HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-402
Page 1 of 1
Jeanie Orr
() bnA-
vv"CLb
C'l}m)'N'l.v+--
'2?l /JJ I
From: Ron Eber [ronaldeber@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 3:14 PM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Subject: Comment on Shoreline MP
Attached is my letter of comment on the draft shoreline master plan update. Please enter this into the record of
the hearing and add me to any list of interesting persons so I can be notified of any further opportunites to
comment, hearings or meetings on this matter.
Thank you - Ron Eber
2/2/2009
January 30, 2009
Jefferson County Planning Commission
C/O Jefferson County Long Range Planning
621 Sheridan St
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Dear COD'11'11issioners:
With one MAJOR objection and another concern, I support your efforts to update and
improve your Shoreline Master Plan. After a review of the "Preliminary Draft Plan" I
have the following comments:
1. I fully support and commend the work done to increase tbe protections for the
shoreline areas of the county especially the increased setbacks and other provisions
calling for restoration and enhancement of the shoreline area. These science based clear
and object standards provide certainty to landowners and the public that the intent of the
Shoreline Management Act will be carried out.
2. My major concern is that the draft does not demonstrate compliance with the
"Principles" required for any planning applicable to a "Shorelines 'Of Statewide
Significance" under RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26-251 with respect to the Hood Canal.
Although the draft plan reiterates these "principles" in Article 5, the allowance of
"industrial and port development" as well as "mining" as a "conditional use" in the
"conservancy designation" under Article 4 is totally inconsistent with the clear intent of
these provisions and the statewide interest that must be paramount in such areas.
The Sh'Oreline Management Act establishes use preferences and calls for a "higher level"
of oompliance with respeet to sh'Orelinesof statewide significance. Allowing "industrial
and port development" as well as "mining" within the "Conservancy" designation as a
~'conditional use" is inconsistent with these principles and directive. Further, the criteria
for the designation of a conservancy area have already effectively prejudged any later
review as a conditional use in a shoreline of statewide significance, since these areas
were established, in part, because they "can support" these questionable uses under
Article 4.4.ii.
To think: that such activities can be approved without "any significant adverse impacts"
or comply with the standards in Article 5 is absurd. The current review standards for a
conditional use as well as those applicable for proposed uses in shorelines of statewide
significance are very general, highly discretionary and subject to wide ranging
interpretations. The generality in these standards and their lack of clear and object
criteria only invites questionable proposals, controversy, strained analysis and litigation.
-
This is a significant flaw in the draft plan and needs to be rectified before it is ready for
adoption by the Commission or COWlty Board Industrial and port developments as well
as mining should be prohibited in shorelines of statewide significance.
3. Finally, one of the principles applicable for Shorelines of Statewide Significance calls
for "effective management of whole ecosystems" and places a "greater imperative on
identifying, Wlderstanding and managing ecosystem-wide processes and ecological
functions..." (WAC 173-26-251(2)). The plan only addresses the shorelines within
Jefferson COWlty and does not lOOk to the whole ecosystem of the Hood Canal especially
the existing or updated shoreline plans in Kitsap and Mason COWl ties.
For example, Kitsap County does not permit mining or industrial development in the
consetVancy designation (Title 22.28. 170.3(b ) and .200.3( c)). In Mason County
industrial development is prohibited in all areas except urban areas (Title 7. 16. 100.c(2))
and mining is prohibited in natural designations but allowed conditionally subject to
some unspecified "performance standards" in other designations including conservancy
lands (Title 7.16.060.c(17) and (18)). Until these inconsistencies are rectified in a
manner consistent with the planning directives for shorelines of statewide significance,
mining and industrial development uses should be prohibited along Hood Canal until a
unified pIan applicable to these uses for the entire Canal can be prepared.
Without consistency, plans and applications will continue to be reviewed on an ad hoc
basis; case-by-<:ase, jurisdiction by jurisdiction and the full intent of the Shoreline
Management Act with respect to shorelines of statewide significance along the Hood
Canal will not be fulfilled.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments and r look forward to how the
Commission addresses these important issues.
!~:;lO (;1;efL
r( l{oMId ~r
28220 Highway 3 NE
Poulsbo, W A 98370
Mailing address:
PO Box 249
Port Gamble, W A 98364