HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report Rebuttal for SHR2006-00027 - SHR Letters / Memos - 3/30/2007 (4/2/2007)Charles McCoy III-03-30-07 Comments to Chuck on Staff Report.doc Page 1
Barbara Robinson
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I *411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670
The following is rebuttal to Mason's County's Staff Report for the Mason County's staff
report for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SHR2006-00027). For ease of
reading we have included the policy items in the staff report and added our rebuttal to
each item.
Piers and Docks Policies are:
1. Piers and docks should be designed and located to minimize obstruction of views and
conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen.
Policy: The Mason County policy requires only that the design and location will
minimize impacts,not that there are no impacts. This proposal meets that policy and
goes beyond by offering significant mitigation. The existing float with its anchors and
chains continually drag across and scour the bottom destroying all vegetation and life
on the bottom and stir sediments. Fish are attracted to the float and the deeper water
where predation is more ofa problem.
View Aesthetics: The setting of this project is in a highly developed section of shore
line that is typified by closely spaced homes,seawalls,and developed yards giving it a
very urban appearance. The addition ofa PRF at this location will blend visually into
this setting and is the type of development that would be expected in an area that is
predominately residential... In the direction of the primary view shed,the PRF is
visually screened by the existing PRF to the west,which is larger and extends further
from shore. To the east,the direction of the minor view shed,the direction of the shore
line largely directs views away from the proposed PRF.
The staff report states that prior permits have been "denied the permits primarily on
the basis of aesthetic criteria". There has been no analysis of aesthetics done at this
site by staff and to use this as a basis for denial appears to be arbitrary. This is a
highly subjective statement and has should not be left to unqualified staff for
evaluation.
Loss ofbeach access: The primary activity along this stretch of beach is not walking
as noted implied in the staff report,but swimming,shellfish foraging,and boating. In
fact,walking is such a minor activity that even during the summer peak use season
there are only occasional days when walkers can be seen moving along the beach,and
the existing pier to the west in noway restricts that access. On the other hand,
(4/2/2007)Charles McCoy III-03-30-07 Comments to Chuck on Staff Report.doc Page 2
I
swimmers,shellfish forgers,and boaters are present during almost all daylight hours.
To site such a minor activity as being impacted while ignoring the activities of the
majority of users is neither creditable nor reasonable.
All the other major activities will be enhanced with the addition of this PRF. The PRF
will create an area safe for swimming,and shielded from high speed vessel traffic,
currently a significant problem.Boating will be enhanced by eliminating the off shore
float which is much more likely to be hit,and replace it with a more visible PRF. Since
the float will be located in an area of-3.0 tidal water,shellfish will not be impacted to
any extent.
Impacts to fish and shell fish and water quality: Examining the location of other
PRF's along this section of beach will reveal that there is no discernahle difference in
the biology of beach adjacent to the PRF's and directly under the PRF's. The
proposed float and the others in this area are so slender in their design that even when
not grated blocking of sunlight is not a major issue and does not impact the beach
organisms. Fish passage under these types ofPRF's also does not seem to be effected
All species of salmon,herring,and smelt have been seen to pass under adjacent PRF's
without hesitation,or being forced into deeper water.
Cumulative Impacts: The staff report sites cumulative impacts without discussion of,
or setting of thresholds beyond which the cumulative impacts would become a problem.
In fact,the nature of the discussion can only lead the reader to the conclusion that no
dock could meet the county's criteria,which then results in a moratorium or
prohibition of PRF's which the county has emphatically and repeatedly said does not
exist.
Mitigation of impacts: The staff report did not recognize or discuss the proposed
mitigation for this project. The removal of the existing off shore float alone will
eliminate daily impacts that far exceed the total impact of this PRF. It should be noted
that this proposal has 8.6 times the ACOE required mitigation points,and will have a
permanent and net reduction in the impacts along the shoreline.
Port Blakely: Using Port Blakely report as a precedent is not appropriate. The harbor
is small,congested,and the environmental conditions are entirely different. In reading
the report,none of the conditions leading to the findings exist at this project site. This
should be stricken from the staff report.
2.Cooperative uses of piers and docks are favored,especially in tidal waters.
Since the policy has been met we have no comments
3. The type,design and location of docks and piers should be compatible with the
shoreline characteristics,tidal actions,aesthetics,adjacent land and water uses.
Charles McCoy III-63-36-07 Comments to Chuck on Staff Report.doc Page 3
Policy: The county policy is fully met. The character of this section of shoreline is
that of a fully developed shoreline with occasional PRF's,bulkheads,residential lots,
and heavily landscaped yards and can be described as dense urban in nature. This
proposal will blend into and support the existing uses,and is consistent with the
aesthetics of the adjacent land uses. This proposal complies with the stated policy.
This proposal will support and enhance the primary uses of the water front and water
users who are swimmers,boaters,and shellfish foragers.
Non-conforming use and structural desien: The staff report states existing PRF"in
the vicinity are primarily non-conforming in nature and would not be permitted today
under current structural design criteria". I am sure this statement is made without any
structural analysis or basis. The PRF immediately to the west was just recently
permitted,and meets all current structural standards. The PRF to the east is in
excellent condition and would appear to substantially if not fully meet current
structural criteria.
Mooring Buoys and Floats: Just because the primary types of existing structure are
buoys and floats should not influence the acceptance of this proposal. Buoys and
floats have sign fcantly more impact than a PRF,and provide an entirely different
function. Again,this measure for approval is inconsistent with the county's position
that there is no moratorium on PRF.
4. Priority should be given to the use of community piers and docks in all new waterfront
subdivisions. In general,encouragement should be given to the cooperative use of piers
and docks.
We agree the current PRF proposal does not have direct application to this Policy,but
the statement about the Port of Allyn pier has nothing to do with this site or proposal
or the policy.
5.Mooring buoys and floats are preferred over piers and docks.
Policy: I believe that this policy would only be applicable when a buoy or float would
provide substantially the same function,and the impacts are similar. As used in this
staff report this policy has the effect of establishing a moratorium on PRF. One of the
purposes of this proposal is to provide safer and easier access to water related
recreational activities. In particular one of the participants in this proposal is denied
access to water related activities due to the difficulty of using buoys or floats. We
believe this policy sets a preference for floats or buoys and that the policy can be
satisfied when buoys or floats do not provide the intended function.
Consideration of buoys and floats: The staff report states"This proposal does not
contemplate the alternate ofproposal of anchored,unattached floats or mooring
buoys". Quite to the contrary,this proposal does consider their use,and staff has
failed to consider that the existing float is being removed because is does not meet the
(4/2/2007)Charles McCoy III-03 30 07 Comments to Chuck on Staff Report.doc Page 4
required functionality.
A number of the people who will be served by this PRF are have lost their ability to
access the water and pursue many of their customary water related activities. This
proposal was intended to address this need. Access to vessels is extremely difficult at
mooring buoys and floats due to the difficulty of transferring from a dinghy to afloat
or vessel. It should also be noted that there are continual impacts associated with
dragging the dinghy up and down the beach that would be eliminated with a PRF.
It should also be noted that afloat is being removed and the impacts of this float are
considerable,and certainly greater than those of a PRF at this location. The anchor
chains are constantly working against the sea floor,scouring the bottom,stirring up
sediments and dislodging any shellfish and other sea life.
Permanency: The staff report states that floats lack permanency. In fact,they are just
as permanent as a PRF. Even if they were less permanent,the impacts related to a
float at this site are so much greater than those ofa PRF that it is inappropriate to site
lack ofpermanency as a reason to disregard their impacts.-
6. Joint use stairways are preferred over individual stairways.
We agree this is not applicable
7. Boathouses and covered moorages shall be discouraged.
We agree this is not applicable.
Applicable Piers and Docks Use Regulations aze:
1.The location and design of docks and piers,as well as the subsequent use shall
minimize adverse effects on fish,shellfish,wildlife and water quality.
Policy: While staff has cited numerous and interesting research,they have failed to
demonstrate how it is applicable to this site. Of the two studies that I am familiar with
one(Blakely Harbor)is a very different location lacking any physical or biological
similarity,and the second by Nightingale was studying much larger structures as used
by the Washington State Ferry System where light was almost totally restricted due to
the expanse of the dock.
Most Important however is staffs disregard for the policy which is to minimize
impacts. This proposal follows the guidance in Nightingale by using grating to allow
light to penetrate through the structure,orientating the pier in a N-S direction,keeping
the elements of the PRF narrow,and maintaining the pier as high as possible above
the water.
Again ifstaffpersists with this position the there can be not impact they are ignoring
(4/21�harles McCoy III-03 30_07 Comments to Chuck on Staff Report.doc Page 5
the county's own policy,and establishing a moratorium on PRFs.
2. Docks and piers shall be located,designed and operated to not significantly impact or
unnecessarily interfere with the rights of adjacent property owners,or adjacent water uses.
Structures shall be located a minimum of five feet from side property lines. Community
use or joint use facilities may be located on the property line.
Cumulative Impacts: Again,we disagree with the statement regarding cumulative
impacts as noted above. Recently there has been testimony before the state shoreline
hearing board indicating that residential PRFs have little impact biological on the
shore lines.
4. No pier,dock,or float or similar device shall have a residential structure constructed
upon it.
We agree this does not apply,
Note that the numbering in the staff report does not include items 5 and 6 and they are
omitted here.
7. Maximum overall length of a recreational pier or dock facility including float shall be
only so long as to obtain a depth of three feet of water as measured at mean lower low
water on saltwater or a depth of five feet as measured from ordinary low water on lakes.
The length of any pier or dock facility shall do exceed the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch
or 100 feet of OHWM on saltwater and 50 feet on fresh water shorelines. Joint or
community use facilities may be an additional 15 feet in length,and shall not exceed a
depth of minus five(-5)feet. When sufficient depth to serve a vessel is not found at these
depths,a recreational float,with one boat slip,may be located at a depth sufficient to
serve the vessel,but not exceeding minus eight(-8)feet as measured from mean lower
low water,on marine shores,and ordinary low water on lake shores.
We agree that this policy has been met
9.The width of recreational piers and docks shall not exceed eight feet.
We agree that this policy has been met
10. At the end of a dock or pier,a float may be attached. These floats may either be
parallel to the dock or pier,or form a"T"or"L". In tidal water,the float shall not exceed
700 gross square feet with a joint-use ownership,without a boat slip.
We agree that this policy has been met.
13. Recreational piers shall be no higher than 11 feet above mean higher high water.
Piers and docks shall have at least an eight-foot span between pilings.
(4/2/2007)Charles McCoy III-03 30-07 Comments to Chuck on Staff Report.doc Page 6'
i
We agree that this policy has been met.
14.The surface of floating structures shall be a minimum of eight inches above the
surface of the water.
We agree that this policy has been met
15.All floating structures shall include intermittent supports to keep structures off the
tidelands at low tide.
We agree that this policy has been met.
Applicable guidelines for Shorelines of Statewide Significance in the following order of
preference are:
#1: Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
We again note that this position by staff establishes a moratorium by setting forth a
standard that cannot be met by any proposed PRF. The entire statement contains
vague and subjective statements without identifying site specific impacts or tying the
statements to policy. I would also like to cite the principle of consistency. PRF are
being permitted under very similar situation in the county,and in the past,staff has
cited consistency as an overriding reason to reverse a previous statement of
concurrence with a shoreline development proposal.
#2: Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
The characteristics and level of development and along this reach of Hood Canal are
very urban,not natural. This proposal fits into the existing environment and is
consistent with the level of adjacent development.
#3: Result in long term over short term benefit;
As stated above,the long term benefits of the mitigation far outweigh the long term
impacts,resulting in a long term gain. The removal of the existing float,anchors and
chains,elimination of dragging dinghies up and down the beach,and the elimination
of impacts associated with vessel anchors represent a significant reduction in impacts.
#4: Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
We disagree as stated above.
#5: Increase recreational opportunity for the public in the shoreline;
See comments above. Overall this will greatly increase the opportunity to use the
shoreline by adjacent residents. There is no public access reasonably close so general
(4/2/2007)Charles McCoy III-03-30-07 Comments to Chuck on Staff Report.doc Page 7;
public access is not an issue.
#6: Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.t 00 deemed appropriate or
necessary.
We agree that this policy has been met