The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-436 To: Members Of Jefferson County Planning Commission ~~ @ 2--q & I GI"'-v-\ re G / J tv+ 2-/ 2-';/ Dq PC w-e;b Comments for February 25, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting I am aware that the comments that I am making address some issues that were debated and perhaps decided at last week's February 18 meeting of this Commission. If by virtue of these comments you decide to revisit some issues that were addressed last week, I believe it will improve the SMP. However, even if you leave last week's determinations intact, I am hoping these comments will assist with your future deliberations. The matters below can be brought up before the Board of County Commissioners. First, as a general matter, anyone listening to last week's deliberations would have been required to conclude that the Commission is operating under the presumed proposition that the Commission is a better steward of the environmental health of Jefferson County shorelines than is the assemblage of county property owners. In virtually every comment session, I have heard citizens challenge that proposition, and yet it remains present in the deliberations that I have witnessed. Henry David Thoreau wrote: If I knew that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life. And being a lawyer, I am mindful of Justice Louis Brandeis' comment in a 1928 opinion (Olmstead v. U.S., 277 US 438 (1928)): Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when government's purposes are beneficent. . . the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Now, I would like to address some particular matters that were discussed at last week's session: 1. The prohibition against beach access structures on ''feeder bluffs." Sitting in this room last week, I had no idea what a feeder bluff was, so I was relatively sanguine about the prohibition of beach access structures on them. Then I looked at the definition in the SMP: ****Feeder bluff or erosional bluffmeans any bluff or cliff experiencing periodic erosion from waves, sliding or slumping that, through natural transportation, contributes eroded earth, sand or gravel material via a driftway to an accretion shoreform. These natural sources of beach material are limited and vital for the long-term stability of driftways and accretion shoreforms (e.g., spits, bars, and hooks). Doing a little research, it appears that a "feeder bluff' is not by any scientific consensus the same as an "erosional bluff." Moreover, I believe that virtually any bluff not made of granite is an erosional bluff. Although the asterisks preceding the definition of "feeder bluff' in the SMP suggests that the definition was derived from The Shoreline Management Plan of Jefferson County (JCC 18.25.40), the SMP's definition is one that I have previously complained was "on steroids." Here is the definition in the JCC: "Feeder bluff' means a shore or sea bluffwhose eroding material is transported by longshore drift and provides the building blocks and nourishment for spits, bars, hooks, and other accretion shore forms. A little more investigation revealed a study that addresses "feeder bluffs" on Puget Sound (WSU Study, "Bainbridge Island Nearshore Assessment Summary of Best Available Sciences," October 2003) includes the following: "The Coastal Zone Atlas (Washington State Department of Ecology 1980 shows locations of feeder bluffs and erosion scars from I>ast slope failures. ifhe te j'eroding bluff' is a more general category than a "feeder bluff." The primanf flifference between an eroding bluff and feeder bluff is the type of sedimen~ <lelivered to the beach, although specific criteria for Puget Sound feeder bluffs kave hot been develQp'ed (H. Shipman, WDOE,,lJersonal communication, 2002~ Eroding bluffs contribute sediment to the beach irrespective of its size or gradation (e.g., the full range of fine materials, sands, silts, and clays to coarse materials, such as gravel, with no distinction between proportions of each). Feeder bluffs, on the other hand, are typically comprised of highly erodable coarser sediment, and as a result, contribute higher proportions of coarser materials, particularly sand and gravel. "The Geologic Stability Map in Appendix A illustrates known locations of unstable bluffs and landslide activity. Areas of eroding bluff activity were identified by Anchor Environmental and Applied Environmental Services during the fall of 200 1 along the shorelines south of Agate Pass, at Battle Point, north of Fletcher Bay, near Blakely Harbor, near Yeomalt Point and Ferncliff, around Skiff Point northward nearly to Faye BainbriQge State Park, and west of Port Madison Bay near A~ate Point. ~e investigation is needed to discern which eroding bl~s ~ 60ntributing coarse sediment (gravels) in proportions substantial enoygg to be bonsidered "feeder bluffs" versus erogmg bluffs) A combination of historical aerial photography and on-site investigation is needed to make these distinctions." So, the question becomes, "What has been prohibited?" In view of the strong opinions expressed by some Commission members that shoreline owners should as a rule be given access to their beach unless a true environmental hazard is discerned, is this "feeder bluff' prohibition a Trojan horse that can be employed by permit issuers to shut down virtually 2 all further beach access in Jefferson County. Is that what was intended? 2. A beach access structure will not be permitted if it is within,500feetfrom a public beach access structure. This requirement was imposed without scientific basis and without consideration of many possibilities. For example, is the 500 foot zone measured lineally along the beach? If so, does it matter if the property owner is required to walk across the property of another to get to the public beach access structure? Does it matter if the property owner cannot obtain access to her own beach from the public access structure? Does it matter if the property owner is disabled? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the requirement say something like: A private beach access structure may not be permitted when the property owner seeking the permit may obtain ready access to the beach on his or her property via a nearby public beach access structure. Ready access shall be determined by considering the publicly available route which may not exceed _ feet to the public beach access structure and the ability of the property owner to traverse that route. 3. The County's role as a promoter of cooperative beach access structures. There was some discussion that focused on the wisdom of a provision that encouraged neighboring property owners to combine resources to propose beach access structures for collective use (Art. 7.1.A.3), and the consensus (I believe) was that the County should do that as a matter of "policy." Had anyone thought about the easements that could be created by such an arrangement, and since easements run with the land, the consequences of such an easement? Those consequences could be disastrous to the party on whose land the "shared structure" sits as well as on the land any neighbor might be required to cross to access the shared structure? Encouraging such action as a "policy" should not be the business of county government since it invites the public potentially to impair property rights in what seems to be a benign cooperative effort. Respectfully submitted, John F. Lynch 4123 Paradise Bay Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 3