In response to some of the material received over the last month, the Floating Homes Association SMP Review Committee has drafted and sent a letter to city planner Maggi Glowacki and the other members of the CAC.
|
10/3/08
Hi Maggie, The current language reads: The purpose of the UR environment is to protect residential areas. Why is the current language ( "protect residential areas") being removed? What is the new language trying to accomplish? b. Locational Criteria. (1) Areas where the underlying zoning is Single-family or Multifamily residential. (2) Areas where steep slopes, shallow water, poor wave protection, limited vehicular or water access make water-dependent uses impractical. (3) Areas with sufficient dry land lot area to allow for residential development entirely on dry land without over-water coverage. The current language reads: Areas with sufficient dry land lot area to allow for residential development totally on dry land. Why was "without over-water coverage" added? What is that new wording trying to accomplish? Is "without over-water coverage" intended to affect floating homes in some way?
4. Conservancy Management (CM) Environment. Proposed language: The purpose of the CM shoreline environment is to provide for water dependent infrastructure such as navigational locks that provide a substantial public benefit and recreational facilities, such as marinas and parks. The types of development allowed in the CM environment can be managed to preserve ecological functions and typically provide public access. The current language reads: The purpose of the CM shoreline environment is to conserve and manage areas for public purposes, recreational activities and fish migration routes. While the natural environment need not be maintained in a pure state, developments shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts to natural beaches, migratory fish routes, and the surrounding community. Why has the current language, which is specifically related to conservation and management of shoreline areas and prescriptive with regard to environmental protection, been replaced and softened? What is the new language trying to accomplish? b. Locational Criteria. (1) Proposed language: Dry or submerged land that are generally owned by a public agency and developed with a major infrastructure or recreational facility, including navigation locks and marinas. The current language reads: Dry or submerged land in sensitive areas as generally owned by a public agency and developed with a major public facility, including navigation locks, sewage treatment plants, ferry terminals. Why was reference to "sensitive areas" removed from the wording?
(2) Proposed language: Public and private parks containing active recreation areas. The current language reads: Waterfront lots containing natural beaches or a natural resource such as fish migration routes or fish feeding areas which require management but which are compatible with recreational development. Why was the specific environmental language deleted and the requirement for active management of the specified waterfront lots softened? Could the current language constitute a (4) in order to preserve its implicit ecological directive? I would appreciate a written response to my questions. Thanks Bob
|