You will find links to the draft by section on the COBI website. Several sections have been added since we first posted this link. The complete package of documents, including marked-up and clean versions of the SMP Updraft can be accessed here.
———————————————
Several hours after discovering the SMP Update draft on the COBI website, we received an email from COBI Planning and Community Development. We’ve added links so you don’t have to spend a lot of time hunting for the pages mentioned. Thanks PCD. This is a BIG improvement to the City’s website.
———————————————
Re: Changes in SMP web pages
We’ve been improving the Shoreline Master Plan Update web pages and have added two new pages.
The 2011 Draft SMP Page (here)
- Links to the most recent version of each section (attached to the section title)
- Lists each section of the draft update when that section was reviewed by the workgroups and when it was reviewed by the Planning Commission.
- Lists upcoming Planning Commission review dates and City Council review dates.
The Proposed Shoreline Designations Page (here)
- Outlines the process that used to develop the shoreline designations
- Links to the designation descriptions, criteria, policies, and regulations
- Links to the existing and proposed designation maps.
Other changes:
- Upcoming Planning Commission and City Council meeting dates are highlighted in a box on the main project page. (here)
- The Public Comment page (now four pages), divided by date, and linked together. Comment Matrices, which provide more detail about agency and public comments, are now linked to September public comment page. (here)
The Shorelin Managemant Act of 1971, requires communities to amend their Shoreline Management Plan every 7 years. Bainbridge Island’s amended plan is due December 1, 2011. The act requires the plan to be amended
IF NECESSARY. It does not require the plan to be changed.
RCW 90.58.080: “(4) Local governments shall conduct a review of their master programs at least once every seven years after the applicable dates established by subsection (2)(a)(iii) through (vi) of this section. Following the review required by this subsection (4), local governments shall, if necessary, revise their master programs. ”
And, RCW90.58.100 seems to promote shoreline development rather than restrict it. Among other provisions it includes this paragraph:
“(6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.”
I have been casually following the Bainbridge debate, and find it strange that anyone would willing to acquiesce to shouts of change for no apparent benefit to either the community, the shoreline property owner, or even Puget Sound.
This whole issue could be finalized by merely submitting the present plan, as the amended plan, and stating that no changes are required. Assuming the current plan complies with “applicable law and guidelines in effect at the time of the review.” The amendment in this case is the new date of submission.The law would be complied with and everyone could all quit worring over it.
I doubt there is any new law or “guideline” that is so different or imperative that requires all of the extensive changes proposed in the new draft. If there are such laws they should cited by the planners to justify all changes.
I realize that the city received a grant from the state for this study, but that would be proof that no changes are required.
I realize that this is a simplistic approach, but then it’s a simplistic issue. Complexity is not progress.