Al Scalf, Director
Jefferson County DCD
Forgot to include this item in the previous message:
The Leader newspaper ran a good article on 3/4/09 about the SMP update that requires some clarification:
1. The standard buffers proposed are 150’on stream/river and marine shorelines, and 100’ on lake shorelines. There is also an additional building setback of 10’ from all buffers.
2. Staff, consultants and committees have been working on the current SMP Update effort since 2006. The two advisory committees that assisted preparation of the Preliminary Draft SMP were not Planning Commission committees/sub-committees but rather formed by and advisory to DCD staff and consultants. They were named the Shoreline Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) and the Shoreline Policy Advisory Committee (SPAC). Two members of the Planning Commission’s SMP Update Committee participated on the SPAC – Bill Miller as the PC representative, and Peter Downey as the Aquaculture representative.
3. The state legislature requires all jurisdictions in the state to update their SMP by 2014.
4. The ‘residents per shoreline mile’ estimates are derived from a simple calculation of total population divided by total shoreline miles and does not accurately reflect the density or distribution of residential development along waterfront parcels.
5. The Planning Commission has requested additional time to review the Preliminary Draft SMP proposal in light of the public comments received.
6. There are roughly 6,200 parcels potentially affected by the new SMP. GIS mapping analysis shows there are about 750 lots that are too small to meet the proposed new 150’ marine shoreline buffer.
7. The Shoreline Inventory & Characterization Report cites over 200 scientific and technical papers. As part of the process to assign shoreline environment designations (SEDs), Ecology’s shoreline aerial photos were used to ‘ground truth’ the findings of the Inventory.
8. The Preliminary Draft SMP specifically proposes to prohibit “The extraction of quarry rock, sand, gravel, and/or cobbles from any marine or freshwater lake shoreline for any commercial or industrial purpose” (page 8-20).
9. Site Plan Advance Approval Determinations (SPAADs) do vest a development proposal to the code existing at the time of issuance, and are good for 5 years. However, SPAADs are not the only way to ‘avoid’ the proposed 150’ marine shoreline buffer – proposed options include 1) Common Line Setback, and 2) Non-conforming Lots standards for lots that are too small for the proposed new buffer, and 3) Buffer Reduction/Averaging to reduce buffer by up to 25%, 4) Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) for parcels greater than ¼ acre, and 5) Shoreline Variance Permit.
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 email addresses are not shown to keep that information private.
Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner - LRP Lead
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update Project Manager
Yes, the State of Washington is directing local governments through the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) to update our master program (SMP).
The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation. In addition it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state. The legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefor, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines.
It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto.
The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of statewide significance. The department, in adopting guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, and local government, in developing master programs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which:
(1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
(2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
(3) Result in long term over short term benefit;
(4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
(5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines;
(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;
(7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary.
In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be recognized by the department. Shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be appropriately classified and these classifications shall be revised when circumstances warrant regardless of whether the change in circumstances occurs through man-made causes or natural causes. Any areas resulting from alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and shorelands of the state no longer meeting the definition of "shorelines of the state" shall not be subject to the provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW.
Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water.
Your Question #1 Pertains to the 75% rule for reconstruction in the event of damage (fire) – this comes from WAC 173-27-080 and be found in our draft SMP at page 10-6.
#2 Who makes this judgement? First would come the land owner who would evaluate how much damage, then a permit proposal from the land owner or representative and a subsequent review by DCD, who would evaluate the proposal and make a decision.
#3 Would this cloud the title? DCD would not place any notice to title under this proposed SMP.
#4 Who serves who? See the legislative findings above.
The Planning Commission is currently reviewing and revising the draft SMP and another public hearing with a public comment period will occur in the months to come. The 75% issue is being actively debated by the commission and the Board of County Commissioners.
Your home and garage that was started in 2001 exceeded the 150’ buffer requirement and subsequently would be conforming to both the current CAO as adopted and the draft SMP as proposed.