The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-65 ()'~ w-ek l ~~ tAlc n, , Jefferson County Plannine: Commission: tW _, ~ ~f,r,~tRSG~ Cmm\1 or.n Shoreline Master Proe:ram Preliminary Draft Comments.. 1-20.l:09~t ., n \C;~ I J1J; Undoubtedly, there will be many comments on these SMP amendments that focus on the importance of the general welfare of the environment and our shorelines, justifying any and all regulation. I hope that the public discussion and Planning Commission review of the draft can begin with the premise that the value of our shorelines is not in dispute. On this we can agree. The purpose, however, of the SMP update is not another referendum on widely held environmental values but a specific exercise intended to meet the requirements of the law, which is to balance allowed, preferred uses by citizens with protection of shoreline ecological processes. While these two interests do not have to be mutually exclusive, WAC 173-26-176(2) recognizes this balancing act can walk a fine line. So the challenge becomes objectively analyzing conditions and circumstances unique to Jefferson County and applying them fairly to the policy goals ofRCW. 90.58 and WAC 173-26. The objective of any amendment process should determine up front what its intended purpose is. Is it in response to come into compliance with a change in the law, and if so what is at a minimum needed to accomplish this? Is it in response to degraded or the imminent threat of rapidly degrading conditions, and if so what is the factual evidence to demonstrate this harm is occurring? By all accounts of County staff and hired consultants, the conditions of Jefferson's shorelines have remained good, eyen under outdated regulation. With an estimated low population density ofJ14 residents per shoreline mile, human alterations and impacts on ecological processes in Jefferson - compared to King County (6,920) and Snohomish (3,253) - are already minimized by our sparse development patterns. H the intention of these amendments is to proactively mitigate anticipated changes in circumstances, those changes should be verifiable and subject to the same rigorous standards of probability applied to environmental science. It is important to consider that these amendments are, after all, development regulations and the people subject to them when applying for permits deserve standards based on facts, not fear of what might happen in the future. People deserve 21 It century land use planning based on the best available information, not an idealized return to natural conditions or pre-European history. Lacking a decline in shoreline conditions that justifies a five-fold increase in buffers and lacking a cumulative impact analysis that can with any degree of certainty predict what the future impacts of development will be, the county has written a severely restrictive SMP draft that tilts the balance of uses disproportionately toward environmental protection. Some DCD staff, Department of Ecology personnel, and even consultants hired to assist in the preparation of the draft have exhibited an apparent prejudice against core SMA polices that allow reasonable development of the shorelines. (At the 1-7-09 Planning Commission meeting, a commissioner asked why certain draft provisions had exceeded even the DOE guidelines. The response from staff was they "saw an opportunity and they took it." At the same meeting, a consultant from ESA Adolfson referenced the negative cumulative impacts of "50,000 single family homes," an unlikely occurrence considering there are only 6,200 shoreline parcels.). A policy that is emblematic of the continual over-reaching in this draft is found at the beginning of Article 6, section 1.A.l: "Uses and developments that may cause the future ecological condition to become worse than current condition should not be allowed." Is this taken from the RCW or WAC? This policy is so beyond the scope of SMA intent, and is so open-ended and subject to interpretation that just about any development or alteration could be denied. Another onerous requirement of the applicant is found in Article 6.C.3.i. - Regulations, Cumulative Impacts. Why is the burden of placed on the applicant to prove a negative, and how can an applicant be required to assess impacts such as "human factors influencing shoreline natural processes" when the County hasn't even done so to any meaningful degree! As of this date, the County still hasn't finished the Cumulative Impact Analysis, a critical element of the protection equation, yet have gone ahead and quintupled buffer widths. Perhaps the most punitive restriction in the whole SMP is .i.P_.Article 10.6.B. Non~..forming Development, wherein any structij~~{C:tamaged to a degree excee.ting 75% replacement cost would have to Conform to the new standards. This is an ultra-orthodox interpretation of substantial new development that is frankly lacking in human empathy and sense of community. Beyond the death of a child or loved one, no life event is more traumatizing than losing one's home due to sudden catastrophe, and to become subject to "new" development standards rather than allowing replacement in the existing footprint is too much. How can net loss result from an "alteration" of the shoreline that already existed? Improvements in construction techniques, including control of sediment runoff, help to mitigate any damage. As I am writing this our country is inaugurating a new president amidst the spirit of unity and a common sense of purpose in overcoming great challenges. May some of that inspiration find its way into this document! Let's put the "community" back into Community Development. Finally, the public is often asked to assess the cumulative impacts of our actions upon the land, but does the County and DOE ever question the cumulative impacts and redundancy of land-use regulation and its effectiveness, or lack thereof? DCD has had to layoff 6 people and reduce hours, in part due to a two year commitment to complex shoreline amendments that will require high-maintenance planning, permitting, and administration when the condition of our shorelines are good. Now there is talk of raising permit fees by 27%. We talk all the time about the cost of housing and now this added expense and even more staff review time? We have spent almost twenty years under a state comprehensive planning scheme that micro-manages growth, costing the county an estimated $6 million, but that is insufficient to mitigate ambiguous "development pressures?" We spent two years updating our Critical Areas Ordinance without any demonstration of harm, only a purported lack of BAS - what the Supreme Court recently called "a benign term with often a heavy price tag - and still we don't know with accountability whether critical areas are protected. Undoubtedly, in five years we will undertake another exhaustive review, because you can never be too careful. Concurrent with the CAO has been the SMP update, costing taxpayers at least $600,000, when the condition of our shorelines has been described as good, we have low- density/intensity development patterns, and strict zoning in place to maintain it. For all the purpose of achieving no net loss we have no baseline starting point for measuring what that is (and how can we determine shoreline protection standards "at least equal to" the CAO when we do not measure CAO performance standards?). We have a just-released DOE WRIA 17 draft Water Management Rule (cost in the 7 figures), which will restrict the future allotment of water for development. Contained in the rule is a new section titled Coastal .. (., , , Management Areas that correspond with and even overlap our shoreline planning jurisdiction. More environmental protection based on incomplete data, questionable scientific beliefs, and lack of faith in our comprehensive planning efforts to maintain our rural character. The County and the State are in financial crisis. What would the state of DCD be if we pursued modest CAO and SMP updates? Full staff and more time to efficiently serve the public with timely permitting? Maybe, maybe not - but the odds would sure improve. At a certain point, the benefits of this level of oversight in a small, economically depressed, largely undeveloped rural county needs to be evaluated before continuing these expensive procedures. Port Townsend City Manager David Timmons once described this tendency toward over-ambitious planning as "Cadillac tastes on a Volkswagen budget." More substantive comments on the content of the draft will be submitted by the 1...30-09 deadline. While I am submitting these comments individually, as president of Olympic Steward Foundation I also support the comments submitted on OSF's behalf by attorney Dennis Reynolds. ;gnkY~ __ m~W 50 Maple Dr. Cape George