Tag Archives: Kitsap County shorelines planning

Kitsap County officials are knee-deep in shoreline issues

UPDATE #2, Oct. 20
Kitsap County commissioners have decided to appeal the latest court ruling to the Washington State Supreme Court. See the story I wrote for the Oct. 20 Kitsap Sun.

UPDATE, Sept. 25
Kitsap County commissioners have decided to ask the court to reconsider its ruling that would invalidate the county’s Critical Areas Ordinance when it comes to shorelines. See the story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun. I will have more details as they become available.

While Kitsap County officials gear up to rewrite the county’s Shoreline Management Master Program, they have been handed a hot potato they cannot ignore.

As I describe in a story in today’s Kitsap Sun, the Washington State Court of Appeals has thrown out the county’s shoreline buffers written into law when the county commissioners updated the Critical Areas Ordinance.

Property-rights advocates feel vindicated, and rightfully so. They have spent their own money — more than $100,000 — to fight a county they feel should be standing up for their rights. (See Karl Duff’s column from Feb. 25.) Meanwhile, the county uses public money to fight them back. Victory is sweet for the winners, but it comes at a price.

I hate to say it, but that’s the way things go. When environmental advocates win, they also wonder why they have wasted money battling the government. And if you are a government official, you try not to lose to either side — which is not easy in a case like this, because both sides were suing them at the same time.

Supporters of property rights have many grievances, and they have a right to speak up. But this week’s court decision must be kept in perspective.

Did the county commissioners violate private property rights when they increased shoreline buffers? Did they rely on the wrong scientific studies? Did they mistakenly apply uniform buffers when they should have considered the ecological value of each shoreline segment?

Maybe, maybe not. But the court never got to those questions. Let me recount the history.

Four years ago, when the county was updating its Critical Areas Ordinance (see Title 19), the commissioners essentially decided to leave 35-foot shoreline buffers in place until they updated the Shoreline Management Master Program (see Title 22). At that time, they thought the update would be just a year or two away.

The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board ruled that the commissioners could not follow that course of action, because such buffers would not adequately protect habitat for salmon, some of which are listed under the Endangered Species Act.

So the commissioners went back to the drawing board and approved new shoreline buffers of 50 feet for urban areas and 100 feet for rural and semi-rural areas. They said the buffers would get closer scrutiny and might even be reduced during the shorelines plan update.

Those buffers were challenged on multiple grounds by the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners. KAPO’s arguments were rejected by the hearings board (which was not allowed to address constitutional issues) and by Superior Court Judge Craddock D. Verser, who ruled that the county had followed “a reasoned process to address the necessity of protecting the identified functions and values” of critical areas. See my story of July 2, 2008.

That was before the State Supreme Court handed down a decision that interpreted the intertwined Growth Management Act and Shorelines Management Act as saying shorelines rules can be changed only by amending the county’s shorelines plan. See my story from Aug. 1, 2008.

And that was the controlling factor in this week’s decision. The county commissioners — and KAPO — were right the first time when they tried to delay any significant action on shoreline buffers. The appeals court acknowledged the confusion created for cities and counties by the Legislature and the State Supreme Court. You can review the comments in my story today or read the Appeals Court opinion for yourself.

Why does it matter whether the buffers are approved under one law or another? Besides the legal process, it is important to understand that the laws are distinct in their philosophies and procedures.

Continue reading

Diverse groups will be asked to join shoreline planning

UPDATE, Thursday, Sept. 10: Kitsap County has sent out a press release about the shoreline planning effort.

Kitsap County’s shoreline planning effort will move into full swing during the second half of this month. That’s when county officials will hold a series of meetings to share information with representatives from more than 100 organizations.

The importance of this process is not being overlooked by county planners, who realize that the outcome must protect the environment and property rights at the same time.

A letter is scheduled to go out next week to various groups, including civic clubs, community and neighborhood groups, chambers of commerce, environmental organizations, property rights groups, land conservancies, news media, yacht clubs, environmental restoration and recreational organizations, economic associations, and environmental and science educators.

Also included are various cities, tribes, county agencies, water districts, port districts, school districts and colleges.

Those who attend any of the five meetings will learn about state requirements as well as county plans for updating the Kitsap County Shoreline Management Master Program. Those who wish to participate in detailed work on the plan may be asked to join an advisory group, which will provide opinions on various proposals for the next two to three years.

The county commissioners recently approved a 25-page contract with the Washington Department of Ecology. Download the contract from the Kitsap County commissioners agenda (PDF 72 kb). The $650,000 contract outlines in detail what the county will be required to do over the next three years.

The work is organized into five phases
Phase 1: Preliminary assessment of shoreline jurisdiction and public participation plan.
Phase 2: Shoreline inventory, analysis and characterization.
Phase 3: Draft of shoreline management plan and cumulative impacts analysis.
Phase 4: Restoration planning and revisiting Phase 3 as needed.
Phase 5: Adoption process.

The vision developed by the planners includes these goals:

  • Comply with legislative mandates including requirements for no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and values.
  • Protect private individual property rights consistent with the public interest.
  • Create a shoreline stewardship program that fosters reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses while protecting valuable and fragile natural resources.
  • Engage a wide variety of stakeholders, citizens and interests in developing goals and policies.
  • Integrate and support County development plans, policies, and regulations.
  • Ensure predictability, accountability, and efficiency during shoreline development review and decision making.
  • Have a strong scientific basis.