HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-10 PC Agenda Packet
From:Jesse Waknitz
To:Community and Economic Development
Cc:Emma Bolin; Allyson Brekke
Subject:Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Public Comment Period
Date:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 3:39:47 PM
Attachments:PoPA_SMP Comment Letter 3.1.2021.pdf
***EXTERNAL EMAIL***
Hello,
Attached is the Port of Port Angeles initial comment letter for the Shoreline Master Program Periodic
Review Public Comment Period. Please consider revising the SMP to permit floating homes in the
Port Angeles Boat Haven. If this revision is of interests to City Planning Commissioners or City Staff,
please reach out to Port staff and we can discuss appropriate language needed in the SMP and
required best management practices to make this a reality.
Regards,
Jesse Waknitz
Port of Port Angeles
www.portofpa.com
Phone: 360.417.3452
SPECIAL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE NOTICE TO RECIPIENT(S): Information contained
in any communication to or from the Port of Port Angeles, including attachments, may be
subject to the disclosure requirements of Washington's Public Records Act,
Ch. 42.56 RCW.
P.O. Box 1350 Board of Commissioners
338 West First StreetSteven Burke, President
Port AngelesColleen McAleer, Vice President
Washington 98362Connie Beauvais, Secretary
360.457.8527 Executive Director
Karen Goschen
March 9, 2021
Emma Bolin, Community Development Manager (via email, Ebolin@cityofpa.us)
City of Port Angeles
321 E. First Street
Port Angeles, WA 98362
Re: Commentson Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Review and Revisions
Dear Ms. Bolin:
The Port of Port Angeles appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the update of the
Shoreline Master Program (SMP). In addition to our previous comment letter regarding floating homes,
this letter provides commentson proposed revisions to the SMP. All SMP text is in Italics and proposed
City modifications are in Bold Italicized Underlined Red.
Port comments are as follows:
1.Area:McKinley Mill and Port Log Yard
a.Proposed SMP Modifications
Chapter 2-Environment Designation Provisions and Regulations (B)(1)High Intensity Industrial
Environment (Segments C, H and I)
SMP Page 14 3. Visual and physical public access to and from the shoreline should be required
as part of any development where there is both a public benefit and no security or use conflicts,
as provided for in SMP Chapter 3, Section 8 -Public Access.
PortResponse or Comments
This modification was added by City staff per their Periodic Review Checklist Table 4, Item 6. It
was added to emphasize that public access to and from the shoreline should be required as part
of any development in the SMP High Intensity Industrial Environment that includes McKinley
Mill andthe Port Log Yard. This modification is unnecessary and should not be included because
the section already requires physical public access if there are no use conflicts.
b.Proposed SMP Modifications
Chapter 2-Environment Designation Provisions and Regulations (B)(1)High Intensity Industrial
Environment (Segments C, H and I)
Page 15 i.Segment C
In this segment, vegetative restoration or mitigation for development resulting in unavoidable
impacts to vegetation on parcels where a VCA has not been designated shall be focused on the
existing pocket beach in the middle of the segment when feasible; see Chapter 3. Utilization of
the pocket beach area for restoration or mitigation is contingent upon execution of a formal
Ms. Emma Bolin Page 2 3/9/2021
agreement (conservation easement, etc.) between the property owner and party proposing
mitigation or restoration. Such agreement shall ensure public access to and maintenance of the
utilized area, and guarantee preservation of the utilized area in perpetuity. If an agreement
meeting the conditions outlined above cannot be reached, compensatory mitigation shall occur
on the same parcel where the unavoidable impact occurs or through other measures established
in this SMP.
Port Response or Comments
This modification was added by City staff as requested from public comments received from City
Council Member Lindsey Schromen-Wawrin. The intent of this comment was to ensure public
access to vegetative restoration and mitigation sites. This proposed modification and its intent is
not appropriate for this section of the SMP, which currently specifies that access to a restoration
or mitigation sites related to development is required in perpetuity for maintenance of these
sites. In the case of this section and Segment C, the access would be granted to the developer to
maintain a potential mitigation site on an active heavy industrial mill site. Public access to a
mitigation site on this property is not safe or compatible with the current land use, ownership
and zoning. This proposed revision is unnecessary, not in-line with this section of the existing
SMP and should not be included in final draft for City and Ecology approval.
c. Proposed SMP Modifications
Chapter 2-Environment Designation Provisions and Regulations (B)(1)High Intensity Industrial
Environment (Segments C, H and I)
Page 16 iii.Segment I
In this segment, vegetative restoration or mitigation for development resulting in unavoidable
impacts to vegetation on parcels where a VCA has not been designated shall be focused on the
existing beach area south of the lagoon channel when feasible; see Chapter 3. Utilization of the
beach area for restoration or mitigation is contingent upon execution of a formal agreement
(conservation easement, etc.) between the property owner and party proposing mitigation or
restoration. Such agreement shall ensure public access to and maintenance of the utilized area,
and guarantee preservation of the utilized area in perpetuity. If an agreement meeting the
conditions outlined above cannot be reached, compensatory mitigation shall occur on the same
parcel where the unavoidable impact occurs or through other measures established in this SMP.
Port Response or Comments
This modification was added by City staff as requested from public comments received from City
Council Member Lindsey Schromen-Wawrin. The intent of this comment was to ensure public
access to vegetative restoration and mitigation sites. This proposed modification and its intent is
not appropriate for this section of the SMP, which currently specifies that access to a restoration
or mitigation sites related to development is required in perpetuity for maintenance of these
sites. In the case of this section and Segment I, the access would be granted to the developer to
maintain a potential mitigation site on an active heavy industrial mill site. Public access to a
mitigation site on this property is not safe or compatible with the current land use, ownership
Ms. Emma BolinPage 3 3/9/2021
and zoning. This proposed revision is unnecessary, not in-line with this section of the existing
SMP and should not be included in final draft for City and Ecology approval.
2.Area:Port Angeles Boat Haven to Valley Creek Estuary
a.Proposed SMP Modifications
C Chapter 2-Environment Designation Provisions and Regulations (B)(2)High-Intensity Marine
Environment (Segments E and J)
Page 21 ii. Segment J
In this segment, vegetative restoration or mitigation for development resulting in unavoidable
impacts to vegetation on parcels where a VCA has not been designated shall be focused on
shorelines east of the Boat Haven Marina, particularly the portion of theshoreline along the
Valley Creek Estuary, where feasible; see Chapter 3. Utilization of the west side of the Valley
Creek Estuary for restoration or mitigation is contingent upon execution of a formal agreement
(conservation easement, etc.) between the property owner and party proposing mitigation or
restoration. Such agreement shall ensure public access to and maintenance of the utilized area,
and guarantee preservation of the utilized area in perpetuity. If an agreement meeting the
conditions outlined above cannot be reached, compensatory mitigation shall occur on the same
parcel where the unavoidable impact occurs or through other measures established in this SMP.
Port Response or Comments
This modification was added by City staff as requested from public comments received from City
Council Member Lindsey Schromen-Wawrin. The intent of this comment was to ensure public
access to vegetative restoration and mitigation sites. This proposed modification and its intent is
not appropriate for this section of the SMP, which currentlyspecifies that access to a restoration
or mitigation sites related to development is required in perpetuity for maintenance of these
sites. In the case of this section and Segment J, the access would be granted to the developer to
maintain a potential mitigation site on an active heavy industrial land that supports marine
trades and cargo operations.Public access to some of the areais not safe or compatible with the
current land useand zoning.For this segment public access is currently provided at the Port
Angeles Boat Haven and the Valley Creek Estuary. Any future development could improve or
expand public access to these facilities to ensure public safety in this important heavy industrial
and working waterfront segment. This proposed revision is unnecessary, not in-line with this
section of the existing SMP and should not be included in final draft for City and Ecology
approval.
Please consider removing the proposedrevisions to theSMP as detailed above. Public access
requirements are already listed in the SMP. The proposed revisions do not improve public accessto the
shorelinein a safe andmeaningful way.
Sincerely,
PORT OF PORT ANGELES
_____________________________
Chris Hartman, Director of Engineering
From:Pamela Hastings
To:Ben Braudrick; Emma Bolin
Subject:Public Comment on the Shoreline Master Program
Date:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 9:19:06 AM
***EXTERNAL EMAIL***
Pamela Hastings * 3007 South Laurel St. * Port Angeles * pamela@pamelahastings.com
Comments on Port Angeles-Shoreline-Master-Program 3.9.21
* I think it would be appropriate to add a reference to expected sea level rise and other anticipated climate
change issues that will affect our waterfront. Please reference the study done in 2015 and any modifications
anticipated in the studies being initiated now with climate consultants.
Please include updates reflecting the changes to our waterfront caused by the Elwah dam removal…
by watching the beach at the end of Place Road, we can see how active the resulting silt flows at the
mouth of the Elwah have been. I understand that the net direction of the offshore drift along the north
shore of our waterfront is toward the east, heading right for downtown Port Angeles.
* No mention was made of the removal of the toxicity around the old Rainier site and specifically where
toxic dirt from around the area will go…also where the material from dredging will go. As mentioned, Ediz
Hook is not a stable piece of land…what are the ecological consequences from trying to make it so?
It is never too early to start planning for possibilities. I applaud all the work that has already been
done and the inclusion of the Coast Guard, the Native People, and the public in this process. The
expected Cascadia Subduction/tsunami was not mentioned, and perhaps there are no additional
safeguards that can be taken at this time, but that should be mentioned as well.
Thank you for your consideration,
Pamela Hastings
?
)
P
M
S
(
m
a
r
g
o
r
P
r
e
t
s
a
M
e
n
i
l
e
r
o
h
S
a
s
i
t
a
h
W
?
y
l
p
p
a
P
M
S
e
h
t
s
e
o
d
e
r
e
h
W
?
w
e
i
v
e
r
c
i
d
o
i
r
e
p
P
M
S
n
a
s
i
t
a
h
W
s
t
n
e
m
d
n
e
m
a
d
e
s
o
p
o
r
p
f
o
w
e
i
v
r
e
v
O
e
c
n
a
l
g
a
t
a
s
t
n
e
m
d
n
e
m
a
d
e
s
o
p
o
r
P
d
e
u
n
i
t
n
o
c
,
e
c
n
a
l
g
a
t
a
s
t
n
e
m
d
n
e
m
a
d
e
s
o
p
o
r
P
d
e
u
n
i
t
n
o
c
,
e
c
n
a
l
g
a
t
a
s
t
n
e
m
d
n
e
m
a
d
e
s
o
p
o
r
P
,
d
e
u
n
i
t
n
o
s
c
t
,
n
e
e
c
m
n
a
l
m
g
o
c
a
c
t
i
l
a
b
s
u
t
p
n
l
e
a
m
m
d
r
n
o
f
e
n
i
m
a
g
n
d
i
e
s
s
s
o
e
r
p
d
o
r
d
Pa
n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n
i
l
a
n
o
i
t
i
d
d
A