HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-697
/" ,
(: Ilt\
16<-:(9,.. p c: P\\
6)\{)~C}
Zl) &/ I
r:;--.,'
(~ 1.~)
./
~~/
(Clt)A}" ..kS
1:1(.\
: !l.~
~, (.}
Planninl! Commission RDSMP Public Comment
Recommendations for Final Draft
There is a basic philosophical flaw in the draft SMP that needs to be
changed if it has any chance to succeed in achieving its goals. The
problem with the current draft is that it is adversarial in nature, viewing
the balance of purpose of the SMA not as a partnership of equals but as a
conflict, a conflict where the wagons have been circled around protecting
the environment. This draft doesn't speak with us, it .speaks!Las. Until
people are given equal standing this approach is destined to failure. That
is simple human nature. The question of human use of the shoreline is
not so much one of defending property rights but of defending basic
human dignity. This draft does not speak well of local government-s view
of our community at large.
1) Avoid incorporating CAO into SMP, even by reference. The CAO
cannot regulate shorelines, period.
2) Set buffers at a 50 foot minimum and develop criteria whereby they
can be increased as necessary to prevent site-specific threats.
3) Significantly reduce percentage of the Natural Shoreline
Environmental Designation. Under present draft, nearly half our
shorelines are subject to DOE oversight, drastically reducing local
control. Most of the shorelines projected as Natural can be equally
protected using the Conservancy SED.
4) Eliminate the Priority Aquatic SED. Simply write appropriate
protections into the Aquatic designation.
5) Create another Shoreline Residential SED, per WAC 173-26-211(f).
Shoreline LAMRID Residential could apply to more densely built
residential areas such as Cape George, Kala Point, etc. Shoreline Rural
Residential could apply lower density rural residential areas that typify
Jefferson County development patterns. The east side of Marrowstone
Island would be a prime candidate for this second shoreline
designation.
.
6) Eliminate the requirement for a shoreline variance for the Critical
Areas Stewardship Plan.
7) Shift burden of proof to the County to prove a proposed single-family
home will have significant adverse impacts on the shoreline.
8) Carefully consider how Anacones v. Futurewise and CAPR v. Sims
applies to any Final Draft SMP.
Jim Hagen
150 Maple Dr.
Cape George
P re.;J iJ en I-
op; ~~/?
'\
rOulJdAftO~