The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-640 '.',M/\ ,. C ,./1' 1 j ft. ,":15. ')'. . , if/.I ol--.' . l(;' FERSON COUNTY RTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT eridan Street. Port Townsend. Washington 98368 9-4450.360/379-4451 Fax . co.jefferson. wa. us/commdevelopmentl MEMORANDUM TO: Jefferson unty Planning Commission Chair, Pe e Downey FROM: Al Scalf, Stacie Ho Michelle ector ns, Planning Manager M Connell, Associate Plai1n@ DATE: June 17, SUBJECT: Commen s n Planning Commission Revised Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP) The Department of Com for the time and hard wo efforts over the past six meetings, reviewing and r Comprehensive Plan an PDSMP. nity Development (DCD) recognizes and commends the Planning Commission (PC) spent reviewing the December 3, 2008 Preliminary Draft SMP (PDSMP). Your nths reflect the significant dedication each of you have shown in attending weekly earching complex issues, and carefully deliberating proposed amendments to the nified Development Code. We support many of the PC's proposed revisions to the DCD's role and professi is to ensure compliance administrative rules, esp Comprehensive Plan an i the Unified Developmen mindful of the implicatin permitting processes, sh r customer service for the goals to guide your effo Commissioners. I obligation in the comprehensive update of the Jefferson County SMP (lCC 18.25) . h 1) the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA; RCW 90.58) and 'ally the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26),2) our own Jefferson County plementing regulations contained in the Jefferson County Code (lCC), especially ode (UDC), and 3) applicable case law and court decisions. We must also be for administering the SMP in terms of established procedural requirements, management responsibilities with other agencies and tribes, and our dedication to pIe of Jefferson County. We greatly appreciate that the PC has established similar preparing a Final Draft SMP recommendation to the Board of County Please note, this docume Commission that can be ' your final deliberationsn focuses on areas of concern, while most other changes proposed by the Planning ported by DCD have not been included. Our comments are intended to support assist preparation of your Final Draft SMP. DCD staff looks forward t to review the public com recommendation to the following: continuing to work with the Planning Commission as you continue the good work nts received, complete your deliberations, and prepare your Final Draft SMP C. Please feel free to ask questions and/or request clarification on any of the Article 2. Definitions - DCD generally supports the proposed text changes. We recommend keeping some terms proposed for deletion for use by applicants and staff during consistency review and permit issuance even though they may not be specifically used in the document. Article 4. Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environment Designations · 4.2.C.4 Conservancy (C) - To ensure clarity and consistency for applicants and staff, DCD recommends keeping the zoning indications (RR 1: 1 0, 1 :20) or adding a definition for 'low density residential' in Article 2. · 4.2.C.5 Shoreline Residential (SR) - To ensure clarity and consistency for applicants and staff, DCD recommends keeping zoning indication (RR 1 :5) or adding a definition for 'high density residential' in Article 2. · Table 1. Allowed Uses - DCD has concern that some notations do not accurately reflect the text of later sections. We recommend final review to ensure accuracy and a final recommendation. Our comments on proposed changes to shoreline modification and specific use policies and regulations are reflected below. Article 6. General Policies and Regulations . 6.1 Critical Areas, Shoreline Buffers, and Ecological Protection - DCD generally supports PC's effort to balance shoreline use/development with ecological protection, however it is unclear if 1) the science will adequately support 50' buffer for SR and HI marine shorelines, and if 2) the CAO 'equal protection' requirement is satisfied (WAC 173-26-221-2). We recommend further review/deliberation with staff/consultant support for a final recommendation. · 6.4 Vegetation Conservation - DCD has concern whether including only the terms 'maintenance' and 'trimming' is confusing to the reader and whether vegetation removal is left unaddressed as an exemption. We recommend further review/deliberation to determine PC intent and clarify language for a final recommendation. · 6.6 Shoreline Setbacks and Height - DCD has concern whether the PC proposed reduction of the building setback to 5' will be acceptable given Ecology's previously submitted comments (12/3/08) that identify preference for minimum of 10' building setback. We recommend further review/deliberation to determine a final recommendation. . 6.7 Common Line Setback - DCD supports the PC proposed 300' separation as consistent with existing code (lCC 18.25.410). As this provision applies only to single family residential use/development on non-conforming lots, we recommend relocating this provision to become part of/adjacent to section 6.1.E with other non-conforming lot provisions. Also, as this provision provides a site-specific option to adjust the standard oeD comments on PC Revised Draft SMP Page 2 of 6 buffer, no e building setback, we recommend renaming this provision the "Common Line Buf Modifications Policies and Regulations . 7.1 Beach ccess Structures - DCD supports the PC proposed provision to avoid use conflicts · e een public beach access structures and trespassing on private property. We support t rovisions to protect feeder bluffs and banks/slopes from impacts of access structures owever, we have concern whether the PC proposal for treating public and private be access structures equally will meet WAC guidance (WAC 173-26-231) to limit num and extent of shoreline modifications and to ensure cumulative effects do not result i' net loss of ecological functions. We recommend further review/deliberation to consid r eeping the originally proposed differentiation since public beach access structuresip vide public access functions/benefits that private structures do not. · acilities - DCD has concern, similar to the above, whether the PC proposal ublic and private boating facilities equally will meet WAC guidance (WAC to limit number and extent of shoreline modifications and to ensure ffects do not result in net loss of ecological functions. We again recommend /deliberation to consider keeping the originally proposed differentiation since pub i boating facilities provide public access functions/benefits that private facilities 0 ot. Article 8. Use-S e ific Policies and Regulations · 8.1 Agric i 1 re - DCD has concern that the location of introductory statements is not easily construct id n code format. We recommend further review/deliberation to consider leaving such statement policies. . 8.2 Aqua u statement to consid ure - DCD has concern, similar to above, that the location of introductory not easily constructed in code format. We recommend further review/deliberation aving such statements as policies. We have 0 cern that the PC proposed use ofthe term 'Shellfish Habitat Conservation Area' is not define and recommend adding the term with a definition to Article 2. We have 0 cern about the PC proposal regarding geoduck aquaculture. By allowing geoduck aquacultu e ithout local permits, except with a conditional use permit when adjacent to Shoreline sidential designated marine shorelines (-43 miles or -17% of all marine shorelines), the potent a land use conflict due to presence of single family residential use/development along the Natur 1 nd Conservancy designated marine shorelines (-129 miles or -52% combined) is not addre s . We recommend further review/deliberation to determine PC intent for a final recomme d tion. DCD comments on PC Revis Page 3 of 6 We have concern that the PC proposal to add the terms 'molluscan shellfish nurseries' and 'molluscan shellfish hatcheries' to the regulatory language as separate from the defined terms of 'bottom' and 'floatinglhanging' aquaculture makes it unclear whether such molluscan shellfish aquaculture activities require a conditional use permit. We recommend further review/deliberation to determine PC intent and clarify language for a final recommendation and further suggest considering inclusion of the former terms as appropriate into the definitions for the latter terms mentioned above. We also have concern whether the PC proposal to allow some types of net pen finfish aquaculture would result in negative impacts to the ongoing, wide-spread efforts to restore threatened and endangered salmon populations. We recommend further review/deliberation to consider reinstating the original proposal for prohibition of all net pen finfish aquaculture that is not related to salmon restoration/enhancement. · 8.3 Commercial Use - DCD has concern whether the PC proposed deletion of the provision intended to preserve remaining undeveloped waterfront for water-oriented commercial use and development is consistent with overall WAC and RCW policy of preferring water-dependent and water-related uses along the shoreline (WAC 173-26-176; RCW 90.58.020). We recommend further review/deliberation to consider keeping the originally proposed provision for a final recommendation as consistent with state guidance. We also have concern that the PC proposal to allow existing non-water dependent/related commercial development to expand without providing any prescriptive criteria would require a shoreline variance permit to expand within the buffer area. We recommend further review/deliberation to clarify PC intent and language and suggest reinstating the originally proposed 8.3.F.5 or revising Article 10.6.C for a final recommendation. · 8.4 Forest Practices - DCD has concern the proposed use of the term 'merchantable volume' is not consistent with state guidance (RCW 98.58.150, WAC 173-26-241). We recommend using the term 'merchantable trees' rather than the originally proposed 'merchantable volume' to ensure consistency with state law and administrative rules. . 8.5 Industrial and Port Development - DCD has concern, similar to above, whether the PC proposed deletion of the provision intended to preserve remaining undeveloped waterfront for water-oriented industrial/port use and development is consistent with overall WAC policy of preferring water-dependent and water-related uses along the shoreline (WAC 173-26-176; RCW 90.58.020). We recommend further review/deliberation to consider keeping the originally proposed provision for a final recommendation as consistent with state guidance. . 8.6 Mining - DCD has concern about conflicts between the PC proposed notations in the Allowed Use Table (Article 4) and the proposed policy and regulatory text. The revised text seems to allow all non-extraction mining use/development along marine and lake shores, and seems to prohibit all mining use/development within river channels. The Use Table shows all mining use/development as prohibited on all shorelines. We recommend further review/deliberation to clarify PC intent and language and to consider establishing more clear separation between 'mineral extraction' and 'mineral processing' as defined in Article 2. DCD comments on PC Revised Draft SMP Page 4 of 6 . 8.8 Resi e tial- DCD has concern whether the PC proposed deletion of the provisions to prohibite dential development that would require structural shore armoring or flood protection meets W, requirements (WAC 173-26-231). Also, the intent of the PC proposal for inserted language! i this section is not clear. We recommend further review/deliberation to clarify PC I intent an I guage, and to consider keeping the originally proposed prohibitions to ensure WAC We have c ncern whether the PC proposed deletion of the provision to ensure views from neighbor n properties are not compromised or lost by multi-story residential development over 35' tall e ts RCW requirements (RCW 90.58320). We recommend further review/deliberation to consid. einstating the originally proposed provision to ensure RCW consistency. I I We also. e concern whether the PC proposed deletion of the provision requiring public access/o e space for multi-lot/unit residential development meets WAC requirements (WAC -4). We recommend further review/deliberation to consider reinstating the originally ovision to ensure WAC consistency. . stration and Enforcement Article 10. Ad · nforming Development - DCD generally supports the PC proposed deletion that all damaged non-conforming development to rebuild on original footprint, except when in I o-hazardous area, and with the possibility for the six-month application time limit waived fi r pecific situations since this type of re-development does not occur frequently, therefore It re would be minimal effects on the overall reduction of non-conformity. We have I cern that the PC proposed revisions to allow existing non-water dependent/related develop e t other than single family residential to expand without providing any prescriptive criteria I ld require a shoreline variance permit to expand within the buffer area. We also have concerns 0 this issue whether it is consistent with overall WAC and RCW policy of preferring water-de e dent and water-related uses along the shoreline (WAC 173-26-176; RCW 90.58.02 ) This is related to our comments on Article 8.3 Commercial Use. We recommend further re w/deliberation to clarify PC intent and language, to ensure consistency with state guidance d suggest reinstating the originally proposed 8.3.F.5 or revising Article 10.6.C for a final rec endation. DCD comments on PC Revis Similar t residenti I overall conformi y. ove, we have concern whether the PC proposed revision to allow single family expand landward even when the structure is non-conforming is consistent with guidance and case law (Jukanovich v. Ecology) to reduce the degree of non- have concern that the PC proposed section on enlargement/expansion of non- structures is unclear and internally inconsistent, and that proposed sections D. and E. all potential situations. We recommend further review/deliberation to clarify PC I guage, and suggest review of the criteria for conditional use permits and shoreline its to determine which is most appropriate for such situations, such as those in the oposed sections F., H., and I. Page 5 of 6 Appendix A. Official Shoreline Map . Reach A - DCD supports the PC Proposed change from Conservancy to Shoreline Residential environment designation along the short stretch described due to existing residential density, even though this section of shoreline meets designation criteria for Conservancy. . Reach III - DCD supports the PC proposed change from Natural to Shoreline Residential environment designation along the short stretch described due to existing residential density, even though this section of shoreline meets designation criteria for Natural. - END OF DOCUMENT - DCD comments on PC Revised Draft SMP Page 6 of 6