Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-405 CJJ 1'l111?r l;'\J'€ v C,tml'Y\t~ Michelle McConnell 2qill From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dean Patterson [Dean@futurewise.org] Friday, January 30, 2009 4:56 PM Michelle McConnell RE: Comments due by 5pm Fri 1/30 FW Itr JeffSMP013009draft3.doc Here are the comments for futurewise. Thanks for your help. futurewise Dean Patterson - Shoreline Planner emall: web: 814 Secon~ Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, w~ 98104-1530 Direct Cell 509-823-5481/ HQ office 206-343-0681/ Fax 206-709-8218 From: Michelle McConnell [mailto:mmcconnell@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 2:53 PM To: Michelle McConnell Subject: SMP: Comments due by 5pm Fri 1/30 Hello Interested Parties, Just a reminder that comments on the Preliminary Draft SMP are due by 5:00 pm tomorrow, Friday, January 3D, 2009. Written comments may be submitted as follows: 1. Mail to DCD - SMP Comments, 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 a. Must be postmarked by 5pm Fri 1/30 2. Email tommcconnell@co.iefferson.wa.usortoplannim~@co.iefferson.wa.us a. Must be sent by Spm Fri 1/30 3. Fax to 'DCD - SMP Comments' at 360/379-4451 a. Must be sent by Spm Fri 1/30 4. Hand Deliver to: a. Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 in the Castle Hill QFC shopping complex by 4:30pm TODAY, Thursday, 1/29/09 (office is closed on Fridays); OR b. Jefferson County Commissioners Office, 1820 Jefferson St, Port Townsend, WA 98368 in the County Courthouse basement by 5pm Fri 1/30. Note: There is no need to submit comments to more than ONE of the above - duplicates are not entered into the record. While general opinions are welcome, the most useful comments are specific to the content of the proposal. Below are some tips on submitting comments: . Include your name and address for the legal record; · Provide the Article, Section/Subsection, Page, Goal, Policy &/or Regulation number that relates to your comment; 1 · Explain why you agree or disagree with the proposal and describe your suggested changes; · Provide references to other documents that support your position/suggestion; · Keep your comments civil- focus on issues not individuals. Personal attacks, derogatory language and threatening remarks are not tolerated as per County Policy. Planning Commission is scheduled to begin deliberations on the Preliminary Draft SMP at their next meeting, next Wednesday, February 4, 6:30 pm at WSU Extension in Port Hadlock. The agenda for this meeting is online here. Planning Commission has indicated at past meetings they anticipate 'major revisions' to the PDSMP and will plan on . holding another comment period once their proposed revisions are released. As a reminder, Planning Commission's job is to provide a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, who will then likely allow additional public comment prior to submittal to the State for final review and approval. Best wishes, Michelle You have received this message as a member of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Interested Parties Email Distribution List. If you do not wish to receive further project notices, reply to this message with "UNSUBSCRIBE" as the subject and body text. Anyone who wants to be added to the list may send an email with "SUBSCRIBE" as the subject and body text. Please note: Recipient names and em ail addresses are not shown to keep that information private. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner - LRP Lead Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update Project Manager Direct: 360.379.4484 Web: www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ShorelinePlanning.htm Jefferson County Department of Community Development Long Range Planning Division 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, W A 98368 Front Desk: 360.379.4450 Fax: 360.379,4473 NEW OFFICE HOURS: 9 a - 4:30 p Monday - Thursday; Oosed on Friday <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> NOTE: All ..mall sent to this address will be rec8lv8cl by the Jefferson County ..mall system and Is subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. 2 futiirewise . .."..." Building communities . .0",,,$ Protecting the land 1$ * $ ~ w$ Januaty 30, 2009 Jefferson County Planning Commission c/o Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner Jefferson Co. Dept. of Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Sent by email to:mmcconnell@co.iefferson.wa.us Re: Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update Dear Jefferson County Planning Commission, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. Dur mission at Futurewise is to promote healthy communities and cities while protecting working farms and forests and shorelines for this and future generations. Futurewise has members across Washington State, including many in Jefferson County. Futurewise strongly supports the draft Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. We believe that, with our recommendations, the updated SMP will help in the recovety of Puget Sound while providing appropriate opportunities for dev.elopment. We commend those who have worked hard to produce a quality product. We do have some recommendations to improve the Shoreline Master Program Update. Chain of Laws to Require Review in the General Provisions of Title 21A The foundation of an ordinance is its Applicability section. lt determines what activity is subject to the ordinance. 1n the draft SMP, this is found in two places. The SMP references the CAD, JCC 18.22, and relies upon it for many development standards; however, the CAD is part of the Unified Development Code (UDC), Title 18. The applicability section of the UDC is Title 18.05(3): "Scope. Hereafter, no building, structure, or land \lse activity shall be engaged, erected, demolished, remodeled, reconstructed, altered, enlarged, or relocated, and no building, structure or premises shall be used in Jefferson County except in compliance..." There is no definition for Building. ""Structure" means a permanent or temporaty edifice or building or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts ...". There is no definition for Land Use Activity. "Use" means the purpose that land or building or structures now serve or for which they are or may be occupied, maintained, arranged, designed, or intended." Based on this Scope, the UDC would not apply to general grading and vegetation alterations in a buffer. The CAD has a supplemental applicability section, JCC 18.22.020 states: Unless otherwise exempted under JCC 18.22.070, [exemptions] any land use or development activity that is subject to a development permit or approval under this title may only be undertaken on land located within or containing a critical area or its buffer if the provisions of this chapter are met. Unless otherwise exempted under JCC 18.22.070, uses and activities in critical areas or their buffers for which no permit or approval is required by any other provision of county code are also subject to the development standards and other requirements of this chapter. Since the CAD also includes vegetation protection measures, and the rest of the UDC might also, the applicability of the UDC needs to be expanded. 814 Second Avenue SUite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 www.futurewise,org phone 206 343,0681 fax 2067098218 This CAD applicability section exempts activities in JCC 18.22.070 from review under the CAD. These include: all utility activities,; any activity in a stream, wetland, or buffer during an emergency; trails within buffers and Jefferson County Planning Commission January 30, 2009 Page 2 wetlands; filling wetlands to elevate trails; installing new wells in streams, wetlands, and buffers; and any activity that can be considered broadly (rather than narrowly) by the administrator to be similar to a listed activity. These activities are not subject to anything in the CAO, including prohibitions, protection standards, and mitigation/replacement requirements. Given that the CAO standards are supposed to also protect shorelines, the applicability to the exemptions needs to be changed to be more similar to the SMP, where standards st11l have to be met, but a special permit review is not needed. A traditional zoning ordinance, like the UDC, usually covers structures and uses (typically meaning the primaty use listed in a use table or zoning district chapter). Activities that affect critical areas and shorelines include the associated facilities and activities of a primaty use, but such activities also may not be associated with any use or only related indirectly. Outdoor use areas that are accessoty to another use need to be included. Activities that are sometimes not associated with, or are distant from a primaty use also need to be covered, such as land grading and vegetation alteration. For Shorelines, it must also include events that obstruct the public use of the shoreline (such as rubber duck race fundraisers, pay-to-participate fundraising events like festivals, etc.) that may not include structures or traditional "primaty" uses. Article 1.A. of the draft SMP states: "All proposed uses and development, as defined in Article 2, occurring within shoreline jurisdiction shall comply with this Program and RCW 90.58..." The UDC, CAO, and SMP need to be applicable to ALL land alterations. uses. and development. We recommend that JCC 18.05(3) and SMP Article 1.A be changed to include all land alteration, uses, and development. Such changes should be extended throughout the rest of the CAO and SMP where those terms are repeated - especially the permitting or review sections. The draft SMP Article 1.6.C does have a similar statement already. A definition of "land alteration" should be added that is limited to and addresses the special disturbance issues with critical areas and shorelines. This way it doesn't apply to and interfere with general zoning review and administration. Lastly the CAO applicability section JCC 18.22.020 must be revised so the activities in the exemption list are not excluded from meeting protection standards in the CAO, and thus the SMP. Given that these issues regarding the integration of the CAO into the SMP, the referencing of the appropriate CAO sections needs to be carefully reviewed again, to either carefully include or exclude parts of the UDC that the CAO relies upon or that are inappropriate for the SMP. These might include the applicability sections, permit review sections, enforcement sections, and especially the disposition of definitions used in the CAO that mayor may not be appropriate for the SMP (including the definition of any words in the CAO that have different definitions in the SMP). Nonconformities The proposed SMP is not clear in how non conformities are to be reviewed, though it does indicate that specific non conformities do not have to be reviewed. With the proposed nonconformity provisions, much of the residential development w11l be for nonconformity - on nonconforming lots. Because of this, clarifYing the nonconforming development section becomes vety important. All shorelines have existing development. It is important to establish how that existing development w11l be treated when new regulations come into effect. This includes situations where a building is inside the buffer because the river moved, or the buffers changed; and includes uses that are no longer normally allowed because they are not appropriate for the shoreline environment. These two examples are vety different. A nonconforming structure w11l be fairly common, and should be allowed to be continued and replaced as the existing regulations propose. A nonconforming use is something that is normally prohibited, and existing nonconforming uses should be discouraged and be given carefully review if they are expanded. In the use table in Article 4, there are many cases of uses being prohibited, including single family residences.ln Jefferson County, there will be instances where existing uses that are prohibited uses will propose alterations or expansions. The SMP does not say how these uses are to be reviewed. They cannot be reviewed as a Substantial Development Permit, since they are NOT permitted, as marked in the table by an'S'. They cannot be reviewed as a Conditional Use Permit, since they are NOT a conditional use, as marked in the table by an 'C'. They are prohibited, as marked in the table by a 'X'. If the method of review is not indicated in the table, then it must be indicated some other way. Normally the Nonconforming Development section would describe what how to review Jefferson County Planning Commission Janual)' 30, 2009 Page 3 such development proposals - this is Article 10.6 in the proposed SMP - however the proposed SMP does not. Article 10.6 should specifY a reasonable review process. Use of the Nonconforming Development section relies on the definitions of different types of nonconformity. The proposed SMP has a definition for Nonconforming Structure and Nonconforming Lot, but not a definition for Nonconforming Use. The definition of Nonconforming Structure accounts for buildings that may be in a buffer, etc., but it doesn't account for outdoor areas or uses. Just as the ordinance provides grandfathered status for nonconforming structures, it should do the same for existing outdoor use areas that may be in the buffer, such as a yard or parking area. We recommend that the definition be adjusted to cover" Nonconforming Structures and AreaS'. For a definition of Nonconforming Use we recommend the following definition - note that it includes provisions for when the use is no longer considered nonconforming (with emphasis added): Nonconforming Use. The use of a structure or land that was lawfully established at the time of its initiation but is cu"ently Drohibitedby this title is a Nonconforming Use, and may utilize structures or land areas that are Nonconforming Structures or Areas. A Nonconforming Use that is discontinued for any reason for more than one year shall have a presumption of intent to abandon, shall not be re-established, and shall lose its nonconforming status. In the case of destruction or damage where reconstruction costs exceed 50% of the assessed value, the use shall lose its nonconforming status. With adequate definitions, the Nonconforming Development section can clearly indicate how each type of nonconformity is to be reviewed. The existing section mixes standards and requirements for nonconforming uses, lots, and structures together. Nonconforming structure and area standards should be grouped together, organized, and streamlined. Paragraph 10.6.0 needs be the first standard, and should read: Non-conforming structures and areas, otFicr tl'lal'l R6R eOl'lfermiflg sil'1!Jle family resiacl'1ces that arc expal'1aea or c1'ilargcd, shall be review through normal review processes. Alterations to them that increase the non-conformity finc1udinlJ new structure or area within a bufferl must obtain a variance or be brought into conformance with this Program and the Act. Any non-conforming ac'.elepmcRt structure that is moved any distance must be moved to comply with the bulk and dimensions requirements of this Program. Paragraph E (requiring commercial and industrial nonconforming structures to get a conditional use permit) should be eliminated in favor of the above process. Nonconforming !ill: standards should be grouped together, organized, and streamlined. The first standard should establish how new development for nonconforming uses are reviewed: Expansions of nonconforming uses beyond the structures or uses areas they already occupy shall be reviewed as a conditional use. Residences are usually not nonconforming uses, but when they are (over water for example) they should be reviewed as other nonconforming uses. Any additional criteria for reviewing a nonconforming use (in addition to the conditional use permit criteria) should be provided in this section. Criteria to qualifY or disqualifY for nonconforming status should usually be in the definition, as recommended. Paragraph 1 allows the changing of one nonconforming use into another, and should be deleted. New uses that are prohibited should never be allowed to be established. Furthermore, Subparagraph 7 reads, "Uses which are specifically prohibited or which thwart the intent of the Act or this Program shall not be authorized." This sentence effectively negates the rest of Paragraph 1, so the whole thing should be deleted. Related to the definitions discussion is the issue of Nonconforming Lots. The definition is established in an attempt to allow residential development on small lots near the water without permit review. This problem is discussed further in the section below. The idea of Nonconforming Lots, as it exists in the SMP and as proposed, seems to stretch the idea of nonconformity too far. Nonconforming Lots are defined as too small for a structure too meet the buffer. The problem is that buffers and setbacks are applied to structures and uses. not to lot lines. Jefferson County Planning Commission January 30, 2009 Page 4 There are plenty of uses that can take place on such lots, especially water dependent and water related uses, without the lot being considered nonconforming. It is only certain uses that must meet the buffer, not the lot. The principal benefit of distinguishing between non-conforming uses, non-conforming structures and areas, and nonconforming lots is that they can then be treated in ways that are appropriate to their potential adverse impact on shorelines resources and nearby uses. Those developments that are less of an issue, such as non-conforming structures, can receive less scrutiny, while non-conforming uses can receive greater scrutiny. Review Processes and Attempts to Avoid Review Processes We are concerned with a number of attempts in the proposed SMP to waive permit review. This seems to be a misguided attempt to ease the hearing review process currently required for all shoreline permits, which then allows development that normally needs careful review to be established with little or no review. These items are discussed further below. '1 As noted above, Nonconforming Development can be categorized to provide different types of review based on the situation. This concept can be extended to different shoreline permits, in a similar manner to the zoning review currently established for Jefferson County. Previously all SMP permits were Type 111 reviews requiring a hearing. The proposed SMP includes the provision for a Administrative Conditional Use review, which would eliminate the hearing requirement. This would result in a Type 11 review. We support such streamlining of the review process for uses and activities with a low potential to adversely impact neighboring property owners and the environment. We also agree that the DiscretionaTY (Hearing) Conditional Use review should be reserved for important issues. This would greatly reduce the cost to the applicant and county, and greatly reduce the time such review takes. The permit review section (Article 9.6) and the Administrative section (Article lOA) should provide that permits will use the Type 11 review processes as provided in the appropriate code sections, and the Table in JCC 18.40 should be changed as appropriate. While we support streamlining the review process, we do not support the attempts in the proposed SMP for several types of development to eliminate shoreline review. These include: Expansions of ExIsting Single Family Residences. Normally, if a development is located within the buffer of a stream or wetland, it would need to get a variance, and would also be approved by Ecology. Generally, a residence should not be in the buffer unless there is some hardship or no alternative site. Article 10.6.F would waive a Variance and Conditional Use permit review for expansions of existing nonconforming residence structures. Articles 10.6.K and 6.1.E would waive a Variance review for establishment of wholly new residence structures close to the water, and does not require a Conditional Use review; thus creating a new nonconforming structure. And since residences are exempt from a Standard Development Permit, they would get only rudimentaTY exemption review. Apparently this is in spite of the fact that, in some locations, residences are specifically listed as Conditional Uses or even prohibited. Furthermore, Article 9.4.8 (Statements of Exemption) states that "...no statement of exemption is required for the construction of a single-family residence when a County building permit application has been reviewed..."; and Article 9.4.C restates this, "No statement of exemption shall be required for other exempt uses or developments...". If no Statement of Exemption is required, then no application material needs to be submitted and reviewed, as indicated in Article 9.4A Most other SMPs require that the development proposal has to be submitted with materials on which to base a statement of exemption~ a determination is made that it is exempt; and that the statement of exemption is needed to proceed. Effective design and mitigation cannot take place without any review. That is why permits are normally required for development close to the water. The proposed SMP is attempting to waive both these processes, which will result in the potential to adversely impact Puget Sound and neighboring property owners. Residences built close to the water or otherwise not meeting the standards of the SMP should lli:Yfl: be exempted from all permit review. Such development must receive an official permit review to provide surety that the policies and standards of the SMP are being met, including minimization and mitigation. The better solution is not to eliminate permit review, but to change the permit review process to meet the situation. For existing lots that are too small to meet the buffer requirements, we recommend that the county carefully review the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed development and prepare standard measures to address these impacts while Jefferson County Planning Commission January 30, 2009 Page 5 allowing reasonable development. These residences could than be given an administrative review of some sort that does not need a hearing. If the mitigation to deal with cumulative impacts is not determined in advance, we recommend that such residential reviews be conducted as norma] Conditional Use or Variance reviews. Shoreline Environment Maps Shoreline environment mapping seems to stop at the fed era] land ownership line, yet the Coastal Zone Management Act requires federal compliance with state Coastal Zone Management Plans. Washington's includes the states local SMPs. Thus some activity on federal land is subject to the SMP. The mapping needs to be extended into the federal lands so that non-federal activities Oeases, inho]dings, cabins, etc.) will be able to be reviewed appropriately. Environment Designations and Boundaries There does not seem to be a clear description of where shoreline environments change, especially where such changes extend into broad shoreline jurisdiction a] areas, such as f1oodp]ains and open water, which maybe a mile wide. The map shows shoreline jurisdiction as a line rather than an area, indicates a genera] location at a scale that does not provide accurate boundary placement. In addition, the map does not indicate how a change in environment is extended away from the shoreline. A small change in angle can propagate dramatically as the line is extended into a broad shoreline area, especially a f1oodp]ain where development might occur. How are the Priority Aquatic and Aquatic environments separated? Is the Priority Aquatic a narrow band along the shore or does it extend out to the County line in the middle of the sound? Whether the development is in one environment or another makes a dramatic difference to the project proponent. We would recommend preparing a map that shows environments as area polygons, rather than as lines. While some may argue that a line is adequate, when you undertake the effort of using area, you quickly realize it is not that simple, because lines intersect and shorelines with different environments meet and odd angles. Status of New Shorelines and Shoreline Wetlands There also did not appear to be default contingencies laid out for providing shoreline environments in the cases of finding new shorelines that were not previously known, and for creation of new shorelines due to construction of new reservoirs, new impoundments, and excavation of mining or other ponds. Wetlands that are associated with a shoreline may lie outside a f1oodp]ain. Where the f1oodp]ain is cut off or isolated due to diking, the wetlands are typically still hydo]ogica]ly associated with the river through the groundwater patterns driven by the river levels, especially during spring high water. There needs to be a statement that such associated wetlands have a shoreline environment that is the same as the nearest adjacent shoreline segment. This concept may also apply to associated wetlands for marine and lake shorelines when they lie outside the traditionally established shorelinejurisdictiona] area. We strongly support the proposed Priority Aquatic shoreline environment. However, as indicated above, it is unclear what its extent is. We recommend that the environment description be clarified as to whether it extends to the County line, center of the waterbody, other side of the river, just shallow water, etc. Definitions The definition section is 44 pages long, and is extremely detailed. A careful review of the definitions is needed to be sure that (1) all the definitions are actually used; and (2) they are used the way they are defined at each point of usage; and (3) the definition is actually needed rather than the genera] dictionary use of the term. "Beach restoration and enhancement" uses the terms "restoration" and "enhancement" in a different way than the definitions of those terms. It seems to be used for both new development and ecological restoration, which are opposite purposes. "Chemicals" are used for much broader purposes than those listed. "Dike" is a structure used for much broader purposes than those listed. "Essentia] Public Services" is too broad for use in the SMP. It includes things that should not be grouped for common application across all environments. The definition should include a distinction for Essential Public Services of a Utility Nature, and Essentia] Public Services of a Community Service Nature. This should be carried Jefferson County Planning Commission January 30, 2009 Page 6 into the text and use table. These two categories should be treated very differently, since utilities may be water dependant or need crossings, where as community services should be treated as commercial uses. As is, Group Homes, Jails, or other non-water dependent uses could be built on a pier which would result in significant adverse impacts to the waterbody. Goals Article 3 Master Program Goals, splits the goals into many sections, but doesn't have a section for general goals. This needs to be added to address general subjects such as no-net-loss of ecological functions, the coordination of the regulations with non-net-loss and the restoration plan, water quality and erosion control, and most importantly the legislative policy preferences of the SMA in RCW 90.58.020 should be listed. ln addition, the SMP Guidelines explicitly discuss the importance of the Channel Migration Zone to ecological functions of rivers - especially the continual creation and enhancement of fish habitat. Yet Jefferson County only treats the Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) as a geologic hazard in the CAO. A statement is needed in the goals and policies that addresses the Channel Migration Zone's ecological functions aside from the hazards. This goal needs to be implemented by considering the effects on channel migration functions whenever development is proposed within the Channel Migration Zone. This can be accomplished by referring to it at all locations where mitigation or mitigation plans are discussed, especially for uses that typically encroach on the CMZ. We strongly support Article 3.6 Restoration and Enhancement Goal 1 (with emphasis added): Improve shoreline functions, processes, and values over time through regulatory, voluntary and incentive-based public and private programs and actions that are consistent with the Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan and other agency adopted restoration plans. This goals is consistent with the restoration planning requirements of WAC 173-26-186 (8Hc). Typical restoration planning works hard at covering the voluntary and incentive-based programs, but rarely covers the regulatory side of restoration planning. Restoration should be included in the SMP regulations as well, and should be addressed in the restoration plan. While this goal is implemented at select regulatory locations for commercial, industrial, etc., it should also be implement at a more general level to reduce shoreline armoring and improve degraded riparian vegetation when possible. Use Table Article 4.3.A invokes the requirement to use the land use table (Table - 1, though the table name and number are not prominently displayed). However, the allowed uses for shorelines also appears to be controlled by the text for the various subjects. There are cases where the table and text contradict (Mining and residential duplexes for example), cases where the two to not clearly reflect the nuances of the other (especially for boating facilities), and cases of typographic errors (multi-family conditional use - admin? discret?). The table and text need to be carefully compared to eliminate errors. ln addition, a statement is needed in paragraph A about what the relationship is between text and table when interpretation is needed. Buffers We strongly support the science based buffers proposed in the draft SMP. Of particular interest to us is Article 6.1.D.8 Buffer Condition. We believe that this requires restoration of degraded buffers to ensure that a buffer is able to protect the critical area from the new development, however it needs some clarification. Buffer Condition: At least eighty (80) percent of the required shoreline buffer area shall be restored and maintained in a well-vegetated and predominantly natural condition to ensure that it provides the desired ecological buffer functions. On review and approval by the administrator. utJp to twenty (20) percent of the buffer area, or at least 15 linear feet of the water frontage, whichever is greater, may be retained for 'active use' and for shoreline access, provided that such areas are located to avoid areas of greater sensitivity and habitat value. and degraded areas are restored. This requirement shall not apply to retroactively existing uses. unless new development is proposed. The standards in Vegetation Conservation, Article 6.4.B.4, need clarification to distinguish the list of vegetation protection measures from the more protective buffer requirements. Jefferson County Planning Commission January 30, 2009 Page 7 Proponents of all new shoreline uses or developments shall maintain existing native shoreline vegetation located outside buffers to the maximum extent practicable, except that the following activities shall be exempt from this requirement... Article 6.7 Common Line Setback needs to be moved to be located with the regular buffer and setback standards so all buffer requirements can be seen together and clearly understood. Development Regulations Transportation Regulations - Article 8.10.0- Design and Operation. The proposed regulations are well considered and generally protective of shorelines. We support them with the following recommended changes. 1. Transportation facilities in shoreline jurisdiction shall be located to be as far from the shoreline features as possible. and shan be designed to generally follow natural topography, to minimize cuts and/or fills, to avoid adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions and processes. induding channel migration functions. Wherever roads or railway embankments cross waterways including remnant stream channels and oxbow bends, crossings of ample cross-section shall be provided to span the feature. 2. Raised arterial roads or railways shall be built outside the f100dway except for necessary crossings. If built in the f1ood.Rl2inwa)' mRge, such routes should be designed to avoid obstructing floodwaters using construction at grade. dips. culverts. bridges. or similar methods ali!fRea gCRcftllly parallel to eutsicle stream herlaS so t19e)' ""iB also act as setback le'v'ees. Any parking areas required along such roads shall be located to prevent or minimize the need for flood control or shoreline armoring. l.ocal access roads in floodplains shall ~be built so that floodwaters are not abnormally obstructed nor diverted. As written the standard would have encouraged additional degradation of floodplain function. Our recommended edits correct this to be consistent with protection of shoreline ecological functions. 6. Bridges or bottomless culverts or other similar structures shall be used in accordance with WDfW guidance to protect shoreline ecological functions and processes. Transportation crossings over the ordinary high water and Briflge aJ3J3T6achcs il"l f100dways shall be constructed on open piling, support piers, culverts. or other similar measures to preserve hydraulic processes. New #. Wherever possible, new water crossings shall be avoided and minimized by using alternate access locations not needing a crossing, or by consolidating multiple accesses, or by sharing existing accesses. Another standard is needed to require a mitigation plan similar to those needed for other uses. Utility Regulations - Article 8.11.C - General. The proposed regulations are well considered and generally protective of shorelines. We support them with the following recommended changes. 1. All underwater pipelines transporting liquids intrinsically harmful to aquatic life or potentially injurious to water quality are prohibited, except in situations where no other feasible alternative exists. In those limited instances when permitted, automatic shut-off valves shall be provided on both sides of the water body. and pipe sleeves shan be used to facilitate repair without future encroachment on surface waters and wetlands. 2. Utilities that are not water-dependent shall be located away from shorelines and buffers unless it is demonstrated that alternative locations and alternative technology are infeasible. Like other uses, utilities are not inherently water-dependant and should meet the buffer except for those water dependent components. New #: Buried utility transmission lines crossing a stream corridor shall be buried a minimum of four feet below the maximum scour or 1/3 of the bankfull depth of the waterway, whichever is greater, and for a similar depth below any associated f100dway and floodplain to the maximum extent of potential channel migration as determined by hydrologic analysis. Jefferson County Planning Commission January 30, 2009 Page 8 Residential Policies Be Regulations - Article 8.8. The proposed policies and regulations are well considered and generally protective of shorelines. We support them with the following recommended changes. Policy 5. Clustering of dwelling units and accessOlY structures should be implemented to preserve natural features, minimize physical impacts and reduce utility and road construction and maintenance costs. Streams. wetlands. their buffers. floodways. and channel migration zones should be placed within separate critical areas tracts or attached to one of the developable lots. and provided with a method of long term protection. Policy 8. Creation of new residential lots through land division should be designed, configured and developed to ensure that no net loss of ecological functions and processes occurs from the plat or subdivision, even when all lots are fully built-out. Where ecological functions are degraded. they shall be restored along with applicable buffers before establishing new impacts from more intense uses and displacement of areas performing ecological functions. Policy 9. Residential developments of nine or more dwelling units shall are eneeul'8!'fed, btlt Mt required, te provide public access to the shoreline. This is required by the SMP Guidelines. Boating Facilities Article 7.2.C - Clarify if this is for ramps and rails, like paragraph D. Article 7.2.E - Clarify if this is for lifts, like paragraph F. Article 7.2.E - This regulation for commercial (and other) boating facilities would allow two options for docks, one simply for people to walk on. It needs to be edited to read "The dock/pier/float provides opportunities fur water dependent activities for a substantial number of people to access the shoreline." Alternatively, if the two options were joined by an "and" rather than an "and/or" then the public could use the primary use's dock for access purposes, which is in-line with public access policies. Policy 5. We strongly support this policy because it addresses the uncontrolled proliferation of docks on shorelines and the subsequent degradation it causes. However, the implementing regulation only partially implements the policy, and may even be contrary to it. It reads: Article 7.2.F.9 - Residential developments with more than four (4) lots or dwelling units may be granted permits for community docks that are shared by at least one other owner. No more than one (1) dock/pier or float may be permitted for each three (3) adjoining waterfront lots, with necessary access easements to be recorded at the time of permitting. Single-user docks. piers and floats for individual residential lots may be permitted in existing subdivisions approved on or before January 28, 1993, only where a shared facility has not already been developed. Prior to development of a new single-user dock/pier/float for a single residential lot, the applicant shall demonstrate ... This regulation is inadequate to implement the policy. For a twenty one lot subdivision on the waterfront, this regulation would still allow 7 docks. Furthermore, the underlined provision would allow the non-waterfront lots in existing subdivsions to build additional docks (provided they can get an easement to the water). This is contrary to the policy and encourages the proliferation of docks and the degradation of the shoreline. In its place we recommend the following new implementing regulation During the review of new lots and new multi-family development, the need for moorage shall be established in the approval process: a. Such proposals not needing moorage shall be restricted from the development of future moorage to prevent applications for future individual moorage. b. Proposals needing moorage shall provide shared moorage. c. Moorage facilities shall be designed to consolidate any necessary launching facilities rather than establishing separate launching facilities as much as possible. d. Proposals shall provide a plat note or record a covenant prohibiting individual moorage facilities and establishing the limits of any approved moorage facility. Jefferson County Planning Commission January 3D, 2009 Page 9 Beach Access Structure RegulatIons - Article 7.1. The proposed policies and regulations are well considered and generally protective of shorelines. We support them with the following recommended changes. Article 7.1.C.3. When permitted, beach access structures shall be located, designed and operated to avoid critical areas and their buffers. unless providing access to a water dependent actMty. and,~prevent a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes, including, but not limited to... Mining The proposed SMP provides an overly broad allowance for what can be considered mining. The mining section includes both long distance conveyors and barge terminals, even though these are not included in the definitions for mining. This is the equivalent of saying that the trucks canying grain for farmers and the barge terminal for shipping grain is all considered farming. Or like saying an equipment manufacturer's trucks that canying the equipment and the cargo terminal for shipping the equipment is manufacturing. Barge terminals need to be treated as the port or industrial uses they are. Such uses should only be allowed in existing industrialized or highly developed areas, not in relatively intact areas. Of particular concern is that a barge terminal would be allowed as mining, and then mining would be allowed in the Conservancy environment just so a barge terminal can be located there. Such industrial actMty is the opposite of the purpose and designation criteria of the Conservancy environment, as seen below (with emphasis added): Article 4.2.C.4. Conservancy (C) i. Purpose. The Conservancy designation provides for sustained use of resource lands and other relatively undeveloped shorelines while protecting ecological functions, conserving natural, historic and cultural resources, and providing recreational opportunities. ii. Designation Criteria. A Conservancy designation is assigned to shoreline areas landward of the ordinary high water mark if they do not meet the criteria for the Natural designation and if any of the following characteristics apply: · The shoreline is relatively undeveloped or currently supporting resource-based uses; or . The shoreline is publicly owned; or . The shoreline is predominantly low density Rural Residential (RR1 :10, RR1 :20) use; or . The shoreline can support low density residential development and low intensity water-oriented uses, including some commercial and industrial uses, without significant adverse impacts to shoreline functions or processes; or . The shoreline is a good candidate for ecological restoration. With these points in mind we recommend that barge terminals not be considered as part of mining, and that barge terminals not be allowed in the Conservancy environment, as they are inconsistent with the Purpose and Designation Criteria. Aquaculture PolicIes I: RegulatIons - Article 8.2. The proposed policies and regulations are well considered and generally protective of shorelines. We support them with the following recommended changes. Policies 7 and 9 place aquaculture as a higher preference to preferred uses. These policies need to be edited to be consistent with the SMA. Article 8.2.0.2. Ongoing maintenance, harvest, replanting, restocking or changing the species cultivated in any existing or permitted aquaculture operation shall not require a new permit, unless or until: i. The physical extent of the facility or farm is expanded by more than twenty-five percent (250f0) or more than twenty-five percent (250f0) of the facility/farm changes operational/cultivation methods ... The 250f0 provision must be eliminated. 1t is considered development, and there is no exemption for such development. Normal maintenance and operations would not be affected by the SMP if there was no expansion. Article 8.2.0.3. seems to be intended to exempt geoduck aquaculture from review. However, the use table specifically indicates that geoduck aquaculture requires a conditional use. This provision need explicit clarification for people to understand what is intended. At a minimum, we recommend the following edits to Jefferson County Planning Commission January 30, 2009 Page 10 ensure that the administrator reviews the activity to ensure it qualifies to bypass the permit process, similar to an exemption review, and to include other methods of dredging. The administrator may determine that minor or low impact aAquaculture uses and activities (except for geoduck) involving hatching, seeding, planting, cultivating, raising and/or harvesting of planted or naturally occurring shellfish shall not be considered development, as defined in Article 2, and shall not require a shoreline substantial development permit, unless: i. The activity interferes with normal public use of surface waters; or ii. The activity involves placement of any structures as defined in Article 2; or iii. The activity involves dredging using mechanical equipment such as suction. hydraulic blasting. clamshell, dipper, or scraper; or iv. The activity involves filling of tidelands or bedlands. Thank you for considering our comments. If you require additional information please contact me at dean@futurewise.org or 509-823-5481. Sincerely, ~~.P~ Dean Patterson Shoreline Planner Futurewise fufiire:wi se o ..... Building communities .. ....... Protecting the land ........ -."r...-:y II.J; il-, 11 \\~}k_.d 'Ill _'iL~ .L~~-~: "", .I' January 28,2009 n l\r~ ;I t,t': :1[frpH'11l': CI~' [: rr l~_J'3~\~~ r~, Jefferson C~unty Planning Commission Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Dear Sirs and Madams: Enclosed please find two copies of a CAD on CD data CD. The documents on this data CD support the comments we will be providing to Planning Commission on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update by Friday's deadline. Thank in you for considering the documents we will reference in our comments. If you require additional information, please contact me at 206-343-0691 or tim@futurewise.org Sincerely, Tim Trohimovich, AICP Planning Director Enclosures