the Hearing approval process to the local Examiner on a case-specific basis governments,many of which require when warranted.The proposal to a public hearing for all CUPS.The require a standard CUP for new, decision about whether or not to expanded,and converted require a hearing is not based on geoduck is scientifically scientific merit, but on weighing by unsupported and will local government of other factors, inappropriately hamper this use such as level of community interest or by imposing unnecessary potential for controversy,and/or permitting costs and delays on degree of local government project proponents. The County expertise in a particular subject.The should revert to its original state review criteria for CUPs are proposal to require a based on multiple factors,the discretionary CUP for new natural environment comprising one geoduck aquaculture. of them. See response to comment 3- 7, regarding the approach to standard and discretionary CUPS. 3-7 18.25.440(3):The County is Proposed Changes: See response to proposing to further amend the comment 3-6 above. designation-specific regulations to Based on WAC rules,and extensive specify that new geoduck aquaculture requires a standard Public and producer comments,the CUP. County is now proposing to require a hearing (standard CUP) for new The County should instead require geoduck aquaculture in priority a discretionary CUP. aquatic,aquatic,and natural environments,with a hearing required at the County's discretion for new operations in other environments. For expansions and conversions, standard CUPS would be required in the priority aquatic and natural environments,and others would be subject to discretionary cups. This would match the approach of using SMP environment designations to identify areas where geoduck aquaculture would be allowed, particularly the different aquatic environments. See 2009 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations. �i'I October 16, 2023 Jefferson County I SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 4 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options 3-8 18.25.440(4)(b):The County first Proposed Changes: See response proposed to clarify a calculation 3-7 regarding changes to the for triggering a new permit but is standard and discretionary CUPS now proposing extensive varying by shoreline environment additional restrictions and designation based on the 2009 permitting requirements for Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory expansions.The County is also Committee Recommendations. proposing new restrictions and The proposed revisions included in permitting requirements for the the hearing draft SMP related to cultivation of new species. cultivation of new species only These proposed revisions should added a new requirement for be removed, and JCC cultivation of "non-native species not 18.25.440(4)(b) should either previously cultivated in the state of remain unchanged or, at most,the Washington." A requirement for limited clarification proposed in added monitoring and adaptive the May 2021 draft should be management is appropriate in that advanced. circumstance,considering the harm that can be done by escaped non- native species. 3-9 18.25.440(4)(e)(v):The County Proposed Changes:The changes appears to be proposing changes proposed to (4)(e)(v) are intended to the height of floating or to increase both clarity and hanging aquaculture structures flexibility in better implementing the and associated equipment, WAC requirement to prevent although given inconsistencies with significant impacts to "the aesthetic the proposed language,the qualities of the shoreline" (WAC precise changes are unclear. 173-26-241(3)(b)(i)(C)). We will re- Taylor Shellfish supports examine the language to attempt to amendments that are required to identify and correct any align this code section with the inconsistencies. WAC, although no such amendments appear necessary. 3-10 18.25.440(4)(e)(vii):The County is Proposed Changes: This change proposing to add a reference to will be made as requested for "other water dependent uses" in consistency with language used in this section. Revise per letter; WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(i)(C). includes revising this code section to include the "significantly conflict" standard in compliance with the Guidelines in lieu of the undefined and potentially confusing "materially interfere with" standard. �i'I October 16, 2023 Jefferson County I SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 5 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options 3-1 1 18.25.440(4)(e)(vii) The County is Proposed Changes: [This is referring proposing numerous new to 1 8.25.440(4)(e)(xii)] requirements and restrictions (C) is proposed to be modified to related to gear use. As discussed above,Taylor Shellfish allow other colors to be used if understands and appreciates the required by other agencies or the need to use appropriate gear, Administrator to be more visible to effective secure gear,and provide other benefits, such as to support public safety,navigation, perform routine maintenance. Shellfish farmers are already and necessary operation and maintenance. required to follow these practices through federal permitting conditions, and the current SMP Changes to (B) and the original (E) already requires operators to and (F) intended to be included in comply with such requirements. the Hearing draft in response to an That said,Taylor Shellfish does earlier Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe not object to the new, proposed letter were incorrectly transferred requirements in subparagraphs (the first letter E in the hearing draft (B),(D), and (F) of this section. was inserted out of order and And, while most gear should use intended to replace the second letter colors to blend with the natural E),and similar edits are made to the environment,as set forth in (C), updated draft (see Attachment A). there may be some instances in Additional edits are proposed to which it is desirable to have gear (xii) in response to this comment to more noticeable, so this should not further remove language that be a universal requirement.And, highlights potential effects. while Taylor Shellfish agrees that gear that does become loose should be promptly retrieved,the remaining language in subparagraph (E) is inflammatory and unsupported,and it should be removed. The new, introductory language to this section,stating these measures are needed to limit ecological and aesthetic impacts from predator control measures,is not properly supported and serves no function; it should be removed as well. �i,I October 16,2023 Jefferson County I SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 6 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options 3-12 8.25.440(4)(e)(xvi)- (xviii) The Proposed Changes: Agree that the County is proposing new Coast Guard-related requirement in regulations addressing the use of (xviii) is not necessary; the provision equipment (xvi), accumulation of will be removed from the updated garbage (xvii),and complying draft consistent with guidance in with Coast Guard requirements. Ecology's handbook that indicates, Taylor Shellfish supports the "Local governments are encouraged appropriate use of gear and to avoid including SMP provisions management of sites so that they that duplicate state or federal do not accumulate garbage or requirements." waste. Therefore, while Taylor Shellfish disagrees with the County's rationale for adding these provisions—relocating from the finfish section and incorporating Kitsap County SMP requirement—Taylor does not object to including them in the SMP. Taylor Shellfish does not believe that the County needs to separately include a requirement for aquaculture operators to comply with Coast Guard requirements and would recommend removing subparagraph (xviii). 3-13 18.25.440(4)(e)(xix):The County Proposed Changes: Agreed. The is proposing to add a new change will be made in the updated regulation prohibiting aquaculture SMP. from,among other things, significantly impacting the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. This new regulation appears to be based on WAC 173-26- 241(3)(b)(i)(C). However,the SMA Guideline uses "should" rather than "shall." The SMP should similarly use the term as water- dependent uses are given priority over aesthetics when there are irreconcilable conflicts per WAC 173-26-221(4)(d)(iv). 3-14 18.25.440(6):The County is Response: The new geoduck-specific proposing numerous new restrictions are nearly verbatim from restrictions specific to geoduck WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(ii-iv). These aquaculture. were the result of WAC amendments See letter. made in 2011 that were overlooked in the 2014 County SMP update. �i,I October 16, 2023 Jefferson County I SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 7 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options 3-15 18.25.440(7):The County is Proposed Changes: In response to proposing extensive application Tribe and industry comments, a table requirements for aquaculture. identifying which application See letter. requirements apply to different aquaculture types has been incorporated in the draft SMP in place of the listing of requirements, based on the chart provided in the Tribe's comment letter. 4 Kerri Patterson Support of adopting the standard Proposed Changes: See responses CUP process for new geoduck to comments 3-6 and 3-7 regarding operations. Including expansions CUPS. and conversions of other shellfish to geoduck. 5 Gordon King,Taylor Reviewed 2021 comments.There Proposed Changes: See response to Shellfish were requests for all geoduck comment 3-15 regarding table of farm permit applications to application requirements. require Conditional Use Permits (CUP'S) but there was no agency or public request to increase the collection of data and other information related to marine physical parameters and farm management when applying for a shellfish farming permit. Most of these regulations were written for Fin Fish farms and the information asked for is often difficult and expensive to provide and serves no reasonable purpose for a shellfish farm application. Regulations are from Kitsap County and not well written. 6 Kim Thompson, Many of the data requirements in Proposed Changes: See response to Pacific Coast section 7 of the aquaculture comment 3-15 regarding table of Shellfish Growers chapter are actually aimed at application requirements. Association finfish and not appropriate for shellfish farming. We recommend including language or a chart that outlines the core application requirements for each type of aquaculture in the SMP. Already meet Army Corps 2015 Programmatic Biological Assessment and the Services 2016 Biological Opinion. �i,l October 16, 2023 Jefferson County I SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 8 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options 7 Sue Corbett Retain Standard CUP for any new Proposed Changes: See responses geoduck operations on Jefferson to comments 3-6 and 3-7 regarding tidelands, including expansions CUPS. and conversions of other shellfish to geoduck. By adopting the CUP process, Jefferson County will harmonize with Kitsap and Clallam counties in how they review commercial geoduck operations in our common waters. 8 Reed Gunstone Language in Section 7 is excessive Proposed Changes: See response to J&G Gunstone for non-geoduck aquaculture. comments 3-6 and 3-7 regarding Clams, Inc. Allows waiver but burden of CUPS. proof is on applicant. See response to comment 8 Predator control language— regarding waiver removal. blending colors will make it more See response to comment 3-1 1 difficult to see problems or regarding predator control tampering. language. 9 Discovery Bay Support of adopting the standard Proposed Changes: See responses Neighbors and CUP process for new geoduck to comments 3-6 and 3-7 regarding Supporters operations. Including expansions CUPS. and conversions of other shellfish to geoduck. 10 Laura Hendricks Support of adopting the standard Proposed Changes: See responses Director,Coalition To CUP process for new geoduck to comments 3-6 and 3-7 regarding Protect Puget Sound operations. Including expansions CUPS. Habitat and conversions of other shellfish to geoduck. Attachment of Federal Lawsuit. 11 Marilyn Showalter Support of adopting the standard Proposed Changes: See responses CUP process for new geoduck to comments 3-6 and 3-7 regarding operations. Including expansions CUPS. and conversions of other shellfish to geoduck. �i,I October 16, 2023 Jefferson County I SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 9 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options 12 Paull Steenberg Support of adopting the standard Proposed Changes: See responses CUP process for new geoduck to comments 3-6 and 3-7 regarding operations. Including expansions CUPS. and conversions of other shellfish Response: JCC 18.25.270(4)(c) in to geoduck. the Hearing draft was revised such Address buffer function even that the Administrator will decide, where they cross roadways. either independently or based on a report, whether the buffer area on the upland side of a roadway is "functionally isolated from the shoreline or critical area such that it provides insignificant biological or hydrological function." (Note:The hearing draft repeats the last sentence twice and will be corrected.) 13 Jessica Bryant, WDFW 13-1 Overarching Comments: Many Response: As noted,the SMP changes requested previously changes respond to many informal incorporated. Concerned about WDFW comments made in 2020. desire that riparian management WDFW referenced the riparian recommendations be addressed. management recommendations as a Standard Shoreline Buffer: Use source for planting plan standards in site potential tree height November 2020. See attached approach to buffers. Address informal comments from WDFW. other alternatives to buffer The Draft SMP was modified in reduction 2020-2021 per input to increase the standards for proposals to expand non-conforming uses and to require the planting plan to meet no-net-loss of shoreline ecological function. Ecology requested in its 2022 comments a cumulative impacts assessment addendum,which was completed and shared in ahead of the hearing held October 4, 2023. WDFW's current letter is requesting the County change its standard buffer.The County's standard buffer is 150 feet applied to new development along rivers and marine shorelines and 100 feet along lakes. Using site potential tree height (SPTH) as a basis for buffers in shoreline jurisdiction would be difficult to implement and may be inconsistent with the SMA. The WDFW SPTH mapper does not �i" October 16,2023 Jefferson County SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 10 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options provide widths for all shoreline locations, and adjacent property owners in the same environment designation and in similar landscape positions may have varying widths (e.g.,no data, 105', 185', 187, 196', 211', 231',etc.). The SMA also requires accommodation of water-oriented and preferred uses in shoreline jurisdiction,which would be difficult with buffers that are close to or wider than shoreline jurisdiction. The SMA requires no net loss of ecological functions, recognizing that there is a developed baseline condition that needs to be considered. 13-2 Non-conforming development. Proposed Changes: The County has Oppose waterward expansion. worked closely with Ecology to craft Do not support lateral expansion very limited allowances for where encroaching on the riparian alterations of existing non- areas. conforming development that do not require a variance. Additional edits are proposed to further reference critical area protections and mitigation sequencing and to remove reference to the common line setback. See July 28, 2023,memo by Shannon & Wilson for more information on the Common Line Provision, included in the Planning Commission's August 2. 2023 packet. Due to the availability of the buffer reduction and buffer averaging provisions, and enhanced criteria, it is proposed that the common line buffer be removed (Hearing Option A). That provision would allow the closest setback. �i'I October 16, 2023 Jefferson County SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 1 1 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options 13-3 Sedion (4) (i) Buffer Reduction Response: Mitigation sequencing is or Averaging. part of the approval criteria, WDFW emphasizes an referenced at JCC 18.22.640(1) exploration of other alternatives and (2). to buffer reductions to sequentially avoid,minimize, and compensate for any impacts to the waterbody. WDFW advises that a consideration of the mitigation sequence if the County allows buffer alteration exceptions. 14 Monica Montgomery, Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee 14-1 Do not apply language from Proposed Changes: See responses Kitsap County, which is more to comments 3-6 and 3-7 regarding applicable to finfish. Support CUP CUPS. for new geoduck farms. Review the change of water dependent See response to comment 3-15 to water oriented. regarding table of application requirements. The commenter does not provide a specific location. However, regarding the change from water- dependent to water-oriented, see response to comment 3-10. 14-2 Do not prioritize common line over Proposed Changes:The staff buffer averaging. Do not allow recommendation proposed to be non-conforming development included in the updated SMP omits without a variance. the common line buffer strategy, relying instead on buffer reduction, averaging,and modest home provisions. See July 28, 2023,memo by Shannon & Wilson for more information on the Common Line Provision, included in the Planning Commission's August 2, 2023 packet. The County has worked closely with Ecology to craft very limited allowances for alterations of existing non-conforming development that do not require a variance.Additional emphasis on application of critical area regulations and mitigation sequencing is proposed to be added. �i'� October 16, 2023 Jefferson County SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 12 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options 15 Lee Steele Section 7 aquaculture language is Proposed Changes: See response to overly burdensome. comment 3-15 regarding table of Predator control language is application requirements and contradictory. comment 8 regarding waiver removal. 16 Lisa Carleton-Long, Section 7 aquaculture language is Proposed Changes: See response to Rock Point Oyster overly burdensome. comment 3-15 regarding table of Company, Inc. Predator control language is application requirements and contradictory. comment 8 regarding waiver removal. 17 Hansi Hals, Natural Resources Director, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe 17-1 Pg. 141, line 4591 —4593 Proposed Changes: Changes to (B) reflects updated language and the original (E) and (F) intended consistent with the Tribe's input on to be included in the Hearing draft July 31, 2023 and reads "E) in response to an earlier Jamestown Predator exclusion devices that S'Klallam Tribe letter were become dislodged,such as rubber incorrectly transferred (the first bands,small nets, and area letter E in the hearing draft was netting,shall be promptly inserted out of order and intended recovered and/or disposed of to to replace the second letter E),and minimize the risk of harm to similar edits are made to the wildlife and, if not,may be updated draft (see Attachment A). subject to public nuisance Additional edits are proposed to regulations." However, subsection (xii) in response to Taylor Shellfish's xii includes two repetitive clauses, comment 3-1 1 to further remove both labeled as "E." The second language that highlights potential "E" on lines 4596—4600 includes effects. the original language that unnecessarily highlights harmful effects of predator exclusion devices that could be said of any other infrastructure associated with commercial uses. Remove the subsection typo of the second XII-E on lines 4596— 4600 in favor of the first. 17-2 Pg. 148,section 7, beginning on Proposed Changes: See response to line 4853, lists items A-D (plus comment 3-15 regarding table of subsections) to be included in the application requirements. application "unless waived by the See response to comment 8 administrator when an applicant regarding waiver removal. has demonstrated that the requested information is not applicable to a specific proposal or type of aquaculture." This language does not delineate between aquaculture types and a �i'I October 16, 2023 Jefferson County SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 13 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options table showing which items are required for each type of aquaculture practice (shellfish, geoduck,finfish,etc.) would be helpful,as was done in the Clallam County SMP. Additionally, current language puts the onus on the applicant to demonstrate why certain requirements are not applicable and creates additional, unnecessary work for all involved. Section 7 should read "In addition to the minimum application requirements in 4854 JCC 18.25.630,aquaculture applications shall provide the information listed in subsections (a) —(d) [based on in the table below depending on the type of aquaculture application being submitted.] 17-3 Pg. 151. 18.24.400.7.f.This Proposed Changes: This provision statement should be clarified that was intended to be removed for the it applies only to finfish. It should Hearing draft in response to the read: "Where the county does not Tribe's earlier comments,and will be have expertise to analyze the removed in the revised draft. The merits of a report provided by an County has a global regulation in applicant [for a finfish permit], JCC 18.25.820 (Third-party review) the applicant may be required to that addresses this topic for all pay for third-party peer review applications. of said report." 18 Phil Best, President Support of adopting the standard Proposed Changes: See responses Hood Canal CUP process for new geoduck to comments 3-6 and 3-7 regarding Environmental operations. Including expansions CUPS. Council and conversions of other shellfish See response to comment 12 to geoduck. regarding buffers across roadways. Address buffer function even where they cross roadways. 19 Steve Ditmer Keep CUP proposal for Proposed Changes: See responses commercial growers of shellfish. to comments 3-6 and 3-7 regarding Offer to have people come to cups. site. 20 Marilyn Showalter Response to Plauch6-Taylor Response: Comments noted. Shellfish 9-29-2023 letter to the Planning Commission �i'I October 16, 2023 Jefferson County SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 14 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options 21 Call Nichols Attached are two letters:one Response: Acknowledge the major from me, Call Nichols, Jefferson point of the Nichols letter—"a county resident and career reminder of the importance of shellfish worker and devotee. The shellfish in our waters and people other is a letter from Jesse who work with shellfish in our DeNike on behalf of Taylor communities." Shellfish,which I wholeheartedly Proposed Changes: See responses support. to comments 3-1 through 3-15 (Taylor Shellfish letter by Jesse DeNike). 22 J Creek Support of adopting the standard Proposed Changes: See responses CUP process for new geoduck to comments 3-6 and 3-7 above. operations. Including expansions See response to comment 12 above. and conversions of other shellfish to geoduck. Address buffer function even where they cross roadways. 23 Jan Wald Unfounded Dependence of the Response: Comments noted. Shellfish Industry on the Use of Two Army Corps of Engineers Required Biological Opinions for Commercial Shellfish Farming in Washington State Hearing Commenters 1 Neil Harrington— Aquaculture—propose changes to See Letter 17 and responses. Jamestown S'Klallam ensure standards and submittal Tribe requirements are appropriate. Thank you for making other edits in response to prior comments. See recording at 19:22-22:46 for full comments. 2 Bernadette Olson— Support applying CUP to See Letter 18 and responses. Hood Canal geoduck operations similar to Environmental Kitsap and Clallam Counties. Council Protect buffers including critical area buffers even when cross roads. See recording at 23:17-24:25 for full comments. 3 Gordon King —Port Shellfish harvesting is important See Letter 5 and responses. Townsend resident for the County's economy. Shellfish producers want to ensure clean water and avoid pollution. Well written regulations are important.Aquaculture section is not well written and will affect �i,I October 16, 2023 Jefferson County I SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 15 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options shellfish jobs without more environmental regulations. The Planning Commission recommendations after the hearing applied not only a CUP requirement but also more submittal requirements. Was on Periodic Task Force for SMP. There is no scientific justification; only that it is Kitsap County. If you want a model code to reference use Mason County. Provided statistics on pollution and closed areas. Do not ignore input from industry. Go back to June 2021 version. Do not waste resources in front of Shorelines Hearing Board. See recording at 24:36-27:50 for full comments. 4 Marilyn Showalter— Speaking to CUP requirement for See Letters 11 and 20 and Shine resident geoduck harvesting. Has been in responses. draft for 2 years. Continue the course. Prior to 2014,the County did not require a permit for shellfish harvesting. There is an unknown amount of acreage. If someone is expanding or expansions there may not be information about the basis.The CUP is a process that allows a neutral decision maker to weigh the evidence in that particular location. Need to consider in cumulative effects. PVC tubes are relatively new. See recording at 28:05-31:47 for full comments. 5 Darlene Schanfald— Urge support of CUP. Laws are Proposed Changes: See responses Sequim resident old and need to be updated. It is to comments 3-6 and 3-7 regarding an industry in conflict with goals CUPS. of Puget Sound Partnership, plastics remaining in environment and affect wildlife and plastics stay in animals. One third of shorelines taken up with aquaculture. See recording at 32:12-34:36 for full comments. �i'I October 16, 2023 Jefferson County I SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 16 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options 6 Kim Thompson— Represent shellfish producers in See Letters 3 and 6 and responses. Pacific Coast multiple states including in Shellfish Growers Washington. Shellfish harvesting Association (PCSGA) are important to the economy. Washington regulations are strongest among other states. Have concerns about Draft SMP on new and existing shellfish farms. Request going back to discretionary CUP.Also concerned about requirements for studies that may be unnecessary and related to finish. Impacts all growers. Already have federal opinions supporting requested level of regulations. See PCSGA letter and letter on behalf of Taylor Shellfish by Plauche & Carr. See recording at 35:16-38:07 for full comments. 7 Sue Corbett—Shine Relayed richness of marine life. See Letter 7 and Responses resident Habitat damaged with harvest of geoduck. Retain requirement for CUP. See recording at 38:20-40:00 for full comments. 8 Jan Wold— About 30%of tidelands are See Letter 23 and responses. Jefferson County under shellfish production. resident Geoduck harvesting uses PVC tubes 1 tube per square foot. Need thorough CUP process, and support current hearing draft. Consistent with Kitsap and Clallam Counties. Where buffers cross roads they should be protected. Make similar to Mason County SMP. Biological opinions quoted by other speakers are about a decade old and not appropriate to consider now. See recording at 40:14-43:29 for full comments. �i'I October 16, 2023 Jefferson County I SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 17 Number Commenter Topic Response or Options 9 Steve Dittmar—Port Own tidelands adjacent to Proposed Changes: See responses Ludlow resident geoduck operations. In support of to comments 3-6 and 3-7 above. having a CUP in the SMP. Considering impacts of PVC tubes, it seems reasonable to have for new farming. Local people have local knowledge and should be able to give input. Would be open to having County visit the tidelands and see what 40,000 PVC tubes per acre look like with wave action. See recording at 43:43-46:52 for full comments. 10 Anne Dutton— Port In support of having a CUP in the Proposed Changes: See responses Ludlow resident SMP like Jefferson and Clallam to comments 3-6 and 3-7 above. Counties; do not rely only on Army Corps of Engineers. Geoduck operations destroys natural habitat. Most is exported for profit. Local residents know the area. See recording at 47:10-48:50 for full comments. Attachments • Attachment A: Draft Amendments to Jefferson County Periodic Update September 20, 2023 Hearing Draft Document • Attachment B: WDFW Informal Comments, November 2020 �i'I October 16, 2023 Jefferson County I SMP Hearing Draft Revisions 18 December 2023:Permit Application Framework Amendments related to SMP Jefferson County Code The following edits have been part of the SMP Periodic Update review process.Ecology prefers the County not include other edits in the unified development code,but the County can show the edits as a related. 18.40.040 Project permit application framework. Table 8-1.Permits—Decisions Type 11 Type II Type III Type IV Type V Septic permits Classification of Reasonable Final plats under Special use unnamed and economic use Chapter 18.35 JCC permits,such as discretionary uses variances under for siting essential under Article II of JCC 18.22.250 public facilities Chapter 18.15 JCC under JCC 18.15.110 Allowed uses not Release of six-year PRRDs under Final PRRDs Jefferson County requiring notice of FPA moratorium for Article VI-M of under Article VI-M Comprehensive application(e.g., an individual single- Chapter 18.15 JCC of Plan amendments "Yes"uses listed in family residence and major Chapter 18.15 JCC under Table 3-1 in under amendments to Chapter 18.45 JCC JCC 18.15.040, JCC 18.20.160 PRRDs under building permits, JCC 18.15.545(3) etc.) Minor amendments Cottage industries Shoreline Amendments to to planned rural under R.-hMnRt+al development residential JCC 18.20.170 develepmeRt regulations developments peFm ts onditional (PRRDs)under use permits,and JCC 18.15.545 variance permits under the Jefferson County shoreline master program (SMP) Home businesses Short subdivisions Plat alterations and Amendments to approved under under Article III of vacations under the Jefferson JCC 18.20.200 Chapter 18.35 JCC JCC 18.35.030(3) County SMP Temporary outdoor Binding site plans Long subdivisions Subarea and utility use permits under under Article V of under Article IV of plans and JCC 18.20.380 Chapter 18.35 JCC Chapter 18.35 JCC amendments thereto Stormwater Administrative Discretionary Development management conditional use conditional use agreements and permits under permits under permits under amendments JCC 18.30.070 JCC 18.40.520(1) JCC 18.40.520(2) thereto under Shading in Comment Flags:1)Yellow in response to public comments within Planning Commission Recommendations October 2021.2).changes in response to Ecology initial review and Planning Commission discussions in 2023.3)-based on Planning Commission motions. Page 1 December 2023:Permit Application Framework Amendments related to SMP Type 11 Type II Type III Type IV Type V and listed in Table [i.e., listed in Table Article XI of this 3-1 in 3-1 in chapter JCC 18.15.040 as JCC 18.15.040 as "C(a)" "C(d)"]where required by administrator Road access Discretionary Conditional use Master plans for permits under conditional use permits under master planned JCC 18.30.080 permits under JCC 18.40.520(3) resorts JCC 18.40.520(2) [i.e., uses listed in listed in Table 3-1 Table in 3-1 in JCC 18.15.040 as JCC 18.15.040 as "C(d)"unless Type "C"] III process required by administrator Sign permits under Minor variances Major variances Amendments to JCC 18.30.150 under under the Unified JCC 18.40.640(2) JCC 18.40.640(3) Development Code Boundary line Shoreline Wireless adjustments under substantial telecommunications Article II of development permits under Chapter 18.35 JCC permits under the JCC 18.20.130 and Jefferson County Chapter 18.42 JCC shoreline master prOQram(SM Commented[LG1j:Response to Comment:12.23 Administrative conditional use permits,under Jefferson County SMP, JCC 18.25.620(3) listed in JCC 18.25.220, Table 18.25.220 as "C(a)" Discretionary conditional use permits under Jefferson County SMP, JCC 18.25.620(4) listed in JCC 18.25.220, Table 18.25.220 as "C(d),"unless Type Shading in Comment Flags:1)Yellow in response to public comments within Planning Commission Recommendations October 2021.2)0 changes in response to Ecology initial review and Planning Commission discussions in 2023.3)-based on Planning Commission motions. Page 2 December 2023:Permit Application Framework Amendments related to SMP Type 11 Type II Type III Type IV Type V III process required by administrator Minor adjustments Wireless Major industrial to approved telecommunications development preliminary short permits under conditional use plats under JCC 18.20.130 and approval under JCC 18.35.150 Chapter 18.42 JCC Article VIII of Minor amendments Small-scale Chapter 18.15 JCC to approved recreation and Forest practices preliminary long tourist(SRT)uses release of a plats under in SRT overlay moratorium under JCC 18.35.340 district under Chapter 18.20 JCC Site plan approval JCC 18.15.572. advance Plat alterations determinations under under Article VII of JCC 18.35.670. this chapter and boundary line agreements under Article VIII of Chapter 18.35 JCC Exemptions under the Jefferson County SMP Revisions to permits issued underthe Jefferson County SMP If not categorically exempt pursuant to SEPA,Type I projects shall be subject to the notice requirements of JCC 18.40.150 through 18.40.220 and Article X of this chapter(the SEPA integration section). Shading In Comment Flags:1)Yellow in response to public comments within Planning Commission Recommendations October 2021.2).changes in response to Ecology initial review and Planning Commission discussions in 2023.3)-based on Planning Commission motions. Page 3