Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-662 Page 1 of 1 ~ ' -' /.--Pi l{/ I Jeanie Orr From: Jeanie Orr Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 8:03 AM To: Michelle McConnell Cc: AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Jeanie Orr Subject: FW: Planning Commission SMP public comment Attachments: scan0006.pdf From: Peter Brockman [mailto:pbrockman2@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:32 PM To: #Long-Range Planning Subject: Planning Commission SMP public comment Attached is formal public comment for the Jefferson County Planning Commission on their newly released Shoreline Master Program Draft dated 6/3/09 for the formal record. Please confirm back receipt that you received this which includes 6 pages. This was sent at 4:25 on June 17, 2009. Thank you, Peter Brockman 6/1812009 June 17, 2009 To: Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheirdan Street Pt. Townsend, W A. 98368 Public Comment for Jefferson County Planning Commission Preliminary Draft Shoreline Master Program released dated June 3, 2009: Re: Private Waterfront Owners Access to Their Beach Under Artide 71. Beach Access Struc.tures Policy #2. ':refferson County recognizes a balance has to be found between enabling pedestrian access to beacharectS and protecting fragile shoreline ecosystemS' yet the further policies and regulations substantially and unjustifiably unbalances and prohibits the right of private waterfront owners to access their shoreline by continuing to require structurally unfeasible beach access stair building dimensions to the majority of waterfront, now newly prohibiting them on 'teeder bluffs' which has had no involvement or awareness from shoreline property owners and by not allowing private in the"Natural'designation yet allows public beach access structures. We request the planning commission continue to review the draft in these areas and make considerations. Regulation #5. ii. At both the February 18th and 25th, 2009, planning commission meetings which included and concluded the planning commission discussion publicly on Article 7.1 m after presentation, explanation and discussion the planning commission agreed and stated publicly they would definer the wording of this regulation as "the height of structures may not exceed 12 feet above the to~ Qfbluff'. In this new draft release it still says'tnore than 12 vertical feet above the bank or slope'. This is saying within the slope not from the top of the bluff and that's a very big difference and does not work for a majority of banks that would need stairs --- was It only makes sense due to the purpose & reason of building stairs to be noted from the top of bluff (for any view blockage concerns). To also be noted, in the memorandum Dept. of Ecology sent to Jefferson County, dated8/1/08~ on page 16 this regulation was also noted as'~e height olstructures may not exceed 12 feet above the As varying vertical heights are commonly needed within the slope over 12' based on the vertical natural topography of each bank which are all very different and it is better for the bank structurally and aesthetically for stairs to be designed to follow the slope of the bank conforming to existing topography to span more vertical areas with fewer posts and still be built at a comfortable & safe rise and run for walking. Holding to the 12' limitation is counterproductive with Policy #6 and Regulation #4 and absolutely does not work for a large majority of banks that would need stairs to access the shoreline. As in Policy #6 in order for beach access structures to conform to existing topography, minimize adverse impacts on shoreline aesthetics, and minimize clearing and grading you would not hold the design to a 12' height limitation within the slope. 1 Policy #5. The planning commission has gone beyond the Dec. 3 SMP draft in restriction by adding prohibiting beach access structures on feeder bluffs which has had no involvement or awareness from shoreline property owners as this is newly proposed as of this June 3, 2009 release. It was clearly stated and demonstrated in the February 24, 2009, letter provided to the commission by the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist experts in this field (letter attached for formal record) that beach access stairs can be built when appropriate based on site specific analysis on feeder bluffs that do not add significant impacts on sediment transport processes. These structures can be built over feeder bluffs with all work by hand/hand tools without using heavy equipment. Therefore why are they newly being proposed prohibited on feeder bluffs? Article 2.-5#4. In addition, the SMP definition of "feeder bluff" was changed, but it did not really change its meaning - all that was changed was to eliminate the words "or erosional bluff' and then left the definition that seems to include an erosional bluff intact. This definition still can be easily interpreted based on ones opinion on what is and what isn't a feeder bluff and it can easily be misconstrued to not clearly decipher from one bank to the next and is a generic definition that does not adequately appraise as to the relative benefits or values of a specific and particular bluff. Most banks or bluffs will slough and slide to an extent thereby depositing materials on the beach over time. Nor does the definition differentiate on the size of bank. There is no map that currently shows specifically what the county would be using that shows what is and what isn't a feeder bluff. The public is not aware of where specifically these feeder bluffs are. This is a term of art with various defmitions and opinions in municipalities as well as in the academic community. This new generic wholesale prohibition should be removed. Policy #7. "Beach Access Structure should not be allowed if there is a reasonable likelihood they will Wffi:4d require structural protection or armoring in the future". Using the word "reasonable likelihood" is not concise. B. Shoreline Environment Regulations #3: Natural: At both the February 18th and 25th, 2009, planning commission meetings which included & concluded the planning commission discussion publicly on Article 7.1 m when private beach stairs where discussed the planning commission stated publicly they would allow them in the "Natural" shoreline designation yet it shows Public beach access structures are allowed but private not? Was this planning commission wording change missed? Private Beach Access Structures should be a permitted use in the "Natural" Designation which is slated in this draft SMP as the large majority of shoreline in Jefferson County - the majority of this land is in private ownership. There are currently residential homes and private beach access stairs in these areas that are now located in the proposed "Natural" designation. This unfairly and unjustifiably leaves a large number of private waterfront owners without future access to their shoreline. Private beach access stairs are compatible uses in this designation as they are a low intensity use and do not have significantly adverse effects to ecological functions. Stairs are better for the bank than carving in trails and are much safer than using ropes and other devices from banks to access the shoreline. 2 The SMP Guidelines state in (L) Preferential accommodation of single family uses.. RCW 90.58.020: "alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, shall be given priority for single family residences and their appurtenant s.tructures... ", "shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to "other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state." Beach access stairs are an appurtenance to a single family residence and a reasonable and appropriate use .ofa property and protects the public's right which includes private shoreline owners' right to access and use the shorelines. The SMA policy under preferred uses of shoreline is that '"to the maximum extent possible, the shorelines should be reserved for water- oriented uses, including "water-dependent", "water-related and "water enjoyment" uses. You have many private land owners that are in these areas that stin have a right to enjoy their waterfront and access it. Beach access stairs are viable safe means for them to do that. Just because their property may beina natural state shouldn't prohibiting them from accessing it themselves. It is counterproductive to encourage shoreline owners to be good stewards of the Shoreline environment and yet prohibiting them to access it safely at the same time. c. Regulations Reaulation #4. "The County shall have the authority to require specific design standards based on the configuration of the site including existing topography, vegetation, soils, drainage and other factors". This appears to leave it up to the county to design these structures and is not at all clear and concise that there are any parameters which are reasonable feasible alternatives and designed in so far as practical including the financial feasibility. Reaulation #5 i. "The width of any walkway, staircase or tower shall not exceed five (5) feet" As stated in the definition of "Beach access structures" included is a "stair tower". A staircase can be reasonably built at a width of 5 feet but it is not structural possible to build a stair tower 5' in width. There are some banks/slopes that are more vertical in nature and will require a portion of a tower type staircase which are wider. The purpose of a stair tower is to build portions of the staircase within a tower to vertical span vertical parts ora bank, this also avoids putting posts on the bank and avoids carving into the bank. The staircase is built to in a sense to structurally spiral down. The smallest width you can build a stair tower is 10'. This section should be written that allows a staircase or stair tower to be built as what is structurally necessary to provide feasible and safe access to the shoreline on different banks types which vary. Re2ulation #5 in.: The distance was increased that beach access structures not allowed if there is other available PUBLIC beach access from within 300 feet to now 500 feet ofthe proposed access site. This distance would be difficult for elderly people or people with physical health concerns. For example why would an elderly shoreline owner that needs say a 20 foot run of stairs to his waterfront be made to walk up to 500 feet and why can't he use his property? What if a waterfront owner can't walk that far? This would require a shoreline owner to walk up to 500 feet to reach a public access point and then trespass pass through his neighbors waterfront to get to his? Rel!Ulation #6: "No portion of a beach access structure shall be constructed waterward of the ordinary high water mark unless there is no other" reasonable "feasible alternative." Ree:ulation #7. "When in water or oyer water construction is allowed" add "waterward of the ordinary high water mark" "it shall be limited to a small pier or pile -supported pedestrian 3 landing platform of 25 square feet or less" include ''with drawbridge let down stairs to safely step off this platform". A person needs to be able to safely step off this platform. Also, banks more vertical require a "tower" type set of stairs which require more than 25 square feet and would need the square footage necessary to feasibly access the shoreline safely. Reeulation #10. Beach Access Structures prohibited if would "adversely cause simificant adverse impacts to a critical area or marine feeder bluffs, or cause sienificant adverse effects 12 increase landslide or erosion hazard, or" "is lik-ely cause sienificant adverse effects to interfere with natural erosion and accretion process" and "is will likely to require shoreline/stabilization/shoreline defense works in the future". Reeulation #11. What specifically would the county require to determine this? Why is this burden of proof put so heavily on the applicant? Replacing the words "probable effects" and "potential effects" with "any significant adverse impacts" would be less broad. Reeulation #12. The county "may also require a geotechnical analysis and or/a biological analysis." When and why specifically would a biological analysis be necessary for these types of projects and what would it be providing that would be needed over a geotechnical study? There should be clear and specific parameters that would demonstrate when these reports would be required which is adding additional time and cost to the applicant to have them prepared. For example, reasonably a geotechnical analysis could be required over a 45 degree slope. There is not a proliferation of building stairs in Jefferson County. In all of Jefferson County there has been 3 building permits issued for new stairs to the beach in 2009 (thru May) and were 4 in 2008,5 in 2007. They are further limited to certain areas by where site conditions work for stairs and in these circumstances they are importantly necessarily connected to shoreline owners and their families to the use and enjoyment of a single family residence and their fundamental right to access their waterfront property. In addition they are fmther limited to shoreline owners by the cost of building them and there is not enough shoreline access in Jefferson County as it is. Private and public access to shorelines in Jefferson County is very limited due to economic and site feasibility. What is being proposed continues to not want a large majority of private waterfront owners & their future generations to have the ability to access their own shoreline to enjoy, reach, touch, and travel on the shorelines which does not meet the requirement in RCW 90.58.100(2)(b) and takes away private beach rights. What better stewards of shorelines than also young people of this county who have access to shorelines to learn and touch and feel and appreciate what makes this county so special. Thank you for your review and consideration, Peter Brockman P.O. Box 186 Kingston,W A. 98346 (We have family members and clients with waterfront properties in Jefferson County) 4 February 24, 2009 Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Re: Feeder Bluffs and Beath Stairtases Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Dear Planning Commission: Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect) is a West Sound earth sciences and geotechnical engineering consulting firm. Two of Aspect's technical specialties are environmental protection and remediation, and geotechnical evaluation and design in steep slope critical areas and other environmentally sensitive settings. In the past 14 years, we have completed geologic and geotechnical evaluations on approximately 200 shoreline projects in the Hood Canal, puget Sound, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca areas. In addition, we have completed geologic/geotechnical evaluations and design programs for about 30 staircases on steep coastal bluffs. We understand that you are evaluating changes to the Shoreline Master Program which has generated some questions on the impact of beach staircases on natural processes of coastal feeder bluffs. Given our experience working on shoreline and steep slope projects in Jefferson County and nearby coastal areas, we would like to share our thoughts and experience on this matter. A bluff staircase investigation requires assessing the topography and slope angles, soil types and strengths, surface water and groundwater characteristics, vegetation types, shoreline processes, type of characteristic landslide, and history of landslide activity. Based on this, the geologist/engineer can determine potential impacts of the project on the slope, and the potential impacts of the slope on the project. Where the site characteristics are suitable for the proposed project, the engineer then provides design recommendations including setback of foundations from the top and bottom of the bluff, depth of the foundations, drainage improvements, etc. Beach staircases are not designed to stabilize the bluff soils. Because stairs do not stabilize the slope, the natural sediment transport processes operate independently of the stairs. If the bluff soils slide, the soil debris flows around the support posts for the staircase, or if the slide is deep or large enough, the staircase generally breaks loose and slides with the soil. In either case, the soil is not prevented from moving to the beach. In our experience, properly constructed beach stairs seldom have an impact on the basic stability of the bluff Stairs can be constructed without significant impact on sediment transport processes. Well-constructed bluff stairs include the following elements: I) landings set back sufficiently far from the top and bottom of the bluff that they allow soil to move around the supports; 2) landings set above ground to allow sediment to move beneath them; 3) foundation 179 Madrone Lane North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: (206) 780"9370 Fax: (200) 780"9438 www,aspectconsulting,com . a Iiit/ited liability company Jefferson County Planning Commission February 24, 2009 posts embedded deep enough that thin and shallow slides will not reduce bearing support; 4) foundation posts strong enough and set far enough apart to allow sediment to flow around and between them; and 5) steps to the beach that can be raised up (drawbridge style) when not being used. To minimize hazards to people and the environment, if a landslide occurs, all soil and wood debris should be removed from the supports to prevent damage to the stairs, and soil allowed to move onto lower portions of the slope. The stairs should be inspected frequently and any damage repaired promptly. If a landslide damages the stairs to the point that part of it lands on the beach, staircase debris should be promptly removed. We would be happy to answer any questions or concerns that you have. You can reach us at 206-838-5834 (Dave) or 206-780-7720 (John). Sincerely, Aspect consulting, LLC ~iW-~v ~cL~ John L. Peterson, PE Senior Associate Geotechnical Engineer jpeterson@aspectconsulting.com David H. McCormack, LEG Associate Engineering Geologist dmccormack@aspectconsulting.com cc: Brockman Builders S:IJefferson County SMPIJefferson Co Beach Stairs_rev1.doc Page 2