Three years ago, the Kitsap County commissioners, by a 2-1 vote, agreed to place new severe shoreline buffers through the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), thereby increasing shoreline set-backs from 35 to 100 feet.
In addition, they agreed with environmentalists to designate 100 percent of Kitsap shorelines as “critical area.” This compares with a 12 percent figure for Pierce County just across Puget Sound from us.
Most of our county was asleep at the time or didn’t care.
These set-backs resulted in nearly all improved shoreline properties being found “non-conforming,” serious damaging owners’ ability to make reasonable use of their property without extensive permitting problems, variances, hearings, appeals and litigation fees.
The CAO actions were contrary to state law and could soon be remanded by the Washington State Court of Appeals, which heard the case on June 15.
The two commissioners who voted in favor of the CAO, Chris Endreson and Patty Lent, are now gone, as is the dissenting vote of Jan Angel. But the question remains whether their replacements in office have learned anything or desire to waste another three years repeating the same mistakes in the current Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) update.
Actions and statements from the county’s Department of Community Development (DCD) indicate they may not have learned much.
Consider that, in order to obtain special grant funding from the Washington state Department of Ecology (DOE), Kitsap has agreed to follow DOE’s SMP guidelines, a likely prescription for more extreme abuse of science and use of private property.
DOE’s process establishes its “decisions, policies, regulations and strategies” prior to the end of the first year.
However, no public hearings will be held until the end of the third year.
They plan no attempt to obtain any Kitsap shorelines science, but by default will accept more “folklore” and the obsolete science of DOE, limited almost entirely to terrestrial doctrines (wetlands, aquifer recharge, wildlife conservation areas, geologically hazardous or frequently flooded areas), as defined under RCW 36.70A.
These apply to the CAO under the Growth Management Act but not the Shorelines Management Act.
This is precisely one of the violations of law that could result in remand of the 2005-06 CAO back to the county for correction.
The words “marine habitat” never appear in the DOE guidelines. Instead, what’s called for are wide-scale terrestrial studies, specifically including “large drainage areas, geology, soils, topography, climate, vegetation and drainage patterns,” assuming these can somehow be shown to be relevant to shorelines.
Results will likely not relate to kelp, eel grass, clam beds, salmon or human use of shoreline, but more likely will be applied to terrestrial wildlife.
Futurewise and other environmental extremist groups have already called for this (not for marine habitat) and to further increase waterfront set-backs to 150 feet.
“Impact analysis” is not provided until Phase 4 in the third year. This is far too late to modify the above decisions and policies as they will impact private property rights.
By then we will be approaching a completion deadline likely to produce the same contrived governmental panic that occurred with the CAO deadline in the fall of 2005.
Timely correction will be foreclosed and invite yet more litigation.
Either deliberately or unwittingly, it appears our new county leadership is on the same track to disaster as occurred with the CAO.
There should be public indignation and objection against policies likely to lead to more taxpayer-financed litigation.
Changing the course of events will require development of up-to-date marine science and Kitsap County’s clear-headed independence from DOE’s dictates.
KARL DUFF
Port Orchard
