Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-401 Comments on SMP update Page 1 of 1 Jeanie Orr Co f}\ Jq- \N'tl'!? . /],. ()P~V\ ?filet From: Cyrilla Cook [ccook@pugetsound.org] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 3:50 PM To: #Long-Range Planning Subject: Comments on SMP update Greetings: Thanks for the opportunity to provide comments, attached. Cyrilla Cook, AICP Shorelines Program Manager People for Puget Sound (206) 382-7007 ccook@pugetsound.org 2/2/2009 ~ January 30, 2009 DCD - SMP Comments 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend W A 98368 Sent via email toplanning@co.iefferson.wa.us. Dear DCD: Thank: you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update dated December 3, 2008. People For Puget Sound is a citizen- based, nonprofit organization whose mission is to protect and restore Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits. We have actively participated on the Shoreline Policy Advisory Committee (SPAC), and we thank: DCD staff and consultants for their stellar work in drafting the SMP update, as well as engaging committee members throughout the process. Shoreline master programs are by nature complex, because they must balance fostering water-dependent uses, public access, and environmental protection. Because shoreline development can be vulnerable to flooding, erosion, sea level rise, and pollution, the SMP must also ensure public health and safety issues are carefully considered. A well- written SMP can be a valuable tool for Jefferson County to facilitate appropriate growth and development along its shoreline while protecting its shellfish and fisheries resources, as well as help the state meet its goal of restoring Puget Sound by 2020. It is important that the general public understand better the purpose of the update, as well as what it means to the existing or proposed use of their land. Over the last three years, SP AC members have contributed a considerable amount of time towards gaining a clear understanding of the purpose of the update, reviewing its content, and addressing concerns of the Port, development community, business owners, the environmental community, Tribal representatives, aquaculture farmers and residential property owners. SP AC members have worked very hard to suggest language to balance competing interests, and we have diligently worked with staff to make the state rules for SMP updates work at the local level. Examples of policies and rule that have been built into Jefferson County DCD Page 2 January 30,2009 the draft to protect the environment, enhance public access, facilitate water dependent uses, and protect property rights include: . The SMP allows buffer size to be averaged and reduced in some cases so long as mitigation measures are applied, just like the critical areas ordinance you approved last year It allows the buffers to be waived for water-dependent uses that need to be located close to the shoreline Existing single-family development can replaced if affected by fIre, flood, etc A streamlined conditional use permit process has been developed that ensures adequate review of the project, while saving applicants time and money Public access is not required where there are concerns about safety, security or ecological protection Existing agriculture and aquaculture are not affected by the SMP . . . . . It is unfortunate that these provisions of the update are not more broadly understood by the public, and have resulted in requests for major changes to the draft. We urge you not to weaken the proposed draft shoreline master program provisions that have been recommended by the citizen committees. With the exception of the areas needing improvement listed below, we believe the draft SMP update provides protection for Jefferson County shorelines, while allowing property owners sufficient flexibility to develop and redevelop their land in a responsible manner. We hope that the Planning Commission and DCD will work towards helping increase public understanding of the draft in this regard. If substantive revisions are proposed to the draft, we request that you call upon the assistance of the SP AC and the technical committee to help in this regard. Committee members may also be able to assist with development of communication tools that better explain the plan and help disseminate information to the public. Comments on the Draft SMP Update Provisions We Support Protecting our shorelines is one of the most important ways to keep Jefferson County's beaches safe to swim, its shellfIsh safe to eat, and keep properties safe from flooding, erosion, pollution, and sea level rise. A robust shoreline master program update will help us reach those goals. We support many features of the update, which are too numerous to mention. Examples include: o The proposed shoreline environmental designations, including the "natural designation", which will protect the county's more sensitive shorelines as development occurs, and "priority aquatic", which will provide better protection to important salmon and shellfish habitats o The policies and rules for ecological protection, which include science- based buffers and setbacks to protect buildings from flooding, erosion and future sea level as well as protect sensitive aquatic habitats o The standards to ensure construction of bulkheads, shoreline armoring, docks, and marinas reduce impacts to salmon and forage fish. In particular, we support the standards for docks and hard shoreline armoring Jefferson County DCD Page 3 January 30, 2009 in the marine environment, and the prohibition on new marinas in the priority aquatic designation, as they typically require placement of fill and structures in sensitive areas and can result in significant adverse impacts to eelgrass, forage fish spawning, and salmon migration areas o The new "administrative conditional use" rules for boathouses, which reduce costs to property owners while ensuring environmental impacts are properly identified and mitigated. We urge you not to reduce the science-based buffers, which were carefully considered by the Planning Commission and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners last year. Best available science shows that the smaller the vegetated buffer, the less effective they become in maintaining habitat functions, as well as removing sediments and pollutants (a buffer of 50 feet only removes about 60% of pollutants) 1, putting shellfish, eelgrass beds, and human health at risk. Building too close to the shoreline can result in vegetation removal, which can result in reduced bluff and beach stabilization.2 Riparian vegetation, once established, provides self-perpetuating and increasingly effective erosion control. For all shorelines (particularly those in areas with steep bluffs), native vegetation is usually the best tool for keeping the bluff intacf. Building too close to the shoreline can also increase proposals for hard shoreline stabilization, which can harm shoreline ecological processes, exacerbate shoreline erosion on adjacent properties 4, and be costly to property owners. For all these reasons we request that you incorporate the adopted CAO buffers into the SMP update. Improvements needed 1. Nonconforming lots. Pages 6-6 and 9-6. Page 6-6 allows new residential development on all platted, nonconforming lots to deviate from buffer and setback rules through an exemption letter rather than variance process. But page 9-6 states that no separate written statement of exemption is required for the construction of a single-family residence when a County building permit application has been reviewed and approved by the Administrator. It is essential that proposals to substantially reduce the buffer be subject to an appropriate review process to ensure potential impacts on shoreline ecological functions are properly evaluated and to ensure appropriate mitigation measures are applied to the project. We do not believe the proposed review process will be adequate. The SMA rules (WAC 173-27- 040(b)) require a variance when a development or use is proposed that does not comply I Desbonnet, A. Pogue, P., Lee, V., Wolff.N. 1994. Vegetated buffers in the Coastal Zone: A summary review and bibliography. Coastal Resources Technical Report No. 2064. University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography. Narraganset, RI. 2 EnviroVision, Herrera Environmental, and the Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group, Protecting Nearshore Habitat and Functions in Puget Sound: An Interim Guide (October 2007). Available at: htt;p:!!wdfw.wa.govlhab!nearshore guidelines! . Page ll-14. 3 Brennan, J.S. 2007. Marine Riparian Vegetation Communities of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-02. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Page 15. 4 Johannessen, J. and A. MacLennan. 2007. Beaches and Bluffs of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-06. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA.Page 13. Jefferson County DCD Page 4 January 30,2009 with the bulk, dimensional and perfonnance standards of the master program. With as many as 3,500 undersized lots along Jefferson County's shorelines, between 33 to 66 miles of healthy shorelines could be developed without proper county oversight. How will unavoidable impacts be effectively mitigated, since there would be minimal or no review of these proposals, and there are significant lot constraints? The SMP rules require that the SMP provide equal or better protection to the newly adopted critical areas ordinance. (The Washington Department of Ecology interpretation is that existing CAOs are presumed valid upon adoption and are not affected by the decision. This interpretation may be updated if the Court issues a revised decisionl. The county should identify where these lots occur along the shoreline, review the ecological functions these shorelines provide, and perfonn a cumulative impact analysis to determine appropriate shoreline designations, development standards, and mitigation measures to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. We are particularly concerned about potential water quality and habitat impacts resulting from greatly reduced buffers. Permitting multiple vegetation alteration or clearing activities within a given area adjacent to the shoreline will result in incremental cumulative effects that may increase over time.6 We support Ecology's recommendations regarding a comprehensive assessment of nonconforming lots to determine the extent ofpre-1937 lots, rural versus urban location, infrastructure investments, and environmental impacts. The analysis should also identify suitability of undersized lots for acquisition at fair market value by willing landowners, perhaps providing needed public access for shoreline communities. Once this analysis is complete, the County should adopt appropriate standards and build in an adequate review process to ensure environmental safeguards will be applied as part of any buffer reductions on nonconforming lots. 2. Industrial and port uses on conservancy shorelines. Weare concerned that the proposed SMP draft will result in the proliferation of industrial and port uses on undeveloped, intact shorelines, and that the policies and regulations are insufficient to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The conservancy environment designation criteria on page 4-4 include shorelines that can support low intensity industrial uses without significant adverse impacts to shoreline functions or processes. But page 8-15 allows low intensity water-dependent and water-related industrial/port use and development as a conditional use in the conservancy environment, without regard to whether the use meets the low intensity defmition. Page 8-20 also allows mining in the conservancy environment as a conditional use. This means mining (including barge facilities and other accessory structures) could take place on or adjacent to priority aquatic lands containing salmon and other sensitive species, as well as other ecologically important shorelines in the conservancy environment. We do not believe these types of land use can be sited on conservancy shorelines without a significant adverse impact to shoreline ecological functions. Page 8-29 includes the policy that mining should not be located on shorelines where unavoidable adverse impacts to other 5 See http://www .ecy. wa.gov /programs/sea/sma/news/ guidance _ anacortes.html 6 EnviroVision, Herrera Environmental, and the Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group, Protecting Nearshore Habitat and Functions in Puget Sound: An Interim Guide (October 2007). Available at: htt;p://wdfw.wa.govlhab/nearshore guidelines/ . Page ll-37. Jefferson County DCD Page 5 Janliary 30,2009 uses or resources equal or outweigh the benefits from mining. This policy is not protective enough of shoreline ecological functions, as the protection is being measured against economic benefits rather than the no net loss standard. The SMP, as proposed, will allow the proliferation of industrial ports in environmentally sensitive shorelines, which is inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act. The SMP guidelines WAC 173-26-241 state that lands designated for industrial development should not include shoreline areas with severe environmental limitations, such as critical areas. Only very low intensity industrial or commercial uses should be allowed in the conservancy environment. Such uses should have very limited impact upon the land, resources and adjoining properties in terms of the scale of development, and frequency, amount, or concentration of use. Low intensity uses should be passive uses that do not consume resources, have unmitigated impacts to shoreline ecological functions, or leave noticeable or lasting adverse effects. Industrial, port and mining uses, including barge facilities and overwater structures that support industrial uses, should be prohibited in any upland shoreline environment designation abutting the priority aquatic environment. 3. Aquaculture. We support many of the aquaculture provisions, including prohibitions on net pens, and fmfish aquaculture that uses herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, or feed, and prohibition ofGMOs. We also support the requirement for new or expanded commercial geoduck aquaculture operations to undergo permit review to ensure no net loss of ecological functions, to avoid adverse effects on shoreline resources and values, and avoid potential land use compatibility conflicts. We believe this will be helpful to the shoreline community as a whole. At this time, there is much controversy over geoduck farming in Puget Sound. A fair and transparent review process for aquaculture will ensure the county is managing all shoreline uses for consistency with the shoreline master program, as well as increase certainty for both shellfish farmers and adjacent property owners, which can go along way towards reducing future appeals and complaints overall. We do have concerns about page 4-6, which allows floating upwells, hatcheries, sorting and staging facilities outright in the priority aquatic, aquatic, and conservancy environments. Page 8-6 states that operations that don't meet the standards of 8.2.D.3 require either a substantial or conditional use permit, so it is unclear what kind of permit would be needed. The defmitioris chapter states that upland commercial or industrial uses such as wholesale and retail sales, sorting, staging, hatcheries, tank farms, and fmal processing and freezing are excluded from the aquaculture defmition. There are no standards to address how hatcheries should be designed and operated to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. What kind of hatcheries will be allowed? Does this include fish hatcheries? Will water intakes or outfalls be needed? How will waste products be addressed? What predator exclusion devices will be needed and how will the proponent ensure that birds and other wildlife are not harmed? Please modify the draft to require an adequate review process to ensure environmental protection and avoidance of land use compatibility conflicts and application of mitigation measures. Jefferson County DCD Page 6 January 30. 2009 Thank you for the opportunity to serve on the SP AC and provide input during the public comment process. We look forward to working with you on next phases of the process. Please do not hesitate to call me should you need assistance or clarification at (206) 382- 7007. Sincerely, Cyrilla Cook, AICP Shorelines Program Manager