Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net] <br />Sent:Saturday, May 08, 2010 11:11 AM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comments XII <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />SMP Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />8.8. Residential, cont., <br /> <br /> <br />8.8A.2. <br />Add significant to adverse impacts. <br /> <br /> <br />8.8.A.4. <br />The density per acre has already been determined through GMA comprehensive planning <br />processes. The criteria for designating rural residential lands is contained in Land Use Policy 3.3. Out <br />of 16 total criteria for densities 1:5, 1:10, and 1:20, natural and cultural are not mentioned once. This <br />policy exhibits the general lack of internal consistency between the LASMP and the Jeferson County <br />Comprehensive Plan. The pressumption of harm from perceived "development pressures" used to <br />justify restrictive shoreline use standards in this SMP are not credibly measured against the <br />narrative, goals, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br /> <br />8.8.A.6. <br /> Should read,"New residential development should be planned and built in a manner that <br />minimizes the need for structural armoring." <br /> <br /> <br />8.8.A.7.(i). <br />The fact that residential development might "improve" ecological functions betrays the <br />(ii.). <br />need for conditional use oversight in 41% of the shoreline. There is no legal mandate to preserve <br />(v.) (vi.). <br />"native" vegetation. Preserving aesthetic characteristics is in the eye of the beholder. The <br />only development limitation on view obstructions are height restrictions. Even a policy that seeks to <br />"minimize structural obstructions to public views" is unconstitutional. This ignores directives in RCW <br />90.58.020 protect private e property rights and WAC 173-26-191(2)(a)(iii)(A) that further elaborates <br />"In addition to the SMA, permit review, implementation, and enforcement procedures affecting <br />private property must be conducted in a manner consistent with all relevant constitutional and <br />other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. Administrative procedures should <br />include provisions insuring that these requirements and limitations are considered and <br />followed in such decisions." <br /> <br /> <br />8.8.A.7.(i.) <br />The directive to "improve" ecological functions in is beyond the scope of the SMA. The <br />objective of the SMA is no net loss. In the Summary opening of the Cumulative Impact Analysis the <br />overall purpose of the SMP is characterized as: "Taken together, the PD SMP and the Shoreline <br />Restoration Plan are expected to have a net beneficial effect on shoreline ecological processes and <br />functions as restoration actions are implemented to improve degraded shorelines and as new <br />properties are developed and existing properties redeveloped in accordance with the new policies <br />and regulations." Again, this exceeds the mandate of the SMA. This overreaching ambition is <br />reflected in the entire content of the LA SMP. <br /> <br /> <br />8.8.A.9. <br />This policy originally mandated the 30% set-aside for public access, but backed off after <br />comments referencing Isla Verde v. Camas. To even have a policy that "encourages" this practice is <br />overstepping and should be stricken. Terms like "encourage" or "strongly encourage," which are <br />1 <br /> <br />