The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-56 / 1''\ /'l'Yk-' 01'11\ . oel uvxb .I \' I CklY\i")% {..A- r:> Michelle McConnell 2'1 L, ( From: Sent: To: Subject: Michelle McConnell Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:48 AM 'Peter Brockman' RE: SMP Public Comment "Waterfront Owners Access to their Shoreline" Comments received - thank you. As we are now in an open public comment period (12/3/08 -1/30/09) on our Preliminarv Draft Shoreline Master ProQram proposal for Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation amendments, your comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their consideration. No reply is needed in response to this message. A filing # will be assigned as your comments are added to the record. I'll try to let you know what that # is once it's been assigned, but you can also check online at http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ShorelineUpdate 2005- 9.htm#Public Comments <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner - LRP Lead Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update Project Manager Direct: 360.379.4484 Web: htt;p:/ /www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdeve1opmentlShorelinePlanning.htm NEW OFFICE HOURS: 9 a - 4:30 p Monday - Thursday; Closed on Friday <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> NOTE: All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and are subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Peter Brockman [mailto:pbrockman2@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 2:36 PM To: Michelle McConnell Subject: SMP Public Comment "Waterfront Owners Access to their Shoreline" Michelle: Attached is our formal comment for planning commission on the review of the SMP Draft dated Dec. 3, 2008. Please let me know that you received the document okay (7 pages & that it is readable on your end in the file format) and let me know for our records what public comment number the document will be. Thank You, Peter Brockman pbrockma n2@earthlink.net 1 1/16/09 Public Comment On Jefferson County Preliminary Draft SMP Dec. 3, 2008 Re: Private Waterfront Owners Access to Their Shoreline The current Jefferson County Preliminary Draft SMP dated December 3, 2008, under Arcticle 7 1. Beach Access Structures, unjustifiably prohibits a large majority of private waterfront owners from accessing their waterfront with beach access stairs. Waterfront property owners have the right to access their shoreline. Basic policies of the state Shoreline Management Act are 1.) Shoreline Use and 2.) Public Access and emphasizing accommodation of reasonable and appropriate uses and protection of public's right which includes private property owner's right to access and use the shorelines. Beach access stairs are an appurtenance to a single family residence and a reasonable and appropriate use of a property and protects the public's right and private shoreline owners' right to access and use the shorelines. The intent of beach access stairs to shoreline property owners is to access a portion of their property safely. "Preferred" uses of the act include single family residences, shoreline recreational uses and other developments that provide public access opportunities. The SMA policy under preferred uses of shoreline is that... "To the maximum extent possible, the shorelines should be reserved for water-oriented uses, including "water-dependent", "water-related" and "water-enjoyment" uses." Beach access stairs are an appurtenance to a single family residence as they are absolutely necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence in allowing a single family to safely access their property and waterfront for water-oriented uses. The SMP Guidelines state in (i.) Preferential accommodation of single family uses. RCW 90.58.020: "Alterations of the natural condition ofthe shorelines of the state, shall be given priority for single family residences and their appurtenant structures..., "permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area", "shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to "other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state.", "and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state". Beach access structures are clearly a priority use and acknowledged as an accepted alteration of the shoreline. As written, the new draft SMP diminishes the use and enjoyment of a large majority of private waterfront property without due process or compensation as required by the US & W A. State constitutions and the county is now classifying these waterfront properties as now non-waterfront. Therefore the draft SMP's goals, policies and regulations should begin with the positive premise they are allowed, followed by the positive resolution of minimizing impacts. We are requesting the following considerations to the current draft SMP: 1 Article 7 1. Beach Access Structures Policy #1. "Pedestrian beach access structures should be located, designed and maintained in a manner that minimizes" add significant "adverse effects on shoreline ecology" . ~ For example when a Conditional Use Project is up for approval by the Dept. of Ecology the review criteria under WAC 173-27-160 is (d) "that the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located." Therefore the wording should read "significant adverse effects." Policy #2. Jefferson County states it "recognizes a balance has to be found between enabling pedestrian access to beach areas and protecting fragile shoreline ecosystems" ~ Yet the further policies and regulations clearly and substantially unbalances and prohibits the right of private waterfront owners to access their shoreline. The county is asking to have the total control to determine when based on their opinion an applicant could have beach access stairs, as written its maybe we will maybe we wont. ~ The regulations unfairly burdens and take rights away from an applicant/private waterfront owner by: 1. Requiring structurally unfeasible and unattainable beach access stair building dimensions to a large majority of waterfront 2. Unjustifiably putting the burden of proof on the applicant without scientific justification 3. Leaving open ended and unclear permit submittal requirements and directions which facilitates the county's inconsistent and inefficient review of permits 4. Unclear evaluation criteria that are unquantifiable and unclear standards for reviewing these permit applications 5. Unnecessary high permit costs which only justification is to detour the applicant Policy #4. "beach access structures should not be permitted until and unless their" add "significant" "effects on stream, lake or marine shoreline functions and processes, including any" add "significant" "adverse impacts on adjoining lands and properties, are fully evaluated and mitigated". ~ What specifically would the county require to determine this? What is the scientific evidence supporting that they do add significant adverse effects and why is this burden of proof put so heavily on the applicant? At minimum the word "significant" should be used as noted above. There needs to be stated clear and definite application requirements, rather than a broadly worded, hard to pinpoint requirement like this. Policy #5. "Pedestrian beach access structures may not be appropriate in some areas because of safety hazards or sensitive ecological conditions. The County should not permit these structures in areas where there are" add word "high" "expected risks to human health and safety or" add significant "adverse impacts on shoreline functions and processes." "Some properties will have view-only access to neighboring waters". ~ This is leaving too much control in the hands of the county to determine when an applicant could or could not build beach access stairs without clear concise 2 parameters that are quantified in making their decision or real scientific basis. As written now its maybe we will, maybe we won't let you and appears to be more of ones personal opinion. There needs to be stated clear and definite application requirements, rather than a broadly worded, hard to pinpoint requirement like this. This also states that some properties will only have view access- which the county would be overstepping as this is a takings issue & turning waterfront into non-waterfront. Policy #7. "Beach Access Structure should not be allowed if there is a reasonable likelihood they would require structural protection or armoring in the future". ~ This needs to be removed per RCW 90,50.100 (6) which clearly allows armoring to protect single family use and appurtenances from erosion. B. Shoreline Environment Regulations Shoreline Environment Ree:ulations #1: Priority Aquatic: "Public beach access structures may be permitted with a conditional use" yet Private beach access structures are prohibited in Priority Aquatic designation? ~ Private beach access structures should also be permitted in Priority Aquatic as in Regulations #6 and #7 waterward of the ordinary high water mark which states can be constructed waterward of the ordinary high water mark if there is no other feasible alternative and should be at the square footage necessary to feasibly access the shoreline safely. Most ofthese areas are in private ownership. Shoreline Environment Ree:ulations #2: Aquatic: "Private beach access structures may be permitted as a conditional use when they are allowed in the adjoining upland designation" ~ Private beach access structures should be permitted without a conditional use subiect to the provisions of the program see further input below as noted in regulation #4. #5 and #6 comments. Shoreline Environment Ree:ulation #3: Natural: Private beach stairs are listed as prohibited in the "Natural" shoreline designation yet Public beach access structures are allowed? ~ Private Beach Access Structures should be a permitted use in the "Natural" Designation. It appears per chart 12/3/08 "ESA Adolfsen Percent of Shorelines in Each SED" and using the grand total shoreline of2,952,009 ft. per STAC meeting chart 12/5/07, unless another chart has been developed, the proposed "Natural" designation of 36% in the new SMP has obnoxiously increased from the current 97,753.87 ft. ofland to 1,062,723 ft. ofland in Jefferson County!!!! The majority of this land is in private ownership and largely in single family residential use. This unfairly and unjustifiably leaves a huge number of private waterfront owners without access to their shoreline. ~ Private beach access stairs are compatible uses in this designation as they are a low intensity use and do not substantially degrade ecological functions. There are currently residential homes and private beach access stairs in these areas that are now located in the proposed "Natural" designation. As the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines state "alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of 3 the state, shall be given priority for single family residences and their appurtenant structures... ", "shoreline recreational uses" and "other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state. You have many private land owners that are in these areas that still have a right to enjoy their waterfront and access it. Beach access stairs are viable safe means for them to do that. Just because their property may be in a natural state shouldn't prohibiting them from accessing it themselves. It is counterproductive to encourage shoreline owners to be good stewards of the shoreline environment and yet prohibiting them to access it safely at the same time without justification. Shoreline Environment Re2ulations #4. #5. #6: Pedestrian beach access structures was listed in all previous SMP drafts as a permitted use subject to the provisions of the program without a conditional use permit in shoreline designations: Conservancy, Shoreline Residential, and High Intensity and was presented as such at the last open house to the public. Until the "summary of major changes" were released on Nov. 14, 2008, which stated they would now be conditional use permits (C.U.P.s). The public was not made aware of this change till then and were not involved in the drafting of this change --which adds significant unnecessary cost. unknowns and time to permit processing. There is no reason for this change why beach access stairs should need a C.U.P. )0- They should be permitted use subject to the provisions of the program with the county clearly laying out the application requirements. Requiring a C.U.P. substantially increases the applicants cost & permit time -which leads to delayed processing-and unreasonable unknown outcomes by giving the Dept. of Ecology the final approval after already going through the CUP at the county level which is absolutely unnecessary for these type of projects. Therefore you would have the staff from the Dept. of Ecology driving from Olympia for a pre-application meeting and other meetings in addition to already the County staff to meet about these minor projects. How is the good use of taxpayer dollars when the county should be able to effectively process these applications under the provisions of this program? For example a beach access stair project that may cost $6,000 to build under a C.U.P would add at a minimum $3,500 in applicant cost and a minimum of 9 months in processing time and how much does it cost and time does it take for Jefferson County's Community Development to process these beach access stair projects as a C.U.P.? These permits for beach access stairs should be able to be easily run as a permitted use without a CUP with defined submittal requirements & criteria outlined within the SMP. Currently the reason why new pedestrian beach access stairs are requiring conditional use permits is because it has been an unlisted use in the current Jefferson County code meaning not mentioned---therefore the county has been processing them as a Conditional Use Permit which have caused applicants and the county unnecessary costs and time. The county should be applauded for now listing them. Regulatory review needs to be kept focused on what is actually needed and realizing the more requirements for information, the more time applicants have to spend compiling and planners have to spend reviewing. 4 C. Regulations Ree:ulation #3. There needs to be stated clear and definite application requirements, rather than a broadly worded, hard to pinpoint requirements like this. The county should only have the authority to require specific location and design standards which are reasonable feasible alternatives. This should also factor in feasibility of the cost to make any county required design changes and "designed in so far as practical". Ree:ulation #4. "The County shall have the authority to require specific design standards based on the configuration of the site including existing topography, vegetation, soils, drainage and other factors" ~ The county should only have the authority to require specific design standards which are reasonable feasible alternatives. This should also factor in feasibility of the cost to make any county required design changes and "designed in so far as practical". Ree:ulation #5. This section should be written in a way that allows a staircase or stair tower to be built keeping in mind as what is structurally necessary to provide feasible and safe access to the shoreline.. ... i. "The structure shall not extend more than twelve (12) vertical feet above the bank or slope;"???? ~ This absolutely does not work for a large majority of banks. There should be no vertical height limit within the slope yet could be noted at the very top of the highest point of the bank for any view blockage concerns. The vertical height within the slope should be the height structurally necessary to feasibly access the beach safely. As varying vertical heights are commonly needed over this 12' based on the vertical natural topography of each bank which are all very different and it is better for the bank structurally and aesthetically to be designed to follow the slope of the bank to span more vertical areas with fewer posts. Holding to the 12' limitation is counterproductive with Policy #6 and Regulation #4. As in Policy #6 in order for beach access structures to conform to existing topography, minimize adverse impacts on shoreline aesthetics, and minimize clearing and grading you would not hold the design to a 12' height limitation within the slope. There is no justification to hold the waterfront property owner to this height limitation within the slope. ~ Also, as stated in the definition of "Beach access structures" included is a "stair tower" which due to the purpose of the structural needs of building easily reaches over 12' within the slope. ii. "The width of any walkway, staircase or tower shall not exceed five (5) feet" ~ As stated in the definition of "Beach access structures" included is a "stair tower". A staircase can be reasonably built at a width of 5 feet but it is not structural possible to build a stair tower 5' in width. There are some banks/slopes that are more vertical in nature and will require a tower type staircase or portions of one which are wider. The purpose of a stair tower is to build the staircase within a tower to vertical span vertical parts of a bank, this also avoids putting posts on the bank and avoids carving into the bank. The staircase is built to in a sense to 5 structurally spiral down. The smallest width you can build a stair tower is 7' x14'. 111. Beach Access Structures allowed if "there is no other available access within 300' feet of the proposed access site" ~ This new criterion was noted added to the draft SMP on 11/14/08 with no pubic involvement or awareness prior to now the formal release of 12/3/08. What does this mean? In no way is this justified and absolutely is a taking of a waterfront property owner's rights to access their own property from their own property. This criterion needs to be removed. There is no way evidence signally a proliferation of building stairs to the beach--in 2008 in all of Jefferson County there were 4 building permits issued for new stairs to the beach and in 2007 there were 5 (per Jefferson County Comm. Dev. Webpage 1/7/09-building project summary). Ree:ulation #6: "No portion of a beach access structure shall be constructed waterward of the ordinary high water mark unless there is no other" add "reasonable" "feasible alternative." And this should include financially feasible. Ree:ulation #7. "When in '.vater or o';cr water construction is allowed" add "waterward of the ordinary high water mark" "it shall be limited to a small pier or pile -supported pedestrian landing platform of 25 square feet or less" ~ This should be clearly defined as waterward of the ordinary high water mark and there must be allowance for let-down stairs in order to safely step off this platform. Banks more vertical require a "tower" type set of stairs which require more than 25 square feet. Therefore should include "or the square footae:e necessarv to feasibly access the shoreline safelv." Ree:ulation #10. Beach Access Structures prohibited if would "adversely impact a critical area or marine feeder bluffs, or increase landslide or erosion hazard, or" "is likely to interfere with natural erosion and accretion process" and "is likely to require shoreline/stabilization/shoreline defense works in the future". ~ If the county is seriously at the point of prohibiting a private shoreline land owner to safely access their property and waterfront in order to use and enjoy their shoreline which is unjustified and a takings issue of the use Private Property and their constitutional right of a private landowner to access their property you would not use the words "adversely" and "likely to interfere". For example when a Conditional Use Proiect is up for approval by the Dept. of Ecologv the review criteria under WAC 173-27-160 is (d) that the proposed use will cause no sie:nificant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located. Therefore the wording should read "cause significant adverse effects.": i. "The structure would" cause sie:nificant adverse effects "to a critical area or marine feeder bluffs, or" cause sie:nificant adverse effects "to increase landslide or erosion hazards." ii. "The structure would" cause sie:nificant adverse effects "to natural erosion and accretion processes." iii. "The bank slope where the structure is placed" replace the words "is likely to" with "will" "require shoreline stabilization/shore defense works in the future." 6 Re2:ulation #11. Again, what specifically would the county require to determine this? What is the scientific evidence supporting that they do add significant adverse effects and why is this burden of proof put so heavily on the applicant? At minimum the word any significant adverse impacts should be used instead of "probable effects" and "potential effects". There needs to be stated clear and definite application reauirements. rather than a broadly worded. hard to pinpoint reauirements like this. Re2:ulation #12. They county states it "may also require a geotechnical analysis and orla biological analysis." ~ When and why specifically would a biological analysis be necessary and justified to be required and what would it be providing that would be needed over a geotechnical study? Again there should be clear and specific parameters that would demonstrate when these reports would be required which is adding additional time and cost to the applicant to have them prepared. Arcticle 2.-Definitions A. 27. The definition of Appurtenance in the 2000 Jefferson County SMP included specifically "pedestrian beach access structures" and does comply with the new Ecology Shoreline Master program guidelines. "Beach Access structures" should clearly and specifically be listed under the definition of appurtenance. Beach Access Stairs are walkways which are a normal appurtenance to a single family residence, meaning it is a structure or use that is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence. Beach access stairs allow a single family to safely access their property and waterfront for water-oriented uses. Properly Built Beach Access Stairs: · Are a low intensity use · Do not substantially degrade ecological functions · Do not have significant adverse impacts to the environment · Require minimal brush vegetation removed · Have minimal impervious surface along with openings between stair treads · Provide recreation opportunities for resident and guests to access the shoreline · Are better for the bank than carving in trails · Are much safer than using ropes and other devices from banks to access the shoreline The goal is that waterfront property owners be good stewards of the environment and care for their property... .yet what is being proposed does not want a large majority of private waterfront owners to have the ability to access their own shoreline to enjoy, reach, touch, and travel on the shorelines which does not meet the requirement in RCW 90.58.1 00(2)(b). Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Peter Brockman pbrockman2@earthlink.net 7