Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-174 Gl~ C/f)W\v\l'O/\I\.l~ 1/27/09 Dear Planning Commissioners, U1{, / @ I attended the January 21 Planning Commission meeting regarding the Proposed Draft Shoreline Management Plan. I have been reviewing the plan and the science behind it. I am an engineer and took many science and engineering courses in college. I have read Dr. Kenneth Brook's review of the best available science and also Mr. Dave Christensen's review of same. I must say that Or. Brook's review is much more comprehensive. His credentials are also quite extensive while Mr. Christensen does not ever state his own credentials. I also wish to note the rebuttal of both the majority and minority report of the draft SMP by Dr. Robert N. Crittenden. Mr. Christensen in his review takes great stock in the Tomassi report which it turns out he had a great hand in editing. The Tomassi report claims to be reviewing the Best Available Science per WAC 365-195- 900. What the Tomassi report does not address is the marine shoreline. The proposed Draft SMP has as one of it's core changes a very significant increases in the marine shoreline buffer from 35' (a 30' buffer with a 5' building setback) to 160' (a 150' buffer with a 10' setback). This is a very puzzling considering that Jefferson County has stated that the condition of the marine shoreline in Jefferson County is good. I fail to see the need for the proposed buffer increase. The reviewed Best Available Science does not show a need for an increased buffer. I believe that the recommendations to the Planning Commission for this buffer increase has come from staff and Environmental Groups without a demonstrated need. Several people at the meeting I attended commented that they were concerned that Jefferson County is growing and that the "possibility" exists that the marine shoreline might be degraded in the future. They noted that King County used to have farm's in the Kent valley. But, what does this have to do with the current situation. Even more significant is that the loss of farm land in King County really has nothing to do with the marine shoreline of Jefferson County. Proponents of the changes to the SMP seem to be trying to link changes in King County farm lands with future changes to Jefferson Counties marine shoreline. This is not a valid comparison, they are different. What I believe needs to be focused on is the actual condition of the marine shoreline in Jefferson County. The staff of DCD needs to assess the current state of the shoreline so that any degradation can be know. Only then can effective and useful action be taken at the regulatory level regarding any changes in the SMP. In fact I have not noted a verified need regarding any of the shoreline whether marine or fresh water. The State of Washington requires that Jefferson County review the current SMP ~2011. Nowhere does the State mandate that any changes need to be made to the current SMP. I propose that the current SMP be reinstated in 2011 or before and then modified as needed after Jefferson County can assess the shoreline. Sin~eIY, , _ () Cra~ ~ 801 Olele Point Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 L, Ii ,~ r;=:;:~ t..;.1 i J r-'l' lOP ,"'.