I emailed this last year to Shawn Humphreys [email protected]; <[email protected]>; Kelly Rupp [email protected]; Lisa Olsen <[email protected]>; Mike Runyon <[email protected]>; Frank Wolfe <[email protected]>; Jim Walsh <[email protected]>; ‘Joel McEntire’ [email protected]; ‘Senator Jeff Wilson’ <[email protected]>; Rian Sallee; [email protected]
I received NO responses indicating that these Pacific County Policies were not in violation of the State of Washington Constitution so I assume they all agree that they are in violation of the State Constitution however it does not appear that any action has been taken to rectify the situation. I feel that the people of Pacific County should all be concerned about this.
Pacific County is giving special treatment to a small Faction of the members of Surfside HOA that I will hereafter refer to as “The Faction”. I believe this practice is illegal.
Pacific County is allowing The Faction, to force others to violate SMP, CARL, The Washington State Firewise program, and the apparent intent of the State Shoreline Management Program, and CARL to top, kill and/or remove their trees and damage their property, property values and safety by topping their trees for the views of about 350 or the 2800 properties in Surfside. They would not be able to do this if not for the exceptions and special treatment that Pacific County has The Faction of Surfside. Homeowners must also suffer higher winds and wind damage, increased amounts of blowing sand, and higher probability of water damage.
Pacific County has allowed this to happen by giving The Faction in Surfside HOA special treatment that then effects the ordinances of the entire rest of Pacific County. This also costs Pacific County as they must then also suffer the cost of topping and/or removing trees on County Property, and this cost is paid by entire County. It also forces Pacific County to violate the Washington State Firewise Program, for the sake of the views of the Surfide Faction. This has gone on for years and had damaged many people’s properties, property values, property ecology, and lives, and increased risk from natural weather events. I understand none of this is your fault personally but you are in a position to rectify or help rectify the situation. I am hoping the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners will correct the SMP and the CARL ordinance 180 to be in compliance with both the Washington State Constitution, RCW 36.70A.172 and the Washington State Firewise Program of which Surfside HOA claims to be following.
The Washington State Constitutions states:
Article I Section 12 SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES PROHIBITED. No law shall be passedgranting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.
State Shoreline Management Act states:
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires all counties and most towns and cities with shorelines to develop and implement Shoreline Master Programs. The law also defines our role in reviewing and approving local programs. The SMA was passed by the Washington Legislature in 1971 and adopted by voters in 1972. Its overarching goal is “to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state’s shorelines.”
Environmental protection
The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources including the land, vegetation, wildlife, and aquatic habitats against adverse environmental effects. All allowed uses are required to offset adverse environmental impacts as much as possible and preserve the natural character and aesthetics of the shoreline.
I admit that I have not read every word of the State Shoreline Management Act, https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.58.030 but I can find nothing that permits ore encourages exemptions for HOAs or any other person or corporation, in fact as it states above, it appears not to encourage this type of exemptions.
And the Washington RCWs state:
RCW 36.70A.172
Critical areas—Designation and protection—Best available science to be used.
(1) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries.
(2) If it determines that advice from scientific or other experts is necessary or will be of substantial assistance in reaching its decision, the growth management hearings board may retain scientific or other expert advice to assist in reviewing a petition under RCW 36.70A.290 that involves critical areas.
Yet SMP and CARL gives special privileges to HOAs in allowing their covenants to override the SMP, CARL and the Washington State Firewise program. So if a person or corporation owned property right next to Surfside HOA and their property bordered the Ocean, or in relationship to CARL bordered a lake or critical area, that person or corporation would not be allowed to top the trees, but Surfside could per the current exemptions in SMP and CARL. This clearly violates the State Constitution Article I Section 12 .
Also, the “best available science” recommends NOT topping or removing all the trees along the Ocean or the perimeter of a lake or critical area. In fact CARL itself does not allow topping of trees for all but HOAs which clearly indicates special treatment. The Washington State Firewatch program also states to NOT TOP Trees as this causes a fire hazard and can kill the tree. Thus the Pacific County SMP and CARL ordinance also appears to violate RCW 36.70A.290 by giving permission to Surfside HOAs to top trees in the critical areas around lakes and ignores the science presented in the State Firewise Program.
Please see the relevant parts of SMP shown below. Allowing topping or removal of trees or “special treatment” of HOAs violates the intent of the entire rest of the SMP, RCW 36.70A.290 and the Washington State Firewise Program and the Washington State Constitution.
Please see the sections of CARL below and pay special attention to the highlighted parts. I believe this part of Exemption 13 violates that constitution, RCW 36.70A.172 and the Washington State Firewise Program; Topping of trees is not permitted unless specified in an existing covenant effective prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. The part in Red writing clearly violates the intent of the entire rest of the SMP, CARL, The Washington State Firewise Program and the Washington State Constitution. HOA covenants to not overpower state law, HOAs must comply with state law.
I understand that at the Pacific County Planning Commission meeting a few days ago, Annette DeLeest indicated that she felt that because their properties were more expensive than many other properties in Pacific County, thus they pay higher taxes, they (those that live on J Place in Surfside HOA) should get special consideration in the SMP and CARL ordinances and that their interests should outweigh the other members of Surfside as well as the others in Pacific County.
In the recent Shoreline Management meeting Peggy Olds stated that they (the J Place members of Surfside HOA) had a “special deal” with the County. I hope you don’t agree with them that richer people should have more rights and consideration than mid and low income homeowners, when it comes to writing the laws designed to protect the environment and reduce fire danger. I hope you agree that the small percentage of J Pl property owners in Surfside should not be getting the special treatment from Pacific County that they have been receiving in the past. Peggy Olds also indicated that she was elected to be on the Pacific County Planning Commission to represent Surfside. I don’t believe she was elected to do that by the majority of Surfside members as about 1400 properties are forced to top their trees and all 2800 are force to pay extra dues to enforce the covenant, while only about 350 benefit. She certainly does not seem to represent the majority of the members of Surfside, but does seem to represent to be representing her own personal interests as a person who lives on J Pl. and wants to preserver her personal views. She should not be on a government committee with that clearly stated attitude, she should be doing what is best for the entire community, and that is clearly not the case. It surprises me that the County would select someone with that type of attitude, prejudice and blatantly stated self-interest, so clearly stated, to be on government committees. Peggy Olds’ stated opinions are not only elitist, but as many others have pointed out recently, these types of opinions are also racist.
All the laws should be written to benefit the majority of the community while protecting the rights of the minorities. Views are not a right in the State of Washington. All laws should be equally enforced. And all County Ordinances should be in compliance with the State and Federal laws.
We are asking that the Pacific County Planning Commission change the SMP and CARL ordinances to stop the topping of trees in the Shoreline and Critical Areas of Surfside, stop the special treatment of Surfside HOA, and bring SMP and CARL into compliance with the State Constitution and RCW 36.70A.172
There seems to be some discussion about tying the Master Shoreline Program to CARL, I understand this again proposed by The Faction. After learning more about these ordinances, I believe they should be total separate as they don’t seem to cover any of the same issues. If you feel they should be related could you briefly explain the reasons for this?
The attached flyer was given to select people in Surfside HOA. I believe it includes a variety of false claims about the “view” rights of the J PL people of Surfside.
- First off Washington State does not support any right to force other property owners to top or remove trees for one’s view.
- Note in the flyer that The Faction members of Surfside are attempting to add additional restrictions to force members to eliminate the indigenous trees, and replace them with specific non-indigenous trees designed to protect the views of the J Place homeowners. They have already killed thousands of indigenous trees over the last few years, including those in CARL areas and I believe in SMP.
SMP relevant parts.
SMP 1.5 Goals
A. The County’s goal in adopting this Master Program is to recognize and protect the functions
and values of the shoreline environment of statewide and local significance.
B. For shorelines of the state, protection and management priorities are to:
1. Sustain, protect, and restore the native ecology;
3. Anticipate and plan to minimize hazards created by erosion and natural disasters;
8. Encourage shoreline development that complements, and does not damage, natural
shoreline ecological functions.
3.2 Shoreline Environment Designations
A. Natural.
1. Purpose. The purpose of the “natural” environment is to protect those shoreline areas
that are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded
shoreline functions intolerant of human use. These systems require that only very low
intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem-
wide processes.
2. Designation criteria. A “natural” environment designation shall be assigned to shoreline
areas if any of the following characteristics apply:
a. The shoreline is ecologically intact and therefore currently performing an important,
irreplaceable function or ecosystem-wide process that would be damaged by human
activity;
b. The shoreline is considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of
particular scientific and educational interest;
c. The shoreline is unable to support new development or uses without significant
adverse impacts to ecological functions or risk to human safety;
d. The shoreline includes largely undisturbed portions of shoreline areas such as
wetlands, estuaries, unstable bluffs, coastal dunes, spits, and ecologically intact
shoreline habitats; or
e. The shoreline is designated as a Natural Area Preserve or Natural Resources
Conservation Area and managed by the Washington Department of Natural
Resources.
3. Management policies.
a. Restrict or prohibit uses or developments that would significantly degrade the
ecological functions or alter the natural character of the shoreline area.
b. New development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the
capability of vegetation to perform normal ecological functions should not be
allowed. Do not allow the subdivision of property in a configuration that, to achieve
its intended purpose, will require significant vegetation removal or shoreline
modification that adversely impacts ecological functions.
c. Permit access for scientific, historical, educational, and low-intensity recreational
purposes, provided that no significant adverse impact on the area will result.
d. Ensure that uses and activities permitted in locations adjacent to shorelines
designated Natural are compatible and will not compromise the integrity of the
natural environment.
e. Ensure that developments within the Natural environment are compatible with uses
and activities in adjacent (including aquatic) environments.
f. The following uses should not be allowed in the Natural environment:
i. Commercial uses;
ii. Industrial uses;
iii. Nonwater-oriented recreation; and
iv. Roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside of
Natural designated shorelines.
g. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever
feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated.
h. Prioritize preservation of resources over public access, recreation and development
whenever a conflict exists.
i. Plan for the restoration of degraded Natural environment shorelines.
E. Coastal Conservancy.
1. Purpose. The purpose of the “coastal conservancy” environment is to protect to the
highest degree possible and, where feasible, restore coastal ocean shorelands within
Pacific County; conserve wildlife; and manage the unique characteristics and resources
of the shoreland areas, landward of the ordinary high water mark on the Pacific Ocean
shorelines of Pacific County.
2. Designation criteria. A “coastal conservancy” environment designation shall be assigned
to those shoreline areas landward of the ordinary high water mark and inclusive of
dunes and adjacent wetlands. These shorelines have one or more of the following
characteristics, which provide a high-recreational value and present environmental
limitations to development:
a. Beaches;
b. Dunes;
c. Wetlands;
d. Sediment sources; and/or
e. Cliffs.
4.5 Vegetation Management
A. Policies
3. Design clearing activities with the objective of maintaining natural diversity in
vegetation species, age, and cover density.
4. New developments and uses should be designed to preserve native vegetation and to
minimize tree removal and vegetation clearing to the minimum necessary to
accommodate shoreline development. Existing trees and shrub cover should be
preserved, and where feasible, restored, to provide wildlife habitat, maintain water
quality, and ensure soil and slope stability.
B. Regulations
1. Vegetation clearing shall be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate
approved shoreline development that is consistent with all other provisions of this
Master Program and Pacific County Code. Mitigation sequencing per Section 4.2.B.4,
must be applied unless specifically excluded by this SMP or Section 4.2.B.3, Mitigation
Requirement, so that the design and location of the structure or development, including
septic drainfields, minimizes short- and long-term vegetation removal. The County may
approve modifications or require minor site plan alterations to achieve maximum tree
retention.
2. Vegetation within shoreline buffers, other stream buffers, wetlands or wetland buffers,
or other critical areas shall be managed consistent with Section 4.2 of this Master
Program.
3. Where vegetation removal conducted consistent with this Section results in adverse
impacts to shoreline ecological function per Section 4.2.B.5, Adverse Impacts, new
developments or site alterations are required to develop and implement a mitigation
plan per Section 4.2.B.7, Mitigation Plan.
4. Mitigation measures must be maintained over the life of the use or development.
5. Native tree removal in shoreline jurisdiction must be mitigated by installation of a
similar native tree at a 2:1 impact to mitigation ratio, unless otherwise stated in a
County-approved habitat enhancement plan or with the approval of the Administrator.
Non-native tree removal in shoreline buffers must be mitigated by installation of a
native or suitable non-native tree at a 1:1 impact to mitigation ratio. All mitigation trees
shall be preferentially placed in the shoreline buffer, unless the trees provide
connectivity to upland habitats or other critical areas, and shall be held to a 75% survival
standard at the end of three years.
6. Where a tree poses a safety hazard, it may be removed or converted to a wildlife snag if
the hazard cannot be eliminated by pruning, crown thinning, or other technique that
maintains some habitat function. If a safety hazard cannot be easily determined by the
County, a written report by a certified arborist or other qualified professional is required
to evaluate potential safety hazards. Removal of a hazard tree is subject to the
replacement requirements of Section 4.5.B.5. Mitigation trees shall be placed in a
location within shoreline jurisdiction such that a future hazard is not created.
7. Selective pruning of trees and mowing of vegetation for purposes of maintenance,
invasive species management, or fire protection is allowed, provided that no vegetation
shall be removed from critical areas, dunes, or their respective buffers without approval
from the Administrator. Topping of trees for views is not allowed. In addition, treeTree
limbing is allowed for view preservation, not view creation. The removal of tree limbs
shall not reduce overall canopy cover.
8. With the exception of hand-removal or spot-spraying of invasive or noxious weeds on
shorelands outside of steep or unstable slope areas, the determination of whether non-
native vegetation removal may be allowed in shoreline jurisdiction shall be evaluated in
conformance with this section, Section 4.2 Environmental Protection and Critical Areas and Section 5 Shoreline Uses and Modifications. Such removal of noxious weeds and
invasive species must be incorporated into mitigation plans, as necessary, to prevent
erosion and facilitate establishment of a stable community of native plants.
9. Aquatic weed control shall only be permitted where the presence of aquatic weeds will
adversely affect native plant communities, fish and wildlife habitats, or an existing
water-dependent use. Aquatic weed control efforts shall comply with all applicable laws
and standards.
5.10 Dune Modification
A. Policies
1. Recognize the value of dunes in protecting inland areas from damaging inundation
caused by a combination of high tides and storms, tsunamis, the harmful effects of
windblown sand, and flooding losses.
2. Recognize the importance of dunes in providing open space that has economic,
aesthetic and ecological value.
3. Limit modification of the dunes and vegetation to comply with state and federal law,
and to the minimum extent necessary to protect views and property values.
4. Recognize the importance of protecting the primary dune.
5. Recognize that accretions have increased the value and amount of open space, and that
upland development in these areas is not encouraged.
6. Acknowledge that all information is not available to determine the future of dunal
accretion and/or erosion activity, and commit to amending land use policies that
respond to refinements in technical research.
7. Maintain existing beach access roads, parking areas, drainage, and sanitary facilities.
Recognize that the ocean beach is a state corridor in transportation planning activities
and studies and it is a part of the Seashore Conservation Area.
8. Manage beaches and dunes to conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and
where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal beaches.
9. Manage beaches and dunes to reduce the hazard to human life and property from
natural or human-induced actions.
10. Recognize that many dune grasses are non-native. These non-native species negatively
affect native dune-associated species, yet they also provide dune stability, which
provides protection from coastal erosion and flooding. Acknowledge the need to
balance the management of non-native dune grasses and in recognition of their
potential ecological impacts and protective functions.
B. Regulations
1. Where allowed.
a. Dune modification shall be allowed only where it will not result in decreased
protection of inland development from damage caused by storm surge, tsunamis,
windblown sand, or flooding.
b. Dune modification to protect views of the water shall be allowed landward of the
primary dune buffer identified in Subsection B.2 and only on properties subdivided
and developed prior to the adoption of this Master Program. Such dune
modifications shall only be allowed where the view is completely obstructed for
residences or water-enjoyment uses and where it can be demonstrated that the
dunes did not obstruct views at the time of original occupancy, and then only in
conformance with this section.
2. Primary Dune Buffer. The following regulations shall apply to a protective strip of dune
land, or buffer, along all ocean beaches in the Coastal Conservancy designation.
a. The width of the buffer shall be measured from the winter grass line, inland two
hundred (200) feet, but not to extend beyond the landward (eastern) boundary of
shoreline jurisdiction. Determinations of the grass line shall be conducted in winter.
b. Dune modification within one hundred (100) feet of the winter grass line is
prohibited except:
i. For ecological restoration, where it is demonstrated that the proposed
action will not decrease protection of inland development from damage
caused by storm surge, tsunamis, windblown sand, or flooding; or
ii. To provide access across the buffer:
(1) For public, community, or joint use of more than four (4) parcels. In
such cases, impacts to ecological functions shall be avoided,
minimized, and mitigated.
(2) For individual or private means, where it can be shown that a
community or joint means of access is not possible and that no
public means of improved access exists within 5,000 feet of the
proposed facility. In such cases, access paths shall be limited to
pervious trails at grade a maximum of six (6) feet in width.
c. The following dune modification activities may be permitted within the buffer but
outside of the waterward one hundred (100) feet of the buffer, provided that such
activities do not result in adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions:
i. Those activities allowed in subsection (b), above;
ii. Public recreational trails; and
iii. Vegetation removal for the purpose of maintenance, fire protection, or
invasive species management, in accordance with Section 4.5 of this Master
Program.
3. Where allowed, dune modification shall comply with the following regulations:
a. Dune modification activities shall be consistent with state and federal flood
protection standards.
b. Dune modification operations shall not in any manner affect or alter the waterward
buffer, as established in subsection (B)(2) above.
c. Dune modification operations shall not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions or significant adverse impacts to other shoreline resources and values.
d. If vegetation is removed or disturbed, consistent with the provisions of this Master
Program, within one growing season of the action, disturbed areas shall be
replanted with native dune vegetation.
e. Written notification shall be submitted by the land owner to the Administrator on a
form to be provided by him prior to beginning of dune modification operations.
Such notification shall include the approximate date on which the operation will
begin, the location and size of the area to be modified, a description of the
operation and any other necessary information required by the Administrator.
4. Any structure, including the expansion or alteration of existing structures, shall be
prohibited waterward of the setback line, as defined in the Pacific County Land Use
Ordinance No. 178.
5. The use restrictions defined under other sections of this Master Program shall apply to
the dune land easterly of the building setback line and coming under the jurisdiction of
the Act
C.A.R.L. relevant parts.
C. Authority
1. The Director of the Department of Community Development or his or her
designee(s) shall be the Administrator of this Ordinance and is given the
authority to interpret and apply, and the responsibility to administer and enforce,
this Ordinance to accomplish the stated purposes.
Exemptions 12 e. Any removed tree or vegetation shall be replaced with an appropriate
native species in appropriate size within one calendar year.
Exemptions 13. Minor pruning of vegetation for maintenance purposes, or thinning of limbs of
individual trees to maintain an existing view corridor, when performed in a
manner that ensures continual survival of the vegetation, is exempt. Mowing of
dune grasses within a critical area or its buffer is not permitted, except for the
purpose of fire protection within fifty (50) feet of an existing structure, and except
that mowing of dune grasses within a critical aquifer recharge area is exempt
when no other critical areas or critical area buffers are present. Topping of trees
is not permitted unless specified in an existing covenant effective prior to the
effective date of this Ordinance.
G. Penalties and Enforcement
4. Any disposition of a violation pursuant to this Ordinance and Ordinance No. 165,
or any amendment thereto, shall not absolve a person from correcting or abating
a violation and shall not prevent the prosecuting authority from pursuing criminal
prosecution, other civil action including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, license
revocation, and abatement, or all of the above. If Pacific County prevails in a
separate civil action, the Court may award the County reasonable costs
including, but not limited to, the costs of the responsible officials’ time, witness
fees, attorney fees, court costs, and the costs to the County of abatement or of
enforcement of an injunction, or both.
State Shoreline Management Act
Shoreline Management Act https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.58.030
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires all counties and most towns and cities with shorelines to develop and implement Shoreline Master Programs. The law also defines our role in reviewing and approving local programs. The SMA was passed by the Washington Legislature in 1971 and adopted by voters in 1972. Its overarching goal is “to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state’s shorelines.”
Environmental protection
The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources including the land, vegetation, wildlife, and aquatic habitats against adverse environmental effects. All allowed uses are required to offset adverse environmental impacts as much as possible and preserve the natural character and aesthetics of the shoreline.
Findings. I admit that I have not read every word of the State Shoreline Management Act, https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.58.030 but I can find nothing that permits or encourages exemptions for HOAs, in fact as it states above, it appears not to encourage this type of exemptions.
Patrick Johansen
Chairman of Housing Justice Committee
RiseUpWA LLC
We are not attorney’s. All communications are opinions and beliefs.
Nothing in our communications should be considered to be legal advice.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke