Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Cynthia [scoopy@rainierconnect.com] <br />Sent:Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:32 AM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Cc:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:SMP <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />May 10, 2010 <br /> <br />Re: SMP <br /> <br />Jeffree Stewart, Shoreline Specialist <br />WA Dept of Ecology <br />P O Box 47775 <br />Olympia, WA 98504-7775 <br /> <br /> <br />PROLOGUE <br />It is hard to be calm about this. It would be interesting to know who at the DOE that has <br />worked on this shoreline project has undeveloped waterfront property they are hoping to build <br />on. Our anger is generated not by the fact there are changing regulations themselves; but <br />that the changes are based not on any proven correlation; but on vague opinions. <br />We’re not speaking of situations where houses are hung out over/in the water; but houses and <br />potential houses that are already observing a 50 foot setback. The language of this plan is <br />crafted without any apparent logic, balance or fairness. <br /> <br />TUNNEL VISION <br />It is easy for government agencies at all levels to spend money, as it is not “theirs”; it <br />seems equally easy to ignore loss when it is not they themselves that are facing the loss. <br />There appears to be no thought given to the economic damage to individuals and even to the <br />county should this document be accepted. Your previous comments that total economic use has <br />not been removed is irrelevant. Do you own your own house? Does anyone who works at DOE own <br />their own house? I would like to permanently plant a hedge around your house. You’ll have to <br />park your car down the street as I need your driveway too. Do you have a problem with this? <br />You have NOT been denied total ECONOMIC use of your property. Why are you upset? <br /> <br />FLAWS: HI BANK vs NO BANK <br />Making one set of rules work for low bank/no bank property AND medium to <br />high bank property is beyond bizarre. Constructing the plan with this <br />variable accounted for renders the plan worthless from the start. <br /> <br />WHAT PROBLEM? WHERE IS THE DATA? <br />No offer of any proof of ANY future shoreline damage related specifically to the LOCATION of <br />the building. Erosion problems are ALREADY dealt with the building permit and grading plan. <br />Gross safety of the bluff is ALREADY dealt with by the requirement of a geology report. <br />Wildlife support is ALREADY dealt with by the Department of Wildlife’s Eagle Management Team. <br />Tree health, understory health...why does Washington State’s Department of Natural Resources <br />disagree with your ideas about leaving every tree? You can find examples of healthy trees and <br />struggling trees; and depending on the soil and terrain; healthy trees are usually healthy as <br />a result of lack of competition for water, sunlight or soil resources. There have been NO <br />problems presented that can be reduced by me moving a housesite from 140 to 160 feet. NONE. <br />We move the building site back; guess what; more trees have to come down. <br />1 <br /> <br />