Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-334 0!1~ ~l~~'h Michelle McConnell 211& ( From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) Uste461@ECY.WA.GOV] Friday, January 30, 20094:08 PM Michelle McConnell Skowlund, Peter (ECY); Ehlers, Paula (ECY) PDSMP jeff1. pdf 8 <<jeff1.pdf>> Hello Michelle Hope you had a good weekend; attached is copy of a letter to the Planning Commission. It reflects on the messages we heard from citizens who testified recently in port Hadlock. It also reiterates the contractual obligations and timelines. One point to clarify is in paragraph #5, where I state the document is IIfairly close to being ready for approval...." I wanted to remind the Commission that as to form, with the present document, we are close-thus that sentence. I think you know that within the text, there remain substantive issues that will need to be resolved prior to adoption. The extent of Ecology-required changes could increase or decrease, depending how much the document is changed through the local adoption proceedings. I look forward to reviewing the Cumulative Impacts Analysis, and am hopeful that will give us clearer perspective on issues like non-conforming lots. In any case, thanks for all your good works- talk with you soon. Jeffree Stewart Shoreline Specialist Washington Department of Ecology 360-407-6521 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 · Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 · (360) 407-6300 January 30, 2009 Mr. Peter Downey Jefferson County Planning Commission . Jefferson County DCD, Long Range Planning 621 Sheridan'Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 RE Preliminary Draft Shoreline Master Program (pDSMP) Comments Dear Mr. Downey: Thank you for the opportunity to add some perspective to the record. These comments follow~up on the Public Hearing which I attended on January 21, 2009, at Port Hadlock. I observed that many of the citizens' comments came with cav('(ats, and that common among these was there hadn't been time to read the document. Many complaints focused on the document being hard to read or understand. Several pointed complaints were made about non~conforming use provisions, excessive regulation in general, and about aquaculture regulation in particular. I also heard a lot of people suggest there was "no need" to "fix" the current SMP. This to me suggests a lack of awareness about the Washington State Legislative mimdate for doing so, and of the Guidelines at WAC 173-26 being a required framework. You indicated in response to the citizen's comments there would be a new, revised SMP document prepared. Planning Commission review and'revisions of the draft Shoreline Master Program are of course appropriate. Ecology is wholly supportive of any changes that make the document easier for citizens to read and understand. . To be adopted, the content an91egal effect must remain consistent with WAC 173-26. The Guidelines are aimed at protecting the shoreline ecological functions which are currently intact (No Net Loss), while allowing appropriate levels of development that is. consistent with that legislatively intended environmental and public trust protection. Generally speaking, the draft SMP you are reviewing appears fairly close to being ready for approval by the Department of Ecology. As you know, it is structured similarly to the one that was recently approved for Whatcom County. The provisions. are Written specific to Jefferson County. .....~ G Jefferson County is under contract with Ecology to provide a Comprehensive Update of its Shoreline Master Program in accordance with WAC 173-26 Guidelines. Our contract, which has previously been extended, and with additional funds provided, expires on June 30, 2009. The final product as described in Grant #0600343 is due at that time. Funds in support of this Program from the State of Washington will not be available after that date. Any further editing and revision will be at the expense of Jefferson County. The current draft emerged from close to three years of extensive policy and technical committee review and revisions, which included public outreach. Policy and Technical Advisory Groups afforded an excellent range of dedicated participation from a broad range of Jefferson County citizens as well as representatives from tribal government, state, and regional organizations. There were many opportunities for public review of draft SMP versions, interaction with planning staff, and to comment prior to this most recent document being released. Jefferson County planning and Community Development has done an excellent job of keeping the public informed and affording opportunities to participate. I encourage Planning Commissioners to become familiar with the SMP Guidelines, which are the required legal basis for this comprehensive update. This will help them to understand how the document was structured and written. It could also help recognizing which sections are acceptable in their current form. In future meetings, I'd encourage more SMA background and educational materials being made available to frame the conversations. . That in turn will help limit the effort required to revise elements of the SMP. The SMP should be completed as close as possible to being on schedule. IfI can be helpful as the Commission deliberates, possibly providing information on the Guidelines or related items that will aid the Commissioners as the document is revised, please let me know. If it would help to have Ecology Shorelands representatives in attendance as a resource at one or more of your meetings, that could be arranged as well. Jeffree Stewart Shoreline Specialist JS:dn cc: Tom Clingman Peter Skowlund Tom Young Paula Ehlers "