+menu-


  • Category Archives A matter of DUE PROCESS
  • 2017 SMP Draft New Black Lines and Purple

    THE NEW CLALLAM COUNTY  DCD SMP Update 273 Page Draft  is a very expensive, very complicated  environmental designation, a Color Book coded with black lines and  purple, and every other color of the rainbow to rule, regulate and restrict every  vested private shoreline property owner in Clallam County WA.

    SO WHAT’S NEW ABOUT THAT?

    DISCOVERY, NOV 9, 2017  I RECEIVED A WARNING “IF THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY ONLY KNEW THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE, THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR”

    Question: “Why use Color Book?”

    Answer:  “Color Books have been in the news  a lot since Nov 8, 2016”

     Hello Clallam County Country Bumpkins et al. Who knew what on Jan 26, 2011?

    And, what have we discovered …. Nov 10, 2017?

    The Clallam County DCD SMP Update Draft is a 273 page color book, It  cost American taxpayers $1,329,915.00 dollars. A US Environmental  Protection  Assistance Grant  to Clallam County WA  for Project No  PO-00J08801-1-2- 3.

    Total Project cost, one million three hundred twenty nine thousand nine hundred and fifteen dollars.

    WHO’S ACCOUNTING FOR THE MONEY?

    I’m requesting an answer from  Jim Jones, Jr.  the Clallam County Administrator..

    ——————————————————–

    NOV 3, 2017 TO NOV 8, 2017 all links are below.

    DISCOVERY  From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    What started as a $599,000.00 pass through grant from the EPA to Clallam County  for ESA Adolfson  facilitators/ consultants/ compliance experts, Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer, we were told,  to regulate 3300 vested  private shoreline turned into $1,329,915.00 dollar project.

    DISCOVERY  Jan 26, 2011 to Nov 10, 2017 continued….

    WHO KNEW, A PERSON THAT WE HAVE NEVER SEE, IN OR AT, OR QUESTIONED AT ANY PUBLIC 2017 DCD SMP UPDATE DISCUSSIONS, IS CLALLAM COUNTY EMPLOYEE CATHY LEAR THE PROJECT MANAGER.

    ———————————————————————————

    December 6, 2011 Cathy Lear comments on the SMP Update

    HELLO COUNTRY BUMPKINS…

    Doubtless, everyone with an advanced degree in forestry would understand these references.

    This way of writing is distracting, however, for those who do not customarily speak in these terms. I think it should be made more “speaks for itself to anyone” wherever possible. A shoreline inventory should be a tool useful to anyone interested, but especially to land use planners and citizens with property they want to develop.

    We cannot assume everyone speaks the language of academic society.  

    ———————————————————————–

    NOV 9, 2017   MORE DISCOVERY  on the 2017 DCD SMP Draft Update 273 PAGE COLOR BOOK . People send me stuff, people tell me stuff, I have a researched and documented history of the Clallam County SMP Update stuff.

    NOV 9, 2017  A WARNING “IF THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY ONLY KNEW THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE, THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR”

    ——————————————————–

    I am very familiar with the color purple on maps used for the SMP Update. I did attended the 2012 SMP Update Forks Public Forum.

    WHO KNEW ABOUT THE “NEW”  EVIL BLACK LINES ON THE DCD 2017 SMP UPDATE DRAFT MAPS COLOR BOOK?  NOT ONLY DID THEY COLOR  OUR PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY PURPLE,

    WHO KNEW?  AND, WHO KNOWS THAT THEY DREW “NEW” EVIL  BLACK LINES ON OUR PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY?

    NOV 9, 2017 3:30PM I COULD DOCUMENT ON MAP #41 IN THE COLOR BOOK,  THE “NEW” EVIL BLACK LINES ON THE 2017 DCD SMP UPDATE DRAFT MAPS, THE BLACK LINES “TOOK”  20 ACRES OF A GEORGE C. RAINS SR TRUST PROPERTY FROM  A 40 ACRE PARCEL ON THE SOL DUC RIVER.

    I WAS ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS, I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO THE CLALLAM COUNTY COURT HOUSE.

    Nov 9, 2017 I met with DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn

    We spoke for about an hour…

    RE: THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE AND THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR.

    The bottom line… pretty much went like this.

    Mary Ellen said, “We have to leave this to the professionals”…..

    WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE YOU?

    —————————————————————————

    DISCOVERY CONTINUED….

    After a seven years fight.. The nine unpaid volunteer members of the Clallam County Planning Commission, finally gave up..

    “WE HAVE TO LEAVE THIS TO THE PAID PROFESSIONALS”…..

    THE PAID PROFESSIONALS? THAT WROTE THE DCD 2017 CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE DRAFT AND PROVIDED THE NEW 273 PAGE COLOR BOOK…….

    DCD DIRECTOR MARY ELLEN WINBORN AND SR. PLANNER STEVE GRAY, IN COLLABORATION WITH ECOLOGY’S LOCAL COORDINATOR DOE MICHELLE MCCONNEL AND ESA ADOLFSON OVERPAID FACILITATOR MARGARET CLANCY (THAT INCLUDING JIM KRAMER)

    —————————————————————————-

    BACK TO THE 2017 DCD SMP DRAFT 273 PAGE $1,329,915.00 DOLLAR COLOR BOOK. As the concerned trustee for over 800 acres of designated forest land, seriously affected by the DCD 2017 SMP Update Draft…. I requested a paper copy of their color book .

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Mary Ellen Winborn

    Cc: Bill Peach ; mark mozias ; Randy Johnson

    Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:35 AM

    Subject: Requesting a copy of the 2017 SMP Update Draft

    ——————————————————————————–

    WE THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY CAN LEAVE THE 2017 DCD SMP DRAFT UPDATE UP TO THE PAID PROFESSIONALS AND ECOLOGY OR WE CAN CHALLENGE IT….

    Email your comments to:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us  Clallam County Board of Commissioners

    LINKS TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS….

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 2:18 PM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004353-102417
    Attachments:
    Hewett_doc_pdf.pdf

    Friday, November 03, 2017 9:09 AM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004384-103017

     

    Attachments:
    signed_ESA_full_contract-22_pgs.pdf
    SMA_Grant_Agr_G1000062.pdf

    From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 4:21 PM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004411-110317

    Attachments:
    PO-00J08801-1_Add_$499957__Signed_10-5-10.pdf
    PO-00J08801-2_Rebudget__Extend_to_12-31-14__Signed_10-16-12.pdf
    PO-00J08801-3_Rebudget__Extend_to_12-31-16__Signed_12-15-14_.pdf
    PO-00J08801-0_$1329915_Exp__12-31-12__Signed_8-3-10.pdf

    ——————————————————————————–

    IT APPEARS ABOVE, THAT THE PO-JOO8801  #3  REBUDGET  WAS ONLY EXTENDED TO DEC 31, 2016?

    HAS IT BEEN EXTENDED IN AND FOR  2017?

    —————————————————————————-

    BACK TO THE 2017 DCD SMP UPDATED DRAFT …

    What have I done about it?

    DISCOVERY PLUS… a huge number of SMP Public Comments

    PLUS…..

    I met with Commissioner Bill Peach for an hour on Oct 20, 2017

    I met with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Nicholas for one hour (follow the law)

    I met with Commissioner Mark Ozias on Nov 3, 2017

    I met  with my elected Commissioner Randy Johnson Nov 8, 2017

    I met with DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn Nov 9, 2017

    PLUS…..

     I AM POSTING AND EMAILING THIS SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    —————————————————————–

    WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    Email your comments to:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us  Clallam County Board of Commissioners

    THE DEADLINE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DCD 2017 SMP DRAFT UPDATE  IS DEC 12, 2017….

    What will happen in eight months? who knows?

    Meanwhile this Tenacious Clallam County Country Bumpkin  is doing the usual….

    I’ll just keep making more 2017 SMP Update Draft Public comments,  posting them on my website, and sending around in cyberspace.

    DISCOVERY to be continued….

    ———————————————————————————–

    RE-DISCOVERY MY SMP PUBLIC COMMENT APRIL 18, 2012

    GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY’LL TAKE A MILE

    Seller disclosure as required by Clallam County 2012 SMP Update and WA State law

    But the best news of all is the assurance by the Planning Dept. that your private property will not have any loss of value due to Clallam County’s 2012 SMP Draft restrictions and regulations.

    BUT? What has Clallam County got to lose?

    RCW 90.58.290

    Restrictions as affecting fair market value of property. The restrictions imposed by this chapter shall be considered by the county assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 29.]

    INDEED, ONE MUST CONSIDER  ALL OF THE  RESTRICTIVE SMP  “SHALLS” ON PRIVATE VESTED SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND IN PARTICULAR… THE UNDEVELOPED PRIVATE INVESTMENT SHORELINE PROPERTIES, VIEW, ETC?

    ———————————————————————
    RE-DISCOVERY MY SMP PUBLIC COMMENT APRIL 18, 2012
    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/247_SMP041812.pdf

    Merrill, Hannah From: pearl hewett … Subject: SMP GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY’LL TAKE A MILEhave any loss of value due to Clallam County’s 2012 SMP Draft …

    I submit this as my SMP comment

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    Grandfathered is non-conforming.

    The statistics introduced at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site. (the number was staggering)

    PER CATHY LEAR, they are waiting to compile the historic statistics to show the number of how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings were non-conforming on the old SMP marine setbacks. (hindsight is 20/20)

    How have the DOE restrictions, regulations and definitions on/of non-conforming property changed since 1976?

    I wrote the following as a tongue in cheek comment on the 2012 SMP Update.

    After seeing the statistics on non-conforming private marine property at the last SMP meeting, it is not funny, it is frightening.

    2013 OLYMPIC PENINSULA CLASSIFIED AD

    FOR SALE VIEW   LOT ON THE BEAUTIFUL STRAITS OF JUAN DE FUCA

    100FEET X400FEET

    Seller disclosure as required by Clallam County 2012 SMP Update and WA State law

    This is a 100% non-conforming lot

    There is a 175 foot setback from the HWL

    The is a 150 setback from the feeder bluff

    There is a 65 foot wetland setback

    There is a 50 foot buffer zone

    There is a 10 foot setback from buildings

    THE GOOD NEWS

    The buyer is left with 25% of his private property purchase, a 100X100 foot piece of private property (with a 75% loss of his usable private land where the buyer is free to put his 1700 sq foot home, his drain field, his parking and his deck and his garden.

    The buyer will be allowed a 20 foot view corridor (20’X300′) through the 300 feet of restricted use area of his private property. (leaving 80% of his view blocked)

    The buyer will be allowed to limb up and remove 30% of the vegetation blocking his view every 10 years on the 100 X 300 foot restricted use area of his private property.

    The buyer will be allowed a 6 foot wide foot path through the 300 foot restricted use area (in the view corridor) of his private property and home to the beach. (a full city block from beach)

    Using a variance and a geological study you may be able to reduce the setbacks and buffer zones.

    But the best news of all is the assurance by the Planning Dept. that your private property will not have any loss of value due to Clallam County’s 2012 SMP Draft restrictions and regulations.


  • Update: Interest in the Elwha Project Lands

    OCT 27, 2017  Future interest by the WA State in Elwha Project Lands?

    AUG 10, 2012 PAST INTEREST IN ELWHA PROJECT LANDS

     1992 THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS

    THE FEDERAL LAW  IS…. THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    AFTER THE BIG DAM REMOVAL.. THE FEDS ELECTED, BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES RAN INTO A LEGAL CONUNDRUM.

    AUG 10, 2012 THE AGENCY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WAS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE CONUNDRUM WAS SPECIFICALLY, WHO WERE THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS IN CLALLAM COUNTRY WA  LEGALLY, SET ASIDE FOR BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT?

    WHY SHOULD  OUR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BE BOTHERED WITH  LEGISLATIVE ACTION BY RULE OF LAW?

    WHEN THE LEGAL ISSUES ON THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS COULD BE RESOLVED BY BUREAUCRATIC RULE BY RED TAPE?

    THERE WERE SEVERAL UNDISCLOSED LEGAL ISSUES WHEN THE ELECTED FEDS, NPS BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES, WANTED TO JUST RUN IN AND GRAB THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS PUBLIC LAND……

     ——————————————————————————–

     SO, THE SOLUTION  TO THE LEGAL CONUNDRUM ON AUG 10, 2012 WAS THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (BUREAUCRATS) INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC (DUE) PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ——————————————————————————–

    OCT 27, 2017  SO?  WDFW (BUREAUCRATS) released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission  (BUREAUCRATS) SO WE ARE WAITING FOR WA STATE TO CONSIDER THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ———————————————————–

    THE WAITING GAME INDEED,  WAITING FOR THE  LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE ELWHA RIVER ACT 1992, 2011 SMP, 2012 NPS, 2013 DOE SMP,  2017 WDFW AND THE FISH COMMISSON.

    NO WORRIES…. The Waiting Game is a common practice of government and bureaucrats, just wait until citizens give up or forget….

    INDEED, THE  LONG WAITING  FOR THE BUREAUCRATS TO RULE OCT 27, 2017  .

    ———————————————————————-

    AUG 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND,

    BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT,

    NOTED  BY TODD SUESS, AUGUST 10, 2012 ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

    —————————————————————————

    We citizens should be used to it “The Waiting Game”  is common practice for the tired, overwhelmed Citizens of Clallam County  

    WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS

    TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE CLALLAM COUNTY WA PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ————————————————————————

    BUT NOT ON MY WATCH  SEPT 30, 2013

    Behind My Back | The NPS Waiting Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/09/30/the-nps-waiting-game/

    A common practice of government waiting…… waiting until NPS willful neglect allows, nature to ravage the roads, the trail, the access, NPS WAITING FOR the .. the snow to collapse the resorts, lodges, cabins, NPS just WAITING… until  those with living memory of a place die off, just WAITING… wait until the people cool off or wait until people forget, out of sight out of mind….

    My SMP Update comment on WA State DOE SMP Priority of public access to public land
    and as referenced in the WA State Public Trust Doctrine
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Elwha River public lands (between US 101 and SR 112)
    Clallam County Public Land
    NORM’S RESORT NPS Public Land
    ———————————————————————————

    NORM’S RESORT  who’s Norm? what’s he got to do with it?

    The Norm’s privately owned resort, in 1979, provided “we the people” free public access with a long dirt trail for free walking beside the ELWHA RIVER and the use of the ELWHA RIVER FOR A FREE FISHING SPOTS AND IT DIDN’T STOP THERE, IT PROVIDED A STORE, CABINS, RENTAL BOATS.

    What happened to NORM’S RESORT free facilities?

    NORM’S RESORT was demolished by the federal government.

    NORM’S RESORT PRIVATE ELWHA RIVER property is now OUR PUBLIC LAND controlled by the NPS AND there is EVEN more Clallam County PUBLIC LAND on the Elwha River between US 101 and SR 112 that IS UP FOR GRABS.

    There is a county road for the main purpose of access to this area and a WDFW boat launch high and dry….

    2013- IT HAS EVEN BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE CLALLAM COUNTY’S PUBLIC LAND BE GIVEN TO THE TRIBES?

    As a Community we should insist that the public Elwha River property (between US 101 and SR 112 public land) –

    BE GIVEN FIRST PRIORTY FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USE.

    ——————————————————————————-

    In accordance with the DOE and the requirements for PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND as stated in THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    ————————————————————————————-

    APRIL 4, 2017 (I did this)

    ·  Behind My Back | The Elwha River Limbo Land

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/04/04/6477

    Posted on April 4, 2017 6:46 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    The Elwha River Limbo Land SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter WHAT …

    ————————————————————————-

    MY Category Archives  A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    ·  Behind My Back | A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    www.behindmyback.org/category/a-citizen-expressing-interest The Elwha River Limbo Land. SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”?

     THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

    THEY WERE TO BE SET ASIDE FOR USE, AS, BY ELIGIBLE PARTY’S?

    THAT IS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    WERE THEY FACTUALLY?  SPECIFICALLY? SET ASIDE BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT??

    WHY IS CLALLAM COUNTY WA NOT LISTED AS AN ELIGIBLE PARTY FOR A CLALLAM COUNTY RECREATIONAL AREA?

    WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE DAM SOUTHWEST OF PORT ANGELES IN 1992, THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE TO BE SET ASIDE EITHER FOR USE AS

    1. A STATE PARK,
    2. A NATIONAL PARK OR
    3. A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OR
    4. BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE.

    SO FAR, THE TRIBE IS THE ONLY ELIGIBLE PARTY THAT HAS A PLAN AND A DESIRE FOR THE LAND.

    AUGUST 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND, BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT, NOTED TODD SUESS, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

     ———————————————————————–

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”? THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

     WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….

    TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA RIVER PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS  PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS  TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF OUR CLALLAM COUNTY PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ——————————————————-

    The bottom line

    Oct 29, 2017 WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    CROSS MY FINGERS?

    NOPE,  THE USUAL…

    ————————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    From: xxx

    To: Pearl Hewett

    Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:14 PM

    Subject: Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands

    Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands, WDFW released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission.  Listen in at:

    https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2017101082

    watch – TVW, Washington States' Public Affairs Network

    www.tvw.org

     

    and making it easy for you, time stamp starts at 1:50:17 and goes through to 1:52:12.  Less than two minutes of one’s life and one shale know as much as I do.

    Without getting hopes up, opinion is there’s a bit of hope WDFW is seriously going to address this, at least make recommendations for the State to consider.


  • SMP Update – Failure of Due Process 6.01

    SMP Update – Failure of Due Process 6.01

    RESPONSIBILITIES OF SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

    CHAPTER 6 – MASTER PROGRAM REVIEW AND AMENDMENT PROCESS

    6.01 GENERAL – It is recognized that changing public opinion, community needs and standards, NEW TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION OR OTHER UNFORESEEN CHANGING CONDITIONS MAY JUSTIFY AND COMPEL REVIEW AND AMENDMENT TO THIS MASTER PROGRAM. However, to insure that suggested changes are not arbitrary or oriented to individual advantage, ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OR ADDITIONS TO THE MASTER PROGRAM SHALL FOLLOW A PROCESS similar to that utilized for amending the County’s

    Comprehensive Plan. Compliance with this process will assure formal public notice and public hearing(s) the opportunity for ample public involvement, assessment and recommendation by the County Planning Department’s professional staff AND THE COUNTY SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE with final formal approval given the Board of County Commissioners, prior to submission to the Department of Ecology for official certification.

    ——————————————————————————-

    I READ THE ENTIRE PACKET PROVIDED BY CLALLAM COUNTY TO EACH APPOINTED MEMBER OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE SMP UPDATE.

    APRIL 30, 2011,   I SENT AN EMAIL TO  GRAY, STEVE AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (full text below)

    As a member of the Advisory Committee I urge you to read the following.

    In your Appointed position you have a responsibility to ALL citizens of Clallam County.

    The committee is made up of a very diverse group.

    Please, be a responsible member of the Advisory Committee.

    Pearl Rains Hewett (member of the Advisory Committee)

    —————————————————————————–

    DUE PROCESS IN THE MASTER PROGRAM SHALL FOLLOW A PROCESS

    The Clallam County SMP Update amendment process was as easy as

    1. APPOINTING A CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
    2. THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORTS TO THE PLANNING DEPT.
    3. THE PLANNING DEPT ADVISES AND REPORTS TO THE COUNTRY COMMISSIONERS
    4. WITH FINAL FORMAL APPROVAL GIVEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION

     ———————————

    APRIL 30, 2011, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEGLECT OF DUE PROCESS,  I SENT AN EMAIL TO  GRAY, STEVE AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (full text below)

    Subject: County Shoreline Advisory Committee

    RESPONSIBILITIES OF SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

    Steve Grays Response Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 6:16 PM

    SENT AFTER RECEIVING Katie Krueger response Monday, May 02, 2011 8:49 AM

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Gray, Steve

    To: pearl hewett ; katie.krueger

    Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 6:16 PM

    Subject: RE: County Shoreline Advisory Committee

    STEVE GRAY RESPONSE ON THE RESPONSIBILITIES  OF CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON  THE  SO CALLED SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

    Hmmm… MAY 02, 2011

    DCD’S SHORT FORM OF DUE PROCESS ON SMP Update

     1.The Clallam County Planning Dept advises the commissioners

    1. With final formal approval given the Board of County Commissioners, prior to submission to the Department of Ecology for official certification

    INDEED, MAY 02, 2011 THIS IS STEVE GRAYS DEFINITION OF DUE PROCESS

    In response to the below emails from members of the Committee, please note that the SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE you are on is not responsible for holding the formal public hearings noted in Chapter 6 of existing Shoreline Master Program (SMP). 

     That will be the responsibility of the Clallam County Planning Commission as directed by the Board of Commissioners in the adopted public participation plan for the shoreline master program update. 

     I know it is somewhat confusing since Chapter 6 of the current Shoreline Master Program refers to A SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, which is the same name applied to the current Committee.  THE CURRENT SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE that was formed by invitation by the Department of Community Development IS AN IMPORTANT WORK GROUP to provide input  to the Planning Commission and Board of Clallam County Commissioners on tough issues as this process moves forward. 

    ————————————————————————–

    Hmmm…SHORT FORM OF DUE PROCESS ON SMP Update

    UPDATED ON Oct 27, 2017

    1.The Clallam County Planning Dept advises the commissioners

    1. With final formal approval given the Board of County Commissioners, prior to submission to the Department of Ecology for official certification

    AND THE SO CALL SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE? THE IMPORTANT SMP WORK GROUP?

    INFORMATION OR OTHER UNFORESEEN CHANGING CONDITIONS MAY JUSTIFY AND COMPEL REVIEW AND AMENDMENT TO THIS MASTER PROGRAM

    2017 SMP UPDATE FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS 6.01

    THIS IS THE SHORT FORM FOR EMAILING

    PLEASE CLICK ON THE TOP LINK TO READ THE FULL 2400 WORD DOCUMENT for full text of the documentation

    ———————————————————————

    FULL TEXT April 30, 2011

    Subject: County Shoreline Advisory Committee

    RESPONSIBILITIES OF SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

    From: pearl hewett [mailto:phew@wavecable.com]
    Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 8:39 AM
    To:  Gray, Steve; mclancy; Merrill, Hannah;
    Subject: County Shoreline Advisory Committee

    RESPONSIBILITIES OF SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

    I read the entire packet provided by Clallam County to each appointed member of the Advisory Committee for the SMP update.

    DID YOU?

    As a member of the Advisory Committee I urge you to read the following.

    In your Appointed position you have a responsibility to ALL citizens of Clallam County.

    The committee is made up of a very diverse group.

    Please, be a responsible member of the Advisory Committee.

    Pearl Rains Hewett (member of the Advisory Committee)

    ——————————————————————————–

    CHAPTER 6 – MASTER PROGRAM REVIEW AND AMENDMENT PROCESS

    6.01 GENERAL – It is recognized that changing public opinion, community needs and standards, new technology and information or other unforeseen changing conditions may justify and compel review and amendment to this master program. However, to insure that suggested changes are not arbitrary or oriented to individual advantage, any proposed amendments or additions to the master program shall follow a process similar to that utilized for amending the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Compliance with this process will assure formal public notice and public hearing(s) the opportunity for ample public involvement, assessment and recommendation by the County Planning Department’s professional staff and the County Shoreline Advisory Committee with final formal approval given the Board of County Commissioners, prior to submission to the Department of Ecology for official certification.

    For shoreline environment redesignations, the County’s shoreline inventory shall be updated for those areas affected within the six months preceding the public hearing on the proposed redesignation. The inventory update shall include mapping of shoreline use and ownership, natural features and resources as well as evaluation of federal, state and local plans and legislation and any other relevant factors.

    6.02 PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED – Before approving all or any part of the shoreline master program or any amendment, extension or addition thereto, the advisory committee shall hold at least one public hearing. For any major changes, hearings shall be held in Forks and Sequim as well as in Port Angeles.

    6.03 NOTICE OF HEARING – Notice of the time, place and purpose of any public hearing shall be given by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the County and in the official gazette, if any, of the County, at least ten days before the hearing.

    6.04 APPROVAL-REQUIRED VOTE-RECORD – The approval of the Shoreline Master Program, or of any amendment, extension or addition thereto shall be by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total members of the advisory committee. Such approval shall be by a recorded motion which shall incorporate the findings of fact of the committee and the reasons for its action and the motion shall refer expressly to the maps, descriptive, and other matters intended by the committee to costitute the plan or amendment, addition or extension thereto. The indication of approval by the committee shall be recorded on the map and descriptive matter by the signatures of the chairman and the secretary of the committee and of such others as the committee in its rules may designate.

    6.05 REFERRAL TO BOARD – A copy of the Shoreline Master Program or any part, amendment, extension of or addition thereto, together with the motion of the planning agency approving the same, shall be transmitted to the Board for the purpose of being approved by motion and certified.

    6.06 BOARD MAY INITIATE OR CHANGE — NOTICE – When it deems it to be for the public interest, or when it considers a change in the recommendations of the advisory committee to be necessary, the Board may initiate consideration of any change in or addition to the master program. The Board shall first refer the proposed plan, change or addition to the advisory committee for a report and recommendation. Before making a report and recommendation, the committee shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed change or addition. Notice of the time and place and purpose of the hearing shall be given by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the County and in the official gazette, if any, of the County, at least 10 days before the hearing.

    6.07 BOARD MAY APPROVE OR CHANGE — NOTICE – After receipt of the report and recommendations of the Shoreline Advisory Committee on the matters referred to in 6.06, or after the lapse of the prescribed time for the rendering of such report and recommendation by the committee, the Board may approve by motion and certify such change or addition without further reference to the committee: Provided, that the change or addition conforms either to the proposal as initiated by the County or the recommendation thereon by the Committee. Provided further, that if the Shoreline Advisory Committee has failed to report within a 90 day period, the Board shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed change or addition. Notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be given by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the County and in the official gazette, if any, of the County, at least 10 days before the hearing. Thereafter, the Board may proceed to approve by motion and certify the proposed master program or any part, amendment or addition thereto.

    —————————————————————————

    FULL TEXT

    Katie Krueger response Monday, May 02, 2011 8:49 AM

    Katie Krueger, staff attorney and policy analyst Quileute Natural Resources

    Monday, May 02, 2011 8:49 AM

    Subject: RE: County Shoreline Advisory Committee

    ————————————————————————————–

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Katie Krueger

    To: MEMBERS OF THE SHORELINE AVISORY COMMITTEE  ‘pearl hewett’ ; ; ‘Lear, Cathy’ ‘Gray, Steve’ ; ; jeff.stewart jkramer.consulting@gmail.com ; mclancy‘Merrill, Hannah’ ;

    Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 8:49 AM

    Subject: RE: County Shoreline Advisory Committee

    I just came back from a state bar meeting on Environmental Law in which two hours were dedicated to Shoreline Management Plan updates. It appears they can be litigious.   I am wondering what legal umbrella of protection Clallam County provides to its Advisory Committee. Is there any indemnification?   What if a measure passes by majority (51%) but I happen to be against its approval?  Am I drawn into the position of advocating it by being on the committee?  I missed the formative meeting on April 11 because I was out of state.  Was this discussed?

    I joined as a volunteer after getting the initiation and was honored to be able to provide this service to the county, but had every intention of rescuing myself from votes on properties outside Quileute concern and outside my area of knowledge. This, it appears, will be “no defense.”   I and Quileute would still be “involved” in decisions, as reps on the Committee.

    If I withdraw (and I can still represent Quileute with comments about our area or larger policy after withdrawal), this would seem to remove me and the Tribe from liability for Advisory Committee votes at large, but I miss out on being a part of this wonderful process.   So before I do, I would like to hear some answers to the questions raised, above.

    Katie Krueger, staff attorney and policy analyst

    Quileute Natural Resources

    —————————————————————————————-

    FULL TEXT Steve Grays Response Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 6:16 PM

    SENT AFTER RECEIVING Katie Krueger response Monday, May 02, 2011 8:49 AM

    Subject: RE: County Shoreline Advisory Committee

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Gray, Steve

    To: MEMBERS OF THE SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE; pearl hewett ; katie.n; Lear, Cathy ;;  jeff.stewart ; jkramer;mclancy Merrill, Hannah ;

    Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 6:16 PM

    Subject: RE: County Shoreline Advisory Committee

    All,

    The meeting summary will be emailed to Committee members and put on the web site by this Wednesday.  We are also working with the consultants to identify a date in July for the next Committee meeting.  July was the next targeted date for a Committee meeting because the Draft Inventory and Characterization Report will be completed and available for public review.

    In response to the  emails from members of the Committee, please note that the Shoreline Advisory Committee you are on is not responsible for holding the formal public hearings noted in Chapter 6 of existing Shoreline Master Program (SMP).  That will be the responsibility of the Clallam County Planning Commission as directed by the Board of Commissioners in the adopted public participation plan for the shoreline master program update.   I know it is somewhat confusing since Chapter 6 of the current Shoreline Master Program refers to a Shoreline Advisory Committee, which is the same name applied to the current Committee.  The current Shoreline Advisory Committee that was formed by invitation by the Department of Community Development is an important work group to provide input  to the Planning Commission and Board of Clallam County Commissioners on tough issues as this process moves forward.

    Based on questions received, I realize the role of the Committee and desired outcomes (e.g., formulating shared and different perspectives) needs further group discussion.  I will attempt to clarify the Committee role and the process further and get you that information in advanced of the next-meeting.  We will also add this issue as an agenda item at the July meeting to answer any remaining questions.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Gray

    Steve Gray, Planning Manager
    Clallam County Dept. of Community Development
    223 East Fourth Street, Suite 5
    Port Angeles, WA 98362-3015
    Phone: (360)417-2520; Fax: (360)417-2443
    sgray@co.clallam.wa.us

    ——————————————————————————————-

    AFTER THE SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAD BEEN CHANGED AND EXPLAINED,

    TO THE SO CALLED SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND  STEVE GRAY CLARIFIED THAT THE  RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WAS NULL AND VOID

    AND REFERRED TO AN IMPORTANT WORK GROUP  FOR THE PLANNING DEPT BY STEVE GRAY.

    ———————————————————————————

    WE RECEIVED A SPECIAL EMAIL FROM STEVE GRAY, WITH OUR NEW NAME

    THE SHORELINE COMMITTEE MEMBERS,

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Merrill, Hannah

    To: zSMPC

    Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:10 PM

    Subject: SMP Committee Meeting Poll & More

    ———————————————————————-

    Shoreline Committee Members,

    Committee Comments Between Meetings

    There is interest among Committee members to provide a forum to share and respond to comments between meetings.  At the same time, we want to respect everyone’s time and privacy in regards to email traffic.  To achieve both goals, and to allow the County to ensure all comments related to Committee business is part of the public record and accessible to everyone, we have set up and dedicated an email address for Shoreline Committee members to use to submit and share comments.  County staff will regularly check comments sent to this address and strive to post comments at least once a week on the Shoreline Committee Web Page already accessible from the County’s Shoreline Master Program Internet Site.

    The email address designated solely for the Shoreline Committee is:  SMPC@co.clallam.wa.usStarting May 20, 2011  (WITH CENSORSHIP) RELEVANT committee comments will be posted on the public Committee webpage:  http://www.clallam.net/RealEstate/html/adv-comm.htm.

    Regards,

    Steve Gray, Planning Manager
    Clallam County Dept. of Community Development
    223 East Fourth Street, Suite 5
    Port Angeles, WA 98362-3015
    Phone: (360)417-2520; Fax: (360)417-2443
    sgray@co.clallam.wa.us

    —————————————————————————-

    As with Katie, I joined as a volunteer after getting the invitation and I was honored to be able to provide this service to the county.