HomeMy WebLinkAbout96.Hagen, J. 5-8_Fw DOE SMP Public Comments XII
Michelle McConnell
From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net]
Sent:Saturday, May 08, 2010 11:11 AM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comments XII
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
SMP Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
8.8. Residential, cont.,
8.8A.2.
Add significant to adverse impacts.
8.8.A.4.
The density per acre has already been determined through GMA comprehensive planning
processes. The criteria for designating rural residential lands is contained in Land Use Policy 3.3. Out
of 16 total criteria for densities 1:5, 1:10, and 1:20, natural and cultural are not mentioned once. This
policy exhibits the general lack of internal consistency between the LASMP and the Jeferson County
Comprehensive Plan. The pressumption of harm from perceived "development pressures" used to
justify restrictive shoreline use standards in this SMP are not credibly measured against the
narrative, goals, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
8.8.A.6.
Should read,"New residential development should be planned and built in a manner that
minimizes the need for structural armoring."
8.8.A.7.(i).
The fact that residential development might "improve" ecological functions betrays the
(ii.).
need for conditional use oversight in 41% of the shoreline. There is no legal mandate to preserve
(v.) (vi.).
"native" vegetation. Preserving aesthetic characteristics is in the eye of the beholder. The
only development limitation on view obstructions are height restrictions. Even a policy that seeks to
"minimize structural obstructions to public views" is unconstitutional. This ignores directives in RCW
90.58.020 protect private e property rights and WAC 173-26-191(2)(a)(iii)(A) that further elaborates
"In addition to the SMA, permit review, implementation, and enforcement procedures affecting
private property must be conducted in a manner consistent with all relevant constitutional and
other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. Administrative procedures should
include provisions insuring that these requirements and limitations are considered and
followed in such decisions."
8.8.A.7.(i.)
The directive to "improve" ecological functions in is beyond the scope of the SMA. The
objective of the SMA is no net loss. In the Summary opening of the Cumulative Impact Analysis the
overall purpose of the SMP is characterized as: "Taken together, the PD SMP and the Shoreline
Restoration Plan are expected to have a net beneficial effect on shoreline ecological processes and
functions as restoration actions are implemented to improve degraded shorelines and as new
properties are developed and existing properties redeveloped in accordance with the new policies
and regulations." Again, this exceeds the mandate of the SMA. This overreaching ambition is
reflected in the entire content of the LA SMP.
8.8.A.9.
This policy originally mandated the 30% set-aside for public access, but backed off after
comments referencing Isla Verde v. Camas. To even have a policy that "encourages" this practice is
overstepping and should be stricken. Terms like "encourage" or "strongly encourage," which are
1
rampant throughout the SMP, can easily be interpretated to be coersive when suggested by positions
of authority. I have several life memories where parents, police, coaches, mentors, etc., have
"strongly encouraged" a certain course of action when the alternative was clearly punitive. To repeat,
DCD staff has clearly stated the policy language carries weight as direct guidance for code
interpretation.
8.8.B. Uses and Activities Prohibited Outright.
Why even have a specific section titled this? If
developments can't meet legal thresholds then they should be denied, but this should only occur
8.8.B.2.
under rare circumstances. And limit this section to uses that are outright prohibited by law. is
not an outright prohibition, it is a prohibition based on circumstances and conditions. A standard of
"reasonably expected to require" (structural shore armoring) is arbitrary.
8.8.B.3.
Same arbitrary standard. The science and mapping of CMZs is incomplete and is being
challenged in Appeals Court. The time-frame of the useful life of the house or within 100 years,
whichever is greater, is meaningless. Why not just say 100 years? and why 100 years. Who picked
that number as a standard? What is the connection between 100 years and the prohibition on
shoreline armoring?! How many houses built in 1910 are still standing in Jefferson County
or Washington state?
8.8.D. Regulations - Primary Residences and property Subdivision.
8.8.D.1.
Add significant to adverse impacts.
8.8.D.3.
Requirement for low impact development practices for development sitesconstrained by
6.1.E.1.iv.
critical areas and/or shoreline buffers exceeds that in This would appear to be either a lack
of internal consistency or another example of the confusing code structure contained in this poorly
written document.
8.8.D.5.
This is just a blatant disregard for legal precedent. And for what? How many opportunities
exist for multi-family residential in the shoreline jurisdiction? The proposed Pleasant Harbor MPR
(different category altogether) has public access built into their entire concept, it being a resort that is
after all open to the public and dependent upon public use for its success.
8.8.D.6.
Again, illegal. Why the number four? Why not eight or 12 or seven? What is it about a
development containing four or more lots that triggers public access requirements? Is this related to
the Jefferson County Code?
8.8.D.8.
Same.
Jim Hagen
Director, Citizen's Alliance for Property Rights
Director Olympic Stewardship Foundation
Jefferson County
2