HomeMy WebLinkAbout99.Hagen, J. 5-11_DOE SMP Public Comment XVII
Michelle McConnell
From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net]
Sent:Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:49 AM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:DOE SMP Public Comment XVII
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Public Comment for the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
CONCLUSION.
The Locally Approved Shoreline Master Program exceeds the requirements of RCW 90.58 and WAC
173-26. It lacks a direct cause-and-effect connection between conditions as they presently exist and
as they are likely expected to occur in the future and the corresponding five-fold increase in protection
standards. For the purpose of achieving the objectives contained in RCW 90.58.020,please consider
the following revisions to the LA SMP:
Ensure that the procedure followed by the Jefferson BoCC in adopting the LA SMP was
?
consistent with County and State requirements.
Ensure that the integration of the CAO into the SMP meets current legal standards.
?
Acknowledge that the existing protection standards have been successful in maintaining the
?
excellent condition of Jefferson's shorelines. There is no more current, accurate scientific
information available than what has proven to work on-the-ground.
Establish the 50 foot buffer recommendation of the Planning Commission as the standard
?
prescriptive buffer for all shoreline designations except Natural. Reverse the procedures in the
LA SMP and instead of starting large and reducing buffer widths, start with the a twenty foot
expansion of what has proven successful and increase buffer widths as needed on a case-by-
case basis. Our current code has similar requirements where, for instance, bluffs are present.
Identify a No Net Loss baseline that is based actual conditions as they exist in Jefferson
?
County. Before an accurate NNL baseline can be established there must be a real inventory of
shoreline development as mandated by WAC 173-26-201(3)(c).
The burden for increasing buffer widths ought to be on the regulating authority. The County
?
and DOE have argued in the past they cannot afford to conduct expensive site-specific
evaluations, so that cost is passed on to citizens. Citizens are already contributing to the public
good through taxation. What makes the County and DOE think citizens can afford the
increased cost of modern permitting requirements? It would be interesting to see the result of
this LA SMP if more of the financial burden fell on the County and DOE.
Reconsider the wide expansion of the Natural designation. This expansion was notable even
?
among the consultants and DOE staff working on the preliminary draft. Review the criteria for
WAC 173-26-211(5)(a). The Natural designation is clearly reserved for the most sensitive
areas of the shoreline that are intolerant of human use. Designation of 41% of Jefferson
shorelines is excessive, requires DOE oversight, and unnecessarily prohibits common
shoreline accessory uses that aren't even provided an opportunity to mitigate impacts.
Eliminate the repetitive references to "development that causes the current ecological
?
condition to become worse shall be prohibited." Even by DOE's own standard, this is not what
the SMA mandates. At least distinguish that these provisions refer to development not
identified as a preferred use under SMA, and only only extreme circumstances.
1
Eliminate outright prohibitions, unless it is shown mitigation cannot achieve the objectives of
?
the SMA. Provisions for outright prohibitions deny even the opportunity to mitigate impacts.
Include the commonly used WAC modifier significant when addressing adverse impacts.
?
Significant was added for a reason and is the threshold for protection standards.
Common shoreline accessory uses such as beach access stairs should be recognized as an
?
appropriate use and not so heavily conditioned. Presence of beach access structures are not
common enough in Jefferson for them to be conditioned tot he extent this LA SMP dictates.
Similarly, the LA SMP doesn't sufficiently recognize bulkheads and armoring as a preferred
?
use under the SMA. They are not prevalent enough for them to become a cumulative threat to
shoreline ecological functions. Any perceived "proliferation" is not supported by hard data.
No properties ought to be made nonconforming by the SMP update. Modern planning in
?
Washington state promises predictability in future land use. Nonconforming uses are
disfavored by the law, period, and eventually they are intended to be phased out. The county
has finally concluded the nonconforming issue will have that great an impact. If so, then
exempting them won't have an impact on achieving the goals of the SMA. Concern for the
proliferations of "McMansions" is not supported by documentation.
RCW 90.58(1)(a) describes using an interdisciplinary approach which integrated the social and
?
natural sciences. Use of the social sciences has been totally absent in the LA SMP, both from
a sociological and economic standpoint. The economic impacts of the LA SMP have been
particularly overlooked.
Listen to the people. That is the purpose of public review. The people are not an obstacle to
?
achieving a pre-determined outcome or a model SMP; the people are the guiding force that
shapes SMPs to suit local circumstances and needs, within the boundaries of the Guidelines.
The citizens of Jefferson have supplied the County with valuable input that meets these
requirements, only to be ignored or rebuffed as misinformed. The people are an ally, not
adversary, to these important policy decisions that directly effect their lives. They deserve
respect. The SMA recognizes an equal balance between the importance of human use and
protecting the environment. The final approved SMP product should reflect that fundamental
principle.
Thank you for consideration of all my comments.
Jim Hagen
Director, Citizen's Alliance for Property Rights
Director, Olympic Stewardship foundation
Jefferson County
2