We are not alone: notes on the San Juan Iniative.

Every jurisdiction in the Puget Sound area is working on updates to shoreline regulations. The following is a summary of San Juan Initiative community workshops concerning proposed changes to shoreline land use regulations.

What do you think of the process? … the observations and opinions expressed? Is this the kind of discussion you would like to see on Bainbridge? Please leave your comments below.

Background

Between May 4 and May 12, 2009, the San Juan Initiative hosted seven public discussions about how to improve protection of shoreline resources while meeting the needs of property owners. This document is a brief summary of some of the key points of both agreement and concern as well as a record of some good ideas generated by the public.

The San Juan Initiative gathered input on three key topics:

• Improving protection of shoreline trees and ground cover
• Changing the standard for replacing bulkheads along beaches and bluffs
• Improving technical expertise in the permitting process and improving shoreline property owner access to technical expertise

We hosted three lunch workshops for trade people (contractors, realtors, engineers, architects, excavators, landscapers) and four evening workshops for property owners and the general public on Orcas, San Juan and Lopez. We reached over 100 people. Although the turnout was not large, each meeting had a broad diversity of perspectives. The evening workshops were attended mostly by shoreline property owners, which provided us the opportunity to gather input from those most affected by the recommended changes.

We made a concerted effort to encourage attendance that was both targeted to our key stakeholders and broad enough to encourage general public engagement. The following outreach tools were used:

• 650 Postcards were sent to all shoreline property owners in our Orcas, San Juan and Lopez case study areas.
• Emails were sent to all past participants in our meetings and to the Stewardship Network which includes the MRC and Salmon Recovery email lists.
• Phone calls were made by Policy Group members to community members.
• Advertisements were placed in all three papers for two weeks leading up to the meetings.
• Op-Ed pieces were placed in all three papers in the weeks prior to the meetings.

The following issues were raised at the workshops in regard to technical assistance:

Question 1: Should the Planning Department have technical expertise to review complicated permits? How do we provide technical assistance to the shoreline property owners?

Feedback regarding improving the County’s technical review of complicated permits:

• The community, trades people, shoreline property owners and the general public all acknowledge a lack of technical expertise at the Planning Department that impacts the consistency of permit review.
• The community felt that having one point person or several people with greater technical understanding of ecology and the shoreline rules at the Planning Department would result in increased consistency of regulatory interpretation.
• The community is open to new ideas for how to pay for increased technical review within the Planning Department so long as it results in increased consistency. If fees are increased, the public wants to be sure that the additional funds are spent on increased expertise specifically.
• The community is frustrated with the “boom and bust” cycles of the Planning Department and is interested in finding funding that would provide more consistent staffing levels.
• Staff put forward several ideas for how to find money, including applicant pays for additional review and an increase in permit fees.
• Community is concerned with the problem of “dueling experts” if the applicant pays for additional review.
• The public was interested in how a “review committee” made up of expert volunteers could help provide expertise in review of permits.

Ideas that had traction in the meetings for how to pay for additional expertise in the permit review process:

• Special shoreline tax at time of purchase to fund ongoing technical support.
• Paying for a second review was generally not well supported but community supported a process where the property owner and the County agree on an expert prior to process that is then accepted by County and paid for by property owner.
• Increasing the permit fee structure was supported if the fees were used to provide the technical expertise not just in the review of the application but throughout the process. There was also support for a tiered fee structure in the more complicated areas of beaches, bluffs and feeder bluffs.
• Support paying for a pre-application meeting during which any complications would be defined and a fee structure determined.
• County needs a list of agents that the community knows will be accepted in review process and will provide good solid information and science in the permit process.
• At point of purchase, all shoreline property owners receive a “credit” for a site visit by the County or the Conservation District. This credit is paid for in the transaction costs and the property owner may redeem it within some short time period. This encourages people to learn about their land first thing after buying it. This was widely supported by the realtors.

Improving property owner’s access to technical expertise:

• Shoreline “czar”, one planner who has the technical expertise who answers all shoreline questions. One point person would increase consistency.
• Property owners identified the need for help with dealing with erosion.
• Illustrated compendium of regulation –- show what we mean with picture.
• Pre-application meeting that is a “safe” place to get questions answered. A “no fault” meeting where the community can be totally honest about what they want and the resources they have. An organization like the Conservation District could provide this non-regulatory help.
• Encourage innovative solutions created by property owners.
• Encourage demonstration projects that are used to explore new vegetation and bulkhead effectiveness.

Question 2: Is the approach to providing a view and protecting shoreline vegetation workable?

Staff described the approach:

• Prescriptive standard would allow 15% of trees within buffer area to be removed, such that the shoreline retains 85% of the trees over time.
• All ground cover retained.
• Limbing for “view windows” allowed.
• No clearing greater than 250 sq feet.
• If the prescriptive doesn’t work, then have a site specific process that is more complicated and costs more.

Concerns about 15%:

• Is it scientifically defensible?
• 15% of trees? 15% of canopy?
• 15% is difficult to quantify, how will property owners be able to do this?
  What if I still don’t have a view after 15%?
• 15% from when?
• Need to be very specific about acceptable methodology to figure out 15%
  15% felt like too little.
• Concern that we can’t come up with a reasonable prescriptive standard that would work for most properties.

Support:

• Support for a prescriptive process that is clear with an option for a site specific process.
• Supportive of tailoring vegetation retention to different types of shoreline. Supportive of improving the process.
• Supportive of having a clear statement of intent for retaining vegetation.

Suggestions to improve standard:

• Need pictures to illustrate.
• No clearing or tree removal at all within 50 feet of Ordinary High Water mark.
• Conservation District provide vegetation management plans.

Question 3: Do you have concerns about new bulkhead standards?

Staff approach:

• Repairs would be allowed but replacement of existing bulkheads would need to show that the main structure, septic or road was threatened by erosion.

Reaction:

• For property-owner meetings, staff presented a spectrum of options and asked for feedback.
• Most of the shoreline property owners agreed that replacement bulkheads should be placed above the tideline.
• There was no consensus but the majority of people agreed with the stricter standard—that replacements should only be allowed when the main structure, septic or road is threatened.
• Two of the three trade group meetings and one property owner meeting supported the standard recommended by the Policy Group. But, at every meeting, there were some participants that disagreed with any restrictions for bulkheads replacement though almost all agreed that when replacing existing armoring, the structure should be moved out of the intertidal zone.
• The public wanted evidence that their bulkhead causes harm and if that was shown then support for new standards would be greater.
• All the groups were supportive of the “threatened” standard for new bulkheads.
• All want to see a clear standard for “threatened” and for “repair” and “replace.”

What do you think? Please scroll down a bit and leave your comments.