HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-559
Page 1 of2
(} mfr
NY n' n'utt"k
Jeanie "'Orr
2-tl (p f
From: Jeanie Orr
Sent: Monday, June 15, 20098:09 AM
To: Michelle McConnell
Cc: AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Jeanie Orr
Subject: FW: Draft SMP comments to Planning Commission
From: Phil Andrus [mailto:inthewoods@olympus.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 20099:57 AM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Subject: Draft SMP comments to Planning Commission
Greetings,
To begin, I would like to thank you for all of the time you have volunteered to review and
amend the original SMP draft which was presented to you. As one who participated in the
limited update in 1989, I appreciate how difficult your task can be, balancing the competing
pressures of property rights advocates with the needs and desires of the broader
community. Both the present and future citizens of Jefferson County have a considerable
stake in the final SMP which will emerge from your deliberations and those of the BOCC.
Despite my appreciation of your efforts, I regret to tell you that in many, many respects, the
draft which you have prepared for public comment is less satisfactory than the original
presented to you. Beginning with the definitions, which should not be controversial, I note the
removal of several terms which are pertinent to the SMP: dredge material disposal, estuary,
exotic (species), instream resources, and many more. While I can understand a desire for
brevity, definitions are fundamental to any such document.
Of particular concern to me is the significant weakening of the regulations regarding docks,
piers, and floats, and regarding aquaculture. What ties all of these uses together is their
impact on the freedom of use of public waters. I must remind you that no individual owns the
water nor is entitled to exclusive use of it. The elimination from the draft of many of the
limitations of these over-water uses is a matter of great concern to me. Equally, the
permissive approach to the review of applications for aquaculture, changing the use category
from conditional to permitted, denies the public the opportunity to protect its interest in public
waters. In this regard, I feel I should add that I do not own waterfront property; rather, I am a
sailor, a kayaker, and a self-described lifelong "water rat". As a citizen of this county, I wish to
protect our collective interest in our public waters. I deeply resent the Planning Commission's
willingness to sacrifice public interest for private benefit.
A additional concern I have is the elimination of the distinction between public and private
structures and facilities, which both sacrifices the public interest and allows for the proliferation
of individual personal structures. Perhaps the majority of the Planning Commission is
enamored with the urban waterfronts along Lake Washington in Seattle, but I do not feel that
this shorescape is desirable for Jefferson County.
6/15/2009
Page 2 of2
One element of the original draft of which I approved was the prohibition of finfish net pens. I
must confess that, in this regard, the draft which you have produced is confusing to me. Are
net pens to be allowed only in support of project which restore or enhance wild salmon
populations? If that is the case, then I approve. I was a volunteer in the successful effort to
restore the run of summer chum in Chimacum Creek, which did include a brief, seasonal use
of small net pens. However, I oppose any commercial net pens which would raise salmon of
any species for market. Because of the risk they bring to our native salmon populations and
because of their impact on nearby water quality, they have no place in our county.
Much attention has been given to the proposed 150 foot buffer for residential development,
much very vociferous attention. While I do not intend to either defend or attack this specific
distance, I doubt that your opting for a scant 50 is justified. It smacks of a decision based on a
sort of politics, satisfying your weekly "Sunshine Forum" audience, rather than hard
science. Reduced buffers ensure a steady supply of applications for shore defense works in
the DCD in-box.
Finally, there is one change which you have made in the original draft of which I approve, the
prohibition of mining in river channels, which together with the prohibition of commercial
extraction of rock and other materials from shoreline areas will be a valuable addition to the
protection of our shorelines. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission has chosen to allow
mining use and activity in aquatic and conservancy zones, which would allow for an unlimited
number of developments similar to the project proposed by Fred Hill Materials for Hood
Canal. Kitsap County wisely prohibits these activities on the eastern shore of Hood Canal, as
well as on the rest of their conservancy-designated shorelines. Jefferson County should do
the same.
Sincerely,
Phil Andrus
POB 261
Chimacum, WA 98325
6/15/2009