Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net] <br />Sent:Wednesday, May 05, 2010 7:52 PM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment VI <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />To summarize a recurring theme in Article I, the LASMP is inconsistent with the SMA where it <br />potentially places severe conditions and even outright prohibitions on preferred uses. (90.58.020 <br />allows "Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the State, in those instances when <br />authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences..."). <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />ARTICLE 2 - DEFINITIONS. <br /> <br /> <br />Feeder Bluff. <br />This definition is so broad it could include virtually every bluff in Jefferson County. This <br />is significant as some common shoreline uses are prohibited outright where feeder bluffs are present. <br />What isn't defined are the standards for identifying and classifying feeder bluffs. This is an example of <br />arbitrary interpretation and discretion by DCD staff and the administrator allowed by the SMP. In <br />essence this creates a new critical area out of whole cloth. <br /> <br /> <br />Channel Migration Zone. <br />This far surpasses the purpose of a definition and includes language that <br />is not merely defining but regulatory ("...and includes an Erosion Setback for a 100-year period of <br />time and a Geotechnical Setback to account for slope retreat to a stable angle of repose."). This <br />exemplifies the zeal to regulate even within the constraints of defining the terms in the ordinance. <br />(This reminds me of the 'Charlie Brown' episode when Snoopy scores three goals during the National <br />Anthem!). <br /> <br /> <br />ARTICLE 4 - Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environmental Designations. <br /> <br /> <br />4.1. <br />Absent in this section is a process for contesting the SED assigned to a particular parcel. <br /> <br /> <br />4.2.B.1. <br />This section bases shoreline environmental designations on a Final Shoreline Inventory and <br />Characterization Report that is overly broad and too general from which to establish a reliable and <br />measurable No Net Loss baseline. In many instances the FSICR simply describes the general <br />presence of existing functions ("Piddling Creek supports chum salmon and cutthroat trout and once <br />supported Coho."). On page three of the introduction to the FSICR there is an acknowledgement that <br />it is "not intended as as a full evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing SMA shoreline policies or <br />regulations." Yet this is the source for the NNL baseline (Cumulative Impact Analysis, 1.3). Much of <br />the information for the FSICR was derived from studies conducted ten years ago, yet the NNL <br />baseline begins upon adoption. Use of outdated assessment studies makes the baseline retroactive <br />to the time when the relevant studies were conducted. The FSICR was also dependent on aerial <br />photographs for some assessments and were used extensively to assign SED's. In at least one case <br />in Port Ludlow the County relied on outdated photographs to designate a reach Conservancy that had <br />subsequently been developed into condominiums. This was noticed and changed by the Planning <br />1 <br /> <br />