The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-624b <:. ckhart 150 Lower lma Beach Rd. Port Towns n , Wa. 98368 360-385-56 J' l"l 1 6 ?i\f\q (, f\' ."'"1'1 r '\\ '-' '- ~ .L.' \...-. ~, c~!, l(}\ fvii< 'I J ty Commissioners, Personal ag n as have no place in planning and development. The state of Washington has required J fferson County to review their SMP and make amendments so that it meets the re ements of the current RCW's. The state 0 this process. I WAC's and have made i ty chose to completely re-write, not amend! ashington gave ample time and money to help Jefferson County through the planning dept. had entered into this with a good understanding of the W's governing this process, instead of a personal agenda, we easily could ough this process without the issues we now face. It became a p the most im had been v' property 0 meeting roo was reques raised. It be drastic chan with numer u an article in ent after attending an advertised meeting of the Sunshine Forum, one of t groups affected by the SMP revision, the waterfront property owners, lly left out of the process. A request for a show of hands of waterfront s amounted to approximately 80% of the attendance in the room. The t the community center was full to overflowing. Another show of hands f people who were notified of the revision to the SMP. ONE hand was e evident that the people who would be most severely impacted by the in the SMP were being blind sighted by the process of revision. Along others, we found out about the release of the preliminary draft by reading local newspaper, well into the process. The prelimi draft of the SMP created many questions and concerns regarding the restrictive n e of this document. Numerous phone calls were made to the project manager, M c ele McConnell, and I received only vague and deceptive answers to my questions. i ele could not answer the simplest questions regarding the make up of the remaining veloped waterfront property in Jefferson County. She couldn't even give me the speci 1 RCW's which quantified the restrictive nature of the draft SMP. In an effort 0 derstand what was required by the state, of Jefferson County, I spent numerous h s studying the WAC's and RCW's. Both the preliminary draft SMP and the revised SMP failed to meet one of the critically important goals of the Shoreline Managemen rocess- to protect the ri~ts of the private property owners. Jefferson C ty has also chosen to change the wording in the most restrictive sense, to meet their p r onal agenda of - returning all waterfront to its natural aesthetic state for the enjoyme of the public. As an example, both the preliminary and revised draft of the SMP repeat uses the phrase 'no net loss to ecological function'. The only possible reference I d in the RCW's relating to this phrase was ''the activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including but not limited to, fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality and esthetic values." The RCW's and WAC's clearly state in detail, allowable uses on residential property including structural beach access, docks, and structural armoring in the form of bulkheads to protect from erosion. However in Table 1, page 4-8; structural armoring is listed as conditional administrative, subject to review by planning dept. staff. Even this means nothing. If you refer to the official shoreline maps, the majority of the remaining undeveloped shoreline property, upland of the high water mark, has been placed in conservancy and natural. Most of the low bank waterfront, developed and undeveloped, water ward of the high water mark has been placed in priority aquatic. This will prohibit property owners from building structural access to their waterfront, structural armor (bulkhead) or docks. This is in direct defiance of RCW 90.58.100. Although not specifically addressed, property owners may be prohibited from maintaining their existing appurtenant structures, i.e. bulkheads, docks, decks, and boathouses. As defined in the revised SMP, through allowable uses, placing areas of intense residential development in a priority aquatic designation is also in direct defiance of RCW 90.58.100 Jefferson County's revised draft has ignored the WAC's and RCW's governing this process. We have been placed on an extremely abbreviated time line due to economics, not content. As publicly stated at the last meeting of the advisory group, there will be no economic impact study on this revised draft. This draft as it exists, will not hold up through the appeals process, or in the courts. Jefferson County has until Dec. 1,2011 to get this right. Weare asking you, the commissioners to reject this draft in its current form and spend the appropriate time and money to make the SMP fair and equitable to all the residents of Jefferson County. In an effort to keep this letter as short as possible, we have not addressed many more of our concerns. I invite any of the commissioners to contact me for further discussion of the SMP. 385-5650 home 301-2631 cell v~,~ LJU-.' Dan Lockhart Kim Lockhart