85.Hagen, J. 5-5_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment V
Long Range Planning
85.Hagen, J. 5-5_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment V
4/21/2011 2:53:52 PM
11/1/2010 3:55:16 PM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Jim Hagen [email@example.com] <br />Sent:Wednesday, May 05, 2010 7:28 PM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment V <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. <br /> <br /> <br />ARTICLE I: <br /> <br /> <br />1. Purpose and Intent. <br />The goals of the SMP update as stated in this section come from the policy <br />objectives of the SMA but the actual content of the 200 page document go well beyond what is <br />required by law. RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 do not mandate 150 foot buffers, designating 41% of <br />the shoreline Natural, greatly expanding the requirements for conditional use permits for preferred <br />and common accessory shoreline uses, and creating nonconforming uses out of preferred uses of the <br />SMA. Application by Jefferson County and DOE of the policy objectives contained in RCW 90.58.020 <br />and WAC 173-26 ignore the unique low-density, low-intensity development characteristics found in <br />Jefferson. <br /> <br /> <br />The Jefferson County update process has been characterized by a clear bias by Jefferson <br />Department of Community Development staff, ESA Adolfson consultants, and Department of Ecology <br />staff against the preferred use of single family residential uses. This attitude of favoritism toward <br />ecological protection can best be summarized by Michelle McConnell's answer to a question from the <br />Planning Commission on why the Natural designation had been so drastically expanded: "We saw an <br />opportunity and we took it." WAC 173-26-176(2) recognizes the potential conflict for use of <br />shorelines. This section further addresses the resolution of that conflict with the following policy <br />objective; "The act's policy of achieving both shoreline utilization and protection is reflected in the <br />provision that "permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a <br />manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the shoreline and environment of <br />the shoreline area and the public's use of the water." RCW 90.58.020. The wording "insofar as <br />practical" is clearly intended to recognize the balance of uses that is the hallmark of the SMA. <br /> <br /> <br />Despite the fact 70% of Jefferson shoreline parcels have already been developed (Cumulative Impact <br />Analysis, 4.3) under the existing protection standards in a manner that has minimized resultant <br />damage to the shoreline environment, the new proposed standards increase the protection standards <br />five-fold. Pictures can be worth a thousand words. At the DOE public hearing on 4/20/2010, a <br />presentation by Jeffree Stewart was accompanied by slides that depicted the shoreline environment <br />in a positive light and development as a clear threat. The example used to depict a home made <br />nonconforming by the new regulations - a dilapidated cabin on stilts - was particularly prejudiced and <br />unrepresentative of the normal home that is lovingly cared for by its owners. There are countless <br />pictures Mr Stewart could have used that provide a much more accurate portrayal of shoreline homes <br />in Jefferson, and indeed it was reported Mr. Stewart has spent nearly ten years working in our county. <br />Yet the photographs he used were not only unrepresentative of typical conditions, they weren't even <br />from Jefferson! This conveys a very clear message from DOE that betrays the SMA goal of a <br />balanced approach to shoreline use, and this message is directly reflected in the slanted favoritism <br />toward protection of the environment and excessive conditions placed on human uses of the <br />shoreline throughout the SMP amendments. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.