+menu-


  • Category Archives More Questions then Answers
  • SMP Update Eight Years of Frustration

    SMP UPDATE – EIGHT YEARS OF FRUSTRATION I submit this as a Clallam County 2017 SMP Update Public Comment Nov 2, 2017  Pearl Rains Hewett, previous member of the 2011 so called Clallam County Advisory Committee, still a Concerned Citizen of Clallam County WA

    And  to think Clallam County has been working on the SMP Update for eight years 2009-2017.

    And,  to think the city of Bellevue  has been working on their SMP Update for NINE years. And, Ecology has still not approved Bellevue SMP Update, on Nov  2, 2017 it is listed as Underway.

    The Clallam County SMP Update will have a significantly LARGER NEGATIVE impact on the economic development of  private property on the shorelines statewide significance rivers, lakes and streams IN OUR UNDEVELOPED COUNTY.

    Indeed,  Jul 20, 2013 THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD BEEN WORKING ON SHORELINE ISSUES FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.

    Nov 2, 2017,  Update on Bellevue WA SMP Update four years later

    State Review and Approval

    And,  to think the city of Bellevue  has been working on their SMP Update for NINE years. And, Ecology still has not approved Bellevue SMP Update, on Nov 1, 2017, it is listed as Underway.

    Bellevue

    Northwest

    Complete

    Underway

    Contact:
    Joe Burcar
    425-649-7145

     

    Who is Bellevue’s Joe Burcar? I’ll call him later today.

    WHAT IS CLALLAM COUNTY’S STATUS  ON THE DOE SMP UPDATE ON NOV 2, 2017?

    Click on the link below to find out.

    Status of Local Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) | Washington State …

    www.ecy.wa.gov › … › Shoreline Management home › SMP home

    Most local programs have not been fully updated in over 30 years. Local governments … All counties must update their Shoreline Master Programs. Some towns …

    —————————————————————————————

    HOW SMP THINGS WORK…  OR NOT

    Apr 30, 2014 BELLEVUE (ELECTED) COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS BY THE END OF MONDAY’S THIRD ROUND OF INFORMATIONAL SESSIONS PROVIDED BY STAFF ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF CREATING A SHORELINE MASTER PLAN THE CITY HOPES WILL PASS STATE MUSTER.

    BELLEVUE COUNCILMEMBER KEVIN WALLACE EXPRESSED HIS IRRITATION that the council has been briefed three times on shoreline master plan development, however, confusion about meeting DOE standards remains. He added there also needs to be more done to address private property rights in the plan.

    “That is not helpful in deciding how to regulate someone’s private property, whether there is a net loss of ecological functions,” he said.

    “SO, I JUST WANT TO LODGE MY PERSONAL FRUSTRATION. I’M JUST STUNNED THAT EVERY JURISDICTION IN THE STATE HAS TO GO THROUGH THIS AND DO THIS AND IN 2014 THE STATE OF THE LAW ON THIS IS SO UNCLEAR. … WHAT WE’RE BASICALLY LOOKING AT IS SOMEONE’S OPINION,” HE SAID.

    ———————————————————————————

    BELLEVUE THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER NINE YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    NOV 1, 2017, BELLEVUE’S SMP UPDATED IT IS LISTED AS UNDERWAY. PENDING DOE APPROVAL.

    —————————————————————————–

     Behind My Back | SMP Update-Six Years of Frustration

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/08/19/smp-update-six-years-of-frustration

    SMP UPDATE SIX YEARS OF FRUSTRATION I submit this as a Clallam County SMP Update Public Comment August 18, 2014 Pearl Rains Hewett Member of the Clallam County SMP …

    Posted on August 19, 2014 9:39 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    SMP UPDATE – SIX YEARS OF FRUSTRATION

    I submit this as a Clallam County SMP Update Public Comment

    August 18, 2014

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Member of the Clallam County SMP Update Committee

    Jul 20, 2013 THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING ON SHORELINE ISSUES FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.

    FROM MAR 12, 2008 TO AUG. 2014 – SIX YEARS

    This is a applicable, cautionary, documented historical  summary and it is,  my PUBLIC Clallam County SMP COMMENT on the pitfalls and frustration that ONE WA State  city council  and PLANNING COMMISSION has been experiencing for OVER 6 YEARS in attempting to update their DOE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN.

    ————————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    ————————————————————————–

    documented history

    ECOLOGY CONDUCTED AN INFORMAL REVIEW AND SENT A LETTER TO THE CITY CONTAINING COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS.

    Jul 20, 2013 THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING ON SHORELINE ISSUES FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.

    Jul 16, 2014 BELLEVUE Shoreline plan set for August 2014  public hearing

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC

    HEARING is to provide an opportunity to make written and oral comments regarding Council-requested variations that are being considered to the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program.

    —————————————————————–

    Please continue reading for the documented history (Mar 12, 2008)

    ———————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    —————————————————————————————————————————

    WHO IS ATTORNEY RICHARD SETTLE ? (I have added this information)

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    Richard L. Settle

    According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    While the DOE requires NO NET LOSS of existing ecological functions, Settle said that implies a tradeoff of development and restoration. He said there’s also an assumption that restoration doesn’t have to be immediate, and could take as long as 20 years depending on the development.

    He added there’s also confusion as to how far back in time restoration is supposed to match up with shoreline conditions.

    —————————————————————————————

    Dick has more than 40 years of experience assisting clients with matters related to land use, the environment, and municipal law. His experience includes the representation of landowners, developers, municipalities, and citizen groups in virtually all areas of state and local land use regulation before state and local agencies and trial and appellate courts.

    Dick was also recently singled out by the highly-regarded Chambers USA legal directory, which annually interviews firm clients. In addition to a top-ranking of Foster Pepper’s Land Use group, Chambers described Dick as “the leading scholar in land use” and noted for his “vast experience in land use laws and regulations.”

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    —————————————————————————————————————–

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC  HEARING is to provide an opportunity to make written and oral comments regarding Council-requested variations that are being considered to the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program.

    The Planning Commission SMP Update recommendation was the subject of a prior public hearing that was held on May 5, 2014.

    During the July 14, 2014  Study Session, staff presented additional information requested by the Council during the course of its in-depth review. This additional information was Council to identify variations to the  Planning Commission Recommendation that they wished to be considered during the second Public Hearing, and prior to development of the Final SMP Update package for submittal to the Department of Ecology. Variations requested by the Council for consideration by the public are described below.

    1.Public Access

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission

    recommendation would require public access (either physical or visual) to be provided as a component of new or expanded private recreation uses (such as yacht clubs, marinas and community clubs). This variation would build on the Planning Commission recommended requirement to provide public access to public uses (including parks, and transportation and utility infrastructure). A description of the Public Access variation under consideration by the City Council is included in

    Attachment A.

    2.Park Development.

    The Council- requested variation to the Planning Commission

    recommendation would permit all beach parks to be developed through an administrative permit approval process when a Master Plan had been previously adopted by the City Council.

    Under this variation, Meydenbauer Bay Park would be

    permitted in the same manner as other parks with Master Plans. A

    description of the Park Development variation under consideration by the City Council is presented in

    Attachment B.

    3.Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark.

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission recommendation would allow for the measurement of setbacks from a fixed elevation as a default, with the ability for applicants to obtain a site-specific determination if desired.

    The fixed elevation would be

    3 based on a lake study such as the one conducted for Lake Sammamish in 2004. This variation would also include  clarification that the fixed elevations would not be used for the purpose of establishing shoreline jurisdiction or determining the location of ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for the purpose of properly locating a new dock or bulkhead. A description of the variation under consideration by the City Council for Determination of OHWM is presented in.

    Attachment C.

    4.Setbacksand Vegetation Conservation. The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission setback recommendation would include a 50-foot  structure setback with the flexibility to reduce the setback and move toward the water through a series of menu options(or incentives). Existing structures on the site receive the benefit of a footprint exception to legally retain setbacks established by existing residential structures. A string test, allowing for setbacks to be reduced based on the location of structures on abutting properties, would also be included. Mitigation for potential loss of vegetation and vegetation retention would also be required. A description of the Setback and Vegetation Conservation variation under consideration by the City Council is presented in Attachment D.

    5.Residential Moorage.

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission residential moorage recommendation would increase the allowed moorage walkway width from four feet to five feet in the first 30 feet waterward of OHWM. Variations to the balance of the Planning Commission recommendation on this topic were not considered.

     City Council

    The City Council has held study sessions to consider the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program. Refer to the links below for council agenda materials and minutes on the topic.

    Planning Commission

    Residents and other stakeholders had multiple opportunities to provide feedback on the shoreline management update through Bellevue’s Planning Commission, residents who served as an advisory panel for the City Council.  The Planning Commission reviewed work products, provided input and guidance related to the development of goals, policies and regulations, and served as a preliminary approval board. Agendas for Planning Commission meetings in which the shoreline management update was addressed are available below.

    Response to Questions by the Washington Sensible Shoreline Alliance

    Responses to questions & requests collected between May & December of 2009

    ——————————————————————————-

    In 2003 the state revised its shoreline management guidelines to emphasize ecologically appropriate development and to reinforce the other goals of the act. by 2010.

    As a consequence, Bellevue has to update its shoreline regulations by 2010.

    Bellevue has been Updating their  SMP plan since March 12, 2008

    Aug 23, 2008  Boat tour to focus on shoreline issues The boat will sail promptly from Newport Shores Yacht Club (81 Skagit Key) at 1 p.m. on

    Saturday, Sept. 20, 2008,  with boarding beginning at 12:30. Members of the Bellevue City Council, city boards and commissions and staff from permitting agencies and local Indian tribes are also expected to attend.

    The three-hour tour is open to the public, but space is limited. (To inquire about the tour or to RSVP, please call 425-452-4392 or e-mail sltaylor@bellevuewa.gov.)

    —————————————————————————————

    Jul 20, 2013

    BELLEVUE SHORELINE PLAN ADVANCES

    Jul 20, 2013  The Bellevue City Council agreed on a two-prong strategy for updating the city’s Shoreline Master Program, and, ultimately, forwarding the plan to the state Department of Ecology for final review and approval.

    The shoreline plan is required by state law and provides a regulatory framework for managing shorelines in Washington. Local plans must be consistent with Ecology guidelines.

    THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING ON SHORELINE ISSUES FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.

    In May, the commission recommended that the council consider several components of the plan update that had been completed and posted online for review.

    ECOLOGY CONDUCTED AN INFORMAL REVIEW AND SENT A LETTER TO THE CITY CONTAINING COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS.

    On Monday, the council directed city staff to work with Ecology on the content of the commission’s recommendations and possibly narrow the range of issues that need to be resolved. COUNCIL MEMBERS ALSO DIRECTED STAFF TO BEGIN WORK TO FINALIZE THE REMAINING ELEMENTS OF THE SHORELINE PLAN UPDATE PRIOR TO FORMALLY SUBMITTING IT TO ECOLOGY. The council plans to review and discuss the plan update during a study session later this year.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    Mar 13, 2014

    COUNCIL TO DIGEST SHORELINE PLAN

    Mar 13, 2014 Bellevue city council members emphasized the importance of a strong public process Monday as they move through a series of presentations on the planning commission’s update to shoreline management regulations over the next four months.

    WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTING ITS UPDATED REGULATIONS AND RESTORATION PLAN,

    The council now will be briefed on the contents of the SMP over the next four months,

    with a review of recommended policies for shoreline overlay set for April 14, 2014

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Apr 30, 2014

    Council has more questions about shoreline plan

    —————————————————————————————

    Apr 30, 2014 BELLEVUE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS BY THE END OF MONDAY’S THIRD ROUND OF INFORMATIONAL SESSIONS PROVIDED BY STAFF ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF CREATING A SHORELINE MASTER PLAN THE CITY HOPES WILL PASS STATE MUSTER.

    The City Council was updated Monday on the cumulative impact analysis and HOW BELLEVUE’S PLAN WILL ATTEMPT TO SATISFY A REQUIREMENT THAT NO NET LOSS OF ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS occur during future development and redevelopment along the city’s jurisdictional shorelines. THIS CAME AHEAD OF A MAY 5 PUBLIC HEARING for the city’s shoreline master plan, which will eventually go to the Washington Department of Ecology for final approval.

    Sarah Sandstrom, fisheries biologist for the Watershed Company, told council members “NO NET LOSS” goes further than just ecological functions of a shoreline, and includes also preserving shoreline views for residents and assessing the amount of reasonable development that could occur in the next 20 years along Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish.

    With a majority of Bellevue’s shorelines already developed, Sandstrom said residential redevelopment will likely be the most common occurrence and some new single-family development.

    The plan involves taking a qualitative look at the issue of NET LOSS, she said, as it’s hard to quantify restoration when a dock, for example, requires a certain amount of native vegetation to offset its impact as part of an “ECOLOGICAL TRADEOFF.”

    “Shoreline residential development falls under an exemption,” said Sandstrom of the no net loss requirement. “So, individual demonstration of no net loss is not required for shoreline residential development or for most permits that are issued as shoreline substantial development permits.”

    That does not mean the city will not need to ensure there is no net loss of ecological function, she told council, but that it will not need to be proven independently by the permit applicant. The project would be checked against current regulations that should result in no net loss.

    Bulkheads — vertical concrete barriers along shorelines — will not be allowed to be replaced under the shoreline plan, which instead favors a rocky slope. Bulkheads, said Sandstrom, negatively affects wave reflection. Bulkheads would need to be determined the only feasible option to be used.

    Sandstrom said another concern is that the plan proposes residential setbacks of 25 feet, which is less than the existing median setback of 50 feet for Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington.

    “The potential for houses moving closer to the shoreline has potential impacts in terms of water quality, moving pollutant generating surfaces closer to the shoreline,” she said.

    Should redevelopment of properties occur using a 25-foot setback, Sandstrom said there is also the potential of obstructing the views from other properties than are 50 feet from the shoreline.

    One option proposed to prevent this is a common line or streamline setback, which would require a new or redeveloped property to use the average setback of the two properties adjacent to it.

    Whether all of the effort being put into the plan will satisfy how the DOE defines “NO NET LOSS” may only be known once the shoreline master plan is submitted. According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    ——————————————————————————-

    (I have added this information)

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    Richard L. Settle

    According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    —————————————————————————————

    Dick has more than 40 years of experience assisting clients with matters related to land use, the environment, and municipal law. His experience includes the representation of landowners, developers, municipalities, and citizen groups in virtually all areas of state and local land use regulation before state and local agencies and trial and appellate courts.

    Dick was also recently singled out by the highly-regarded Chambers USA legal directory, which annually interviews firm clients. In addition to a top-ranking of Foster Pepper’s Land Use group, Chambers described Dick as “the leading scholar in land use” and noted for his “vast experience in land use laws and regulations.”

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    ————————————————————————————————–

     

    While the DOE requires NO NET LOSS of existing ecological functions, Settle said that implies a tradeoff of development and restoration. He said there’s also an assumption that restoration doesn’t have to be immediate, and could take as long as 20 years depending on the development.

    He added there’s also confusion as to how far back in time restoration is supposed to match up with shoreline conditions.

    “It’s definitely not pre-European discovery,” he said.

    Councilmember Kevin Wallace expressed his irritation that the council has been briefed three times on shoreline master plan development, however, confusion about meeting DOE standards remains. He added there also needs to be more done to address private property rights in the plan.

    “That is not helpful in deciding how to regulate someone’s private property, whether there is a net loss of ecological functions,” he said. “So, I just want to lodge my personal frustration. I’m just stunned that every jurisdiction in the state has to go through this and do this and in 2014 the state of the law on this is so unclear. … What we’re basically looking at is someone’s opinion,” he said.

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Jul 16, 2014

    Shoreline plan set for August public hearing

    Jul 16, 2014 at 3:10PM Bellevue Mayor Claudia Balducci made it clear to City Council on Monday they had precious little time left to approve options for a draft shoreline management plan AHEAD OF AN AUGUST PUBLIC HEARING.

    COUNCIL MEMBERS PASSED IT BACK TO STAFF, CONFIDENT PUBLIC OPINION WILL CHANGE IT AGAIN.

    Public access

    The council passed forward direction to have the SMP expand public access to commercial shoreline properties that expand more than 20 percent, such as marinas and yacht clubs.

    LAND USE DIRECTOR CAROL HELLAND TOLD COUNCIL MEMBERS — CAUTIOUS OF VIOLATING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS — access can be limited if security risks are present, and may also only apply to visual access in some cases.

    Siding with yacht clubs and marinas, Councilmember Jennifer Robertson pointed out they do offer public access — as long as people pay for it.

    Park development options

    Council members have heard public comment asking them to side with the city’s planning commission’s recommendation that Meydenbauer Beach Park — slated to be Bellevue’s most expensive park redeveloped at more than $40 million — REQUIRE a conditional use permit ahead of construction. The Meydenbauer Bay Neighborhood Association argues it would require a public hearing and allow residents to be more involved in its development.

    The City Council decided since a master plan exists for Meydenbauer Bay Park, future construction would be dealt with through administrative permitting and does not require a CUP.

    High water mark

    Robertson told council members they were making the wrong decision when they voted to set the high-water mark at a static elevation using the Bellevue Lake Study, which sets it at 31.8 feet, but allows for individualized assessment.

    She said she spoke to a scientist who told her the study was flawed, using two standard deviations.

    Councilmember John Chelminiak said the state Department of Ecology will make the ultimate decision on the SMP, and the council can choose differently, BUT THE PLAN MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED.

    “It is the latest study that has been done, and it is consistent, at least with what Sammamish set,” Chelminiak said.”I’m ready to vote,”

    ROBERTSON SAID. “I’M GOING TO BE AN EMPHATIC ‘NO’ “

    Setbacks, buffers and vegetation conservation

    Council members passed through an option to allow flexible setbacks of 50 feet, which property owners can buy down to 25 feet if they follow a string test and provide adequate vegetation conservation using set menu options.

    Balducci said the planning commission recommendation for 50-foot setbacks with greenscape options would result in net loss of native vegetation, and that replacing it with lawns is not what SMP regulations should encourage.

    Robertson said the commission’s option should be considered, but require greenscape only be allowed for two-thirds of the area required for vegetative conservation. She said string tests and menu options requiring unsightly native vegetation goes too far.

    Council members agreed to move forward with the 50-foot setbacks, string test and menu options, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC COMMENT WILL MODIFY THOSE OPTIONS to lessen vegetation requirements and allow greenscape where appropriate.

    “I would agree, this goes overboard,” Chelminiak said.

    A draft of the SMP will be developed by city staff ahead of an Aug. 4 public hearing, after which the council WILL DIRECT STAFF AGAIN on Sept. 8, 2014 on what regulations should be submitted to the DOE for review.

    BRANDON MACZ,  Bellevue Reporter Staff Writer

     Mar 13, 2014 Bellevue city council members emphasized the importance of a strong public process Monday

    as they move through a series of presentations on the planning commission’s update to shoreline management regulations over the next four months.

     Mar 13, 2014  WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTING ITS UPDATED REGULATIONS AND RESTORATION PLAN,

    The council now will be briefed on the contents of the SMP over the next four months,

    with a review of recommended policies for shoreline overlay set for April 14, 2014

    and review of the cumulative impact analysis and light rail component on April 28 2014 .

    —————————————————————————————

    April 30, 2014 Updating the SMP plan — mainly unchanged since 1974 — also has been an

    AN AREA OF FOCUS BY THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION

    FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS,

     a process that was slated for completion in 2010

    April 30, 2014 Monday’s City Council study session laid out the progress of the planning commission,

     including fixes to a number of COMPLIANCY ISSUES within the SMP’s May 2013 draft FOLLOWING AN UNSOLICITED REVIEW BY the (DOE) Washington Department of Ecology, which has final say on approving the program.

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    The Clallam County SMP Update will have a significantly LARGER NEGATIVE impact on the economic development of  private property on the shorelines statewide significance rivers, lakes and streams IN OUR UNDEVELOPED COUNTY.

    Related Stories

     

    This entry was posted in A Man-made Disaster, Bang for their buck? Restoration, Clallam County SMP, Controlled by Non-Profits?, Demand Accountability, Diverting Our Tax Dollars, DUE PROCESS OF LAW, Economic Impact, Elected Officials, EPA UNFUNDED MANDATES, FACTS are troublesome things, Follow the Money, For The Record, If It’s not broken? Why PAY to fix it?, Legislated Economic Oppression, Man-Made Disasters, Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA), POLITICAL MANIPULATION, Politically Ignored, Politically Motivated, Private Property Rights, Public Access to Public land, Public Comments, Public Meetings, Public Servants, Rubber Stamped, Shoreline Management Plan, Taken by the “GRANTED”, The Ignorant Disruptive Public?, The Ignorant Uninformed Act?, The Money’s All Gone?, The We’s who WANT, WA State Dept. of Ecology

     


  • California’s Fire Protection Fee Laws?

    California’s Fire Protection Fee Laws?
    Are Cal Fire Protection Fee Laws like WA State Fire Protection Fees Laws?

    This posting and comment from Liz Bowen “Pie N Politics”
    Megafires Don’t Melt Opposition To California Fire Fee
    By Chris Nichols, Capital Public Radio, 9/17/15 prompted me to research, document and post a comment on WA State Fire Fees Protection laws.

    ——————————————————

    Behind My Back | What do WA State Fire Fees Pay For?

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/22/what-dowastatefirefeespay-for/

    1 day ago – I checked my Clallam County, WA State tax statement. … A LEGISLATED ACT OF FEE FI FOE FUM, AN ACT OF “OR ELSE” AND AN ACT OF PAY THE FEES “OR ELSE” … www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe–fum/.
    —————————————————————————————
     Californians and Washingtonians have a  lot in common when it comes to THE HORRENDOUS DEADLY, OUT OF CONTROL,  WILDFIRES BURNING IN OUR STATES. WE THE PEOPLE ARE REELING FROM THE LOSS OF AMERICAN LIVES …. THE LOSS OF FAMILY HOMES AND BUSINESS’S …

    AND, AMERICAN FAMILIES BEING FORCED TO EVACUATE AND ENDING UP LIKE DISPLACED FOREIGN REFUGEES.

    —————————————————————————–

    WILDFIRE FIGHTERS LAY THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE TO PROTECT WE THE PEOPLE.

    ——————————————————————-
    AT THE VERY LEAST…

    WE THE PEOPLE MUST DEMAND ANSWERS FROM OUR FEDERAL AND STATE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, REGARDING NOT ONLY THE FIRE FEES WE PAY FOR FIRE PROTECTION.

    BUT, WHY THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS FIDDLING WHILE THE WEST BURNS?

    ———————————————————————–

    Added for emphasis and clarity…

    Fiddle while Rome burns definition. To do something trivial and irresponsible in the midst of an emergency; legend has it that while a fire destroyed the city of Rome, the emperor Nero played his violin, thus revealing his total lack of concern for his people and his empire.
    ——————————————————————————–
    This is the full text of the New post on Pie N Politics
    Megafires Don’t Melt Opposition To California Fire Fee

    Comment from Stephen Frank
    Cal Fire Continues to Steal $$ From Rural Property Owners
    September 18, 2015
    For years the people in rural California has been paying hundreds of dollars a year to Cal Fire, for fire protection. It is as if their regular taxes had nothing to do with the fire fighters hired by the State to protect them. These folks sued and it will take years before a court will hear the case and a dozen more years before all the appeals are done. Then Sacramento bureaucrats will have close to twenty years of using your money—think they will ever give it back? Maybe by increasing taxes on everybody to pay for their theft.
    “Like many rural Californians, the Millers grudgingly pay the state an annual fire prevention fee of one hundred seventeen dollars. It was passed four years ago to help the state close a budget deficit. And even as the Butte and other mega-fires threaten their homes, rural residents say the mistrust over the fee lives on. Les Miller calls it a state cash grab.
    Les Miller: “They want more money, so they find a way to get it. Everybody is concerned about fire. So, they call it a fire fee.”

    Megafires Don’t Melt Opposition To California Fire Fee
    By Chris Nichols, Capital Public Radio, 9/17/15
    Rural Californians are reeling from yet another destructive fire season.
    But that doesn’t mean they now support a controversial fire fee imposed several years ago by legislative Democrats and Governor Jerry Brown. Chris Nichols reports from Sacramento.
    Bags stuffed with Betsy Miller’s family photos and quilting fabric sit ready to go in her Sierra foothills home. Miller and her husband, Les, are retirees who live in Amador County. The Butte Fire forced them to evacuate last week. Now, they’re back home. But they’re not unpacking.
    Betsy Miller: “Fires have a way of coming back.”
    Betsy Miller says she loves quilting too much to have her fabric go up in flames.
    Betsy Miller: “I want to pick and choose what I’m going to finish, not have a fire pick and choose what I’m going to finish.”
    Like many rural Californians, the Millers grudgingly pay the state an annual fire prevention fee of one hundred seventeen dollars. It was passed four years ago to help the state close a budget deficit. And even as the Butte and other mega-fires threaten their homes, rural residents say the mistrust over the fee lives on. Les Miller calls it a state cash grab.
    Les Miller: “They want more money, so they find a way to get it. Everybody is concerned about fire. So, they call it a fire fee.”
    A dozen homeowners here interviewed this week say they remain opposed because the money doesn’t help fight fires. It only helps prevent them.
    The Brown Administration declined comment. But a recent state report says the fee raises about $75 million dollars a year for efforts like identifying evacuation routes and clearing brush.
    Signs thanking firefighters dot highways across the foothills. But that gratitude doesn’t extend to the state leaders who imposed the fee. Vincent Campa also fled his home during the Butte Fire.
    Campa: “I’ve also had people frustrated with the fee, not being able to afford it, living on fixed incomes.”
    A taxpayers group has sued the state, alleging the fee is an unconstitutional tax. But a final ruling could take years.
    http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/cal-fire-continues-to-steal-from-rural-property-owners/
    ———————————————————————————

    WILDFIRE FIGHTERS LIVES MATTER.


  • Past and Present Drought in WA State

    History of Droughts in Washington State

    An interesting read on WA State DROUGHT PLANS

    BEFORE THE INSTREAM FLOW RULES.

    History of Droughts in Washington State_1977.pdf  A 43 page document

    ———————————————————————————–

    PRESENT DROUGHT PLANS FOR CITIZENS IN WA STATE?

    AFTER THE INSTREAM FLOW RULES?

    May 24, 2015  The WA statewide drought emergency PLAN?.

    Hmmm…  LAWMAKERS have yet to act on DOE’s request for $9.6 million in drought relief funds. The request came in late March, weeks after legislators began putting together spending plans.

    UPDATE: WHAT’S THE HOLDUP ON THE $9.6 MILLION IN DROUGHT RELIEF FUNDS?

    What’s the problem?

    WATER FOR CITIZENS IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR…

    IT’S A VALUE JUDGMENT

    At a drought committee meeting Monday, Honeyford reminded Stanford that he had been willing to embrace Stanford’s drought preparation bill in exchange for the House approving legislation to let the city of Lynden draw water from the Nooksack River in Whatcom County.

    Tribes and environmental groups oppose the bill, which passed the Senate.

    ————————————————————————-

    THE “CITIZENS  REVIEW” OF ECOLOGY’S DROUGHT PLANS IN WA STATE?

    What YOU can expect at a COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM?

    This  Report by Lois Krafsky-Perry
    for Citizen Review
    Posted Saturday, May 23, 2015

    Sequim/Dungeness community listens to drought concerns

    IT’S A MUST READ

    http://citizenreviewonline.org/sequimdungeness-community-listens-to-drought-concerns/

    CITIZENS REVIEW  is an online  resource for disseminating critical information to keep citizens informed

    —————————————————————————————————

    AS PROVIDED ABOVE BY LOIS…

    We the people have partners too….

    My website, behindmyback.org,  is dedicated to investigating, researching, documenting, UPDATING and disseminating critical information to help keep American citizens informed by posting and reporting things they don’t know. This is just one chapter in the book of revelations by Pearl Revere.

    ————————————————————————————————

     A 43 page document History of Droughts in Washington State_1977.pdf

    MEDIA Drought alert Sun., Feb. 6, 1977  

    WOW! THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    Dear Reader: On February 16, 1977, Governor Dixy Lee Ray established the “Governor’s … drought occurrences in the State of Washington since 1900. Various.

    OCR Text

    Northwest Officials ponder energy outlook By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Some nfflntnla HUn n*a« nn n_.. «-L. nn«<m.»». .i~-i_i_n.. M .-. THE DAILY NEWS—21 Angeles, Wash., Sun., Feb. 6, 1977

    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Nervous government weather- watchers are mobilizing for battle should a Pacific Northwest drought short-circuit electric power and whither crops this spring. Homeowners may be asked — or forced — to reduce their electrical use. During Christmas, Seattle City Light asked its 370,000 customers not to use outdoor decorative lighting. Further sacrifices may be around the corner if a serious drought occurs.

    —————————————————————————-

    MEDIA COVERAGE?   2015 WA STATE DROUGHT?  

    NOT SO MUCH..

    CAPITAL PRESS  Published:  

    Their full media report is  here

    Washington’s late reaction to drought revives legislation …

    www.capitalpress.com/Washington/…/washingtons-late-react

    Capital Press May 14, 2015 – A House bill to revise how the state prepares for a drought sank in the Senate, but may resurface in the special session.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Ecology’s  current drought report is sort of an interesting reading.

    Last revised: May 22, 2015

    Washington Drought 2015 | Washington State Department …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/drought/

    3 days ago – Washington State Weekly Drought Update – Office of Washington State … Current Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) % of Normal – View Map …

    ——————————————————–

    And more history…. a response from Ecology

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Marti, Jeff (ECY)

    To: pearl hewett

    Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 5:23 PM

    Subject: RE: History of Droughts in Washington State

    Pearl, good sleuthing.   1977 was indeed a bad drought year, which triggered the (still ongoing) Yakima water rights adjudication.

    Here’s a couple more reports that you might find interesting.

    Jeff

    ————————————

    Jeff Marti

    Water Resources Program

    360-407-6627

    jeff.marti@ecy.wa.gov

    2005 Drought Response Report to the Legislature

    www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0611001.html

    • 2005 Drought Response Report to the Legislature … While it is generally viewed as a climate anomaly, in fact drought is the dry part of the normal climate cycle.

    Drought Response 2001: Report to the Legislature

    www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0111017.html

    Author(s), Curt Hart. Description, This legislative report outlines how the state agencies responsible for managing Washington’s emergency drought activities .

    ——————————————————————————-

    History of Droughts in Washington State 1900 to 1977 etc…

    Title History of Droughts in Washington State
    Publication Type Report
    Year of Publication 1977
    Authors Staff, GAHEWEC
    Keywords climate, droughts, environment, historic, history, washington, water
    Title History of Droughts in Washington State
    Publication Type Report
    Year of Publication 1977
    Authors Staff, GAHEWEC
    Keywords climate, droughts, environment, historic, history, washington, water

     



  • SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    My SMP Public Comment #166

    Regarding the Undisclosed 32 page SMP document

    A  new summary of public comment document, undisclosed to the public, 32 page SMP document, generated for, to be used by and considered by, the Clallam County Planning Commission in their decision making process on the SMP Update Draft.

    Entitled: Summary of Comments Received (thru Feb 27, 2015) on the November 2014 Draft Shoreline Master Plan. (SMP) Clallam County Planning Commission Review Draft

    March 18, 2015:  This work session on the 2014 SMP Update is anticipated to be generally organizational.  The Planning Commission will be provided an updated summary of public comments “MATRIX” from written and oral comments received on the 2014 Draft SMP.  Both County staff and Planning Commission need time to read through the 160+ comments. (OF THE  617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE?) It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will initiate discussion on specific issue areas and comments received at their April regular meetings.

    ARE YOUR SMP PUBLIC OR ORAL COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE “NEW SMP 160+ MATRIX”?

    Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 9:33 AM

    I am requesting that this draft document be placed online and made public.

    —————————————————————————

    If you like SMP and other  Matrix Mumbo Jumbo? (continue reading)

    Mumbo Jumbo by definition, language or ritual causing or intended to cause confusion or bewilderment.

    Below is a running commentary

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    —————————————————————————————

    I sent an email asking ten (10) questions?

    Response? Public notification?

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP

    Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:35 PM

    Subject: SMP Update

    This work session on the 2014 SMP Update is anticipated to be generally organizational.  The Planning Commission will be provided an updated public comment matrix from written and oral comments received on the 2014 Draft SMP.  Both County staff and Planning Commission need time to read through the 160+ comments

    —————————————————————————————————————–

    Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 9:33 AM

    Subject: Undisclosed 32 page SMP document

    The undisclosed SMP Clallam County document is a 32 page summary of SMP written public comments received from Aug 18, 2014 thru Feb 27, 2015, on the November 2014 Draft Shoreline Master Program. (SMP) Clallam County Planning Commission Review Draft.

    Was this SMP Summary draft on the Agenda for the March 4, 2015 public meeting?

    It was a handout at a public meeting on March 4, 2015 and it is not on line for Public viewing?

    There is no authors name on the document? There is no accountability as to what Clallam County government agency or other legal entity requested that the document to be created?

    Who is responsible for this 32 page summary?

    It has? (SMP) – Clallam County Planning Commission Review Draft?

    Did the DCD director Mary Ellen Winborn ask for this document?

    Did the Planning Commission Members take a vote and request that it be written?

    Who wrote the document?

    Did DCD Steve Grey Deputy Director and Planning Manager just decide by himself to provide this undisclosed summary document at the taxpayer’s expense?

    I am requesting that this draft document be placed online and made public.

    RCW 42.30.130

    The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

    RCW 42.30.130

    Violations.— Mandamus or injunction Any person may commence an action either by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of stopping violations or preventing threatened violations of this chapter by members of a governing body.

    PUBLIC SERVANTS   ARE ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES

    All public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof.

    —————————————————————————————–

    Does Clallam County Government accept that the  common law Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies to  the 3300 – local vested private shoreline property owning effected and the other concerned Clallam County citizens and business on the Public SMP Update?

    The members of the public, citizens that requested To receive information regarding the SMP Update,  click “Email Us“to the left. Type “Add to Contact List” in subject line. Or call:  360-417-2563 WERE NOT CONTACTED OR NOTIFIED.

    The 32 page summary of SMP comments was offensive to say the very least.

    Please respond to my questions

    One of the 3300 SMP effected/affected private shoreline property owners. Author of 165 SMP public comments, submitted between 2011 and 2015, for the protection of private property in Clallam County, including business, community development, to protect and improve the economic viability of an 11% tax basis in Clallam County

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————————————————-

    More From: zSMP

    Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:35 PM

    Brief discussion on March 4, 2015.  No action was taken at this meeting.  The Planning Commission was provided notebooks containing written comments received August 2014 – February 27, 2015.  These comments include those public comments received after the November 5, 2014 public release of the 2014 Draft SMP, through the Planning Commission February public hearing process, and extended public comment period (thru February 27, 2015).  The Planning Commission was also provided with a partial DRAFT written comment summary matrix of the written comments received between August 2014 – February 27,2015.  No discussion on specific comments was initiated at this time.  Oral public testimony provided is in the Planning Commission meeting minutes.

    ———————————————————————————————-

    SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    March 18, 2015:  This work session on the 2014 SMP Update is anticipated to be generally organizational.  The Planning Commission will be provided an updated public comment “MATRIX” from written and oral comments received on the 2014 Draft SMP.  Both County staff and Planning Commission need time to read through the 160+ comments. (OF THE  617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE?) It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will initiate discussion on specific issue areas and comments received at their April regular meetings.

    ARE YOUR SMP PUBLIC OR ORAL COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE “NEW SMP 160+ MATRIX”?

    Wednesday, March 18, 2015 commencing at 6:30 p.m. in the Board Room at the Clallam County Courthouse

    —————————————————————————————————-

    The Planning Commission is charged with providing a recommendation to the Board of Clallam County Commissioners on a Draft SMP.  UPCOMING WORK BY THE CLALLAM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL FOCUS ON REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE 2014 DRAFT SMP.  Here is their upcoming meeting schedule:

    March 18, 2015:  This work session on the 2014 SMP Update is anticipated to be generally organizational.  THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE PROVIDED AN UPDATED PUBLIC COMMENT “MATRIX” FROM WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE 2014 DRAFT SMP.  Both County staff and Planning Commission need time to read through the 160+ comments.  It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will initiate discussion on specific issue areas and comments received at their April regular meetings.

    —————————————————————————————

    http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/617_KSpees.pdf

    THERE ARE 617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE

    And, somebody? prepared an SMP public oral and written comments  “matrix” On 160+ of the 617+?

    One must ask what is the definition of a matrix?

    “matrix”  by definition, A situation or surrounding substance within which something else originates, develops, or is contained: matrix. Mathematics A rectangular array of numeric or algebraic quantities subject to mathematical operations, something (such as a situation or a set of conditions) in which something else develops or forms. : something shaped like a pattern of lines and spaces.

    “matrix” quantities subject to mathematical operations?

    617 SMP public comments? 160 + SMP written and oral comments to be reviewed?

    “matrix” Such as a situation or a set of conditions?

    Like the 457 SMP written Public Comments left out of the “matrix” mathematical operation? And? Who know’s how many oral comments?

    “SMP matrix” Indeed, something shaped like a PATTERN…..

    ————————————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | A Thousand Wrongs? One Right?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/09/17/2757/

    Sep 17, 2014 – Specifically, The THOUSAND (1000) WRONGS that I am … UNDER AN EXPEDITED RULE- MAKING … full text on behindmyback.org.

    ————————————————————————-

    I have never been a fan of “New Math” and, I certainly object to this SMP Matrix Mumbo Jumbo,  language or ritual causing or intended to cause confusion or bewilderment).

    Am I? the only one of the 3300 Vested, Private Shoreline property owners  that are bewildered and or confused by this SMP matrix of written and oral public comments?

    Is this NEW SMP matrix, prepared by somebody?  intended  to be ambiguous? biased? unfair? capricious? frivolous?  and confusing?

    I am just one of the affected 3300 Vested, Private Shoreline property owners, that just happened to have submitted 165 written SMP update public comments and lord only knows, how many public oral comments on the SMP Update during the years I have spent, as a concerned citizen from Jan.26, 2011 to March 18, 2015,

    Plus oral and written comments during my volunteer time served,  as an important member of the citizens input committee (as described by and serving under Steve Gray, Planning Manager)

    I’m not a lawyer or an attorney,   I am JUST ONE of the affected 3300 Vested, Private Shoreline property owners, that shall be severely impacted and profoundly affected by the SMP 2014 Update.

    Thank God and the US Constitution for freedom of speech, I am Just asking?

    What was the legislated intent of the WA State Appearance of Fairness Doctrine? Does this apply to the local land use decisions being made on the Clallam County 2014 SMP Update?

    ——————————————————————-

    42.36.010
    Local land use decisions.

    Application of the appearance of fairness doctrine to local land use decisions shall be limited to the quasi-judicial actions of local decision-making bodies as defined in this section. Quasi-judicial actions of local decision-making bodies are those actions of the legislative body, planning commission, hearing examiner, zoning adjuster, board of adjustment, or boards which determine the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties in a hearing or other contested case proceeding. Quasi-judicial actions do not include the legislative actions adopting, amending, or revising comprehensive, community, or neighborhood plans or other land use planning documents or the adoption of area-wide zoning ordinances or the adoption of a zoning amendment that is of area-wide significance.

    42.36.060
    Quasi-judicial proceedings — Ex parte communications prohibited, exceptions.

    During the pendency of any quasi-judicial proceeding, no member of a decision-making body may engage in ex parte communications with opponents or proponents with respect to the proposal which is the subject of the proceeding unless that person:

    (1) Places on the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications concerning the decision of action; and

    (2) Provides that a public announcement of the content of the communication and of the parties’ rights to rebut the substance of the communication shall be made at each hearing where action is considered or taken on the subject to which the communication related. This prohibition does not preclude a member of a decision-making body from seeking in a public hearing specific information or data from such parties relative to the decision if both the request and the results are a part of the record. Nor does such prohibition preclude correspondence between a citizen and his or her elected official if any such correspondence is made a part of the record when it pertains to the subject matter of a quasi-judicial proceeding.

    [1984 c 191 § 1; 1982 c 229 § 6.]

    ———————————————————————————–

    The 2014 Clallam County SMP Update is the is the most restrictive Local land use decisions that has  ever been inflicted on 3300 Clallam County Vested, Private Shoreline property owners.

    ARE YOUR SMP PUBLIC OR ORAL COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE “SMP 160+ MATRIX”?

    ————————————————————————————-

    Just saying…concerned citizens better bone up on the definition of this new DEFINITE catch-all word Clallam County government “MATRIX” concept, it is also being used by the Home Rule Charter Commission.

    DEFINITE  by definition, clearly defined or determined; not vague or general; fixed; precise; exact: a definite quantity; definite directions. 2. having fixed limits; bounded with precision:.

    Now I’ve gone and done it… an Oxymoron….

    ——————————————————————————————————————–

    Back to the Agenda..

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP

    Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:35 PM

    Subject: SMP Update

     

    ·         April 1, 2015:  Work Session before the Planning Commission on public comments received on 2014 Draft SMP.

    ·         April 15, 2015:  Continued Planning Commission work session on the 2014 Draft SMP.

    ·         May/June, 2015:   Planning Commission agenda and issue area focus related to the 2014 Draft SMP to be determined based on work and progress made at April meetings.

    Planning Commission agendas can be viewed at:  http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/pcmeetings.html

    For more information, visit the County SMP Update Home Page at:   http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/smp.html

    Thank you again for your interest.

    Staff Contacts:

    Steve Gray, Planning Manager:  360-417-2520

    Kevin LoPiccolo, Principal Planner:  360-417-2322

    Deborah Kucipeck, Planner: 360-417-2563

     


  • SMP Public Comment #164

    I resubmit this SMP Public Comment as  #164

    FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    In answer to posted SMP Public Comment “so many questions”

    Why not help the 3300 shoreline private property owners?

    I have researched and documented, I have answers.

    You, Clallam County DCD have not responded to their posted question? YET?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    —– Original Message —– Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:43 AM

    Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:43 AM
    Subject: FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    I submit this as my SMP comment

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

     

    FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    • snippets
    •  Some documentation is from MARCH 15, 2011, 6:57 P.M. ET
    • ·         1. FEMA  flood specific
    • ·         2. Earthquake specific
    • ·         3. DIC INSURANCE COVERAGE
    • ·         4. Generic specific homeowners insurance

     

    1. FEMA  flood specific

    The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA) manages the NFIP.

    National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    Flood coverage costs an average of $570 a year, up 4% from 2009. And those costs are expecting to keep rising, says Drew Woodbury, an equity analyst covering insurance at Morningstar.

    Over 10 years, flood insurance premiums could cost up to $27,340, for a high-risk home with $250,000 in coverage to rebuild the house and $100,000 to cover the contents, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency

    Drew Woodbury, an equity analyst covering insurance at Morningstar.

    On top of that, a proposal in Congress could also boost annual premiums by as much as 20% as part of a plan to overhaul the federal government’s flood insurance program, itself

    (FEMA )underwater by $18 billion.

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    My comment is, the wider the DOE SMP Clallam County flood plains,  the more private property owners will be required  to pay for this.

     If MITIGATION is your middle name? You are probably a government agency.

    Of course, CLALLAM COUNTY HOMEOWNERS can also avoid these expenses by moving to less disaster-prone areas. Individuals can research the country’s earthquake and FLOOD ZONES  for CHEAPER places to live.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————-

     2. Earthquake specific

     Earthquake insurance premiums jumped by as much as 58% in some regions, says Mike Chaney, commissioner of insurance for Mississippi.

    —————————————————————————-

     Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner.

    snippet

    Home policies typically don’t cover quakes

    While insurance policies with earthquake coverage are fairly easy to obtain, they have extremely high deductibles, high premiums and offer relatively little coverage, leaving some to wonder whether earthquake insurance is actually worth the price.

    “There is widespread belief among homeowners that earthquake insurance is included in their policy, but it almost never is. It’s an add-on that you have to buy. Most homeowners are just not covered,” says Rich Roesler to Insurancequote.com. Roesler is a spokesman for the Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner.

    ———————————————————————

    snippet

    California Earthquake Authority (CEA)

    CEA Premiums based on science, not profit.

    Per my research consultant, earth quakes are policy specific insurance.

     Earth movement, like slides, mud slides, caused by water or erosion, or your home sliding off of a Clallam County priority feeder bluff (PFB), are NOT Covered.

    See DIC insurance below.

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    3. DIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    (Difference in Conditions Coverage)

    Per my research consultant, DIC insurance covers devastating, catastrophic damage to your private property. DIC gives you insurance coverage, that is not  covered on any of your other policy specific insurance policies.

    AN EXAMPLE OF DIC INSURANCE POLICY COVERAGE ON A CLALLAM COUNTY PRIORITY FEEDER BLUFF

    The insured house is on a Clallam County Priority Feeder Bluff

    The house is valued at $700,000.00

    The yearly premium for DIC insurance coverage on that property is $2600.00

    This DIC insurance policy DOES cover earth movement, like slides, mud slides, caused by water and/or erosion, AND it DOES insure your home if  it slides off of a Clallam County Priority Feeder Bluff (PFB)

     ———————————————————————————————————————

    4. Generic specific homeowners insurance

    My research consultant , advises you to read your homeowners policy, you will never know what is covered if you don’t read your policy.

    ———————————————————————————————————————

     

    • MARCH 15, 2011, 6:57 P.M. ET
    • Do You Need Disaster Insurance?

    By ANNAMARIA ANDRIOTIS

    The earthquake and tsunami in northern Japan has prompted homeowners everywhere to double-check their coverage. But those who decide that more coverage will help them sleep better may find an unpleasant surprise: Premiums are expected to spike.

    The costs of earthquake insurance and flood coverage were already climbing, even before the disaster in Japan (and that, analysts say, won’t help pricing either). Earthquake insurance premiums jumped by as much as 58% in some regions, says Mike Chaney, commissioner of insurance for Mississippi. They now costs anywhere from $100 to $3,000 annually depending on where you live. Flood coverage costs an average of $570 a year, up 4% from 2009. And those costs are expecting to keep rising, says Drew Woodbury, an equity analyst covering insurance at Morningstar.

    What’s driving the uptick? Insurance premiums move up after more claims are filed, and over the past few years U.S. homeowners have filed thousands of claims related to the series of hurricanes in the South and Midwest, says Chaney. Another jump in claims is expected next year if more devastating hurricanes and other natural disasters occur. On top of that, a proposal in Congress could also boost annual premiums by as much as 20% as part of a plan to overhaul the federal government’s flood insurance program, itself underwater by $18 billion.

    These higher premiums come just as natural disasters are happening more frequently, says David Neal, director at Oklahoma State University’s Center for the Study of Disasters and Extreme Events. There is now a 50% chance that at least one major hurricane will hit the East Coast this year, up from 31% historically, according to a study from Colorado State University. Earthquakes are also becoming more common: On average, 15 magnitude-7 earthquakes occur worldwide each year, says Dr. Harley Benz, a seismologist at the U.S. Geological Survey. But in 2010, that number spiked to 21, and already this year there have been seven, according to the USGS.

    Not every homeowner needs the extra coverage. But while basic homeowners’ insurance usually protects again fire and lighting, it often doesn’t cover floods, earthquakes and other natural disasters. Consumers instead need to purchase additional policies. One thing to consider, say experts: Do you stand to lose more paying premiums every year or saving that money to possibly pay for repairs should a disaster occur? Over 10 years, flood insurance premiums could cost up to $27,340, for a high-risk home with $250,000 in coverage to rebuild the house and $100,000 to cover the contents, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which runs the National Flood Insurance Program. The typical cost to repair a basement after a flood of six inches is about $25,000, not including the cost of replacing furniture, appliances or belongings, according to FEMA.

    Of course, homeowners can also avoid these expenses by moving to less disaster-prone areas. Individuals can research the country’s earthquake and flood zones for safer places to live. Also, before moving, check with a lender; most will tell borrowers they’re moving into a high-risk flood zone and make sure they sign up for flood insurance.

     


  • SMP Public Comment #163

    I resubmit this as my SMP Public Comment #163

    Buying and selling non-conforming homes

    SMP critical areas, setbacks, buffers, wetlands and NON-CONFORMING property.

    Previously posted SMP Public Comment #254 Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:13 AM

    In answer to posted SMP Public Comment “so many questions”

    Why not help the 3300 shoreline private property owners?

    I have researched and documented, I have answers.

    You, Clallam County DCD have not responded to their posted question? YET?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    —————————————————————————————-

     snippet, full text below

    What you may want to be concerned about is the decrease in value of the waterfront lots, parcels with wetlands and future non-conforming underdeveloped properties and their subsequent impact to not only you directly, but also to our tax rolls and the revenues that our county services depend upon.

    ———————————————————–

    A very brief overview of Tort Law

    The prima facie case for negligence requires:

    Duty is owed to the plaintiff by the defendant
    Breach of the Duty
    Causation: The defendant caused the harm to occur.
    Damages: The plaintiff suffers harm.

    ——————————————————————-

     General Advice: In the old days, we use to advise clients that waterfront homes and anything with a dock would appreciate at the highest rate in our market. We would say “buy waterfront, and lots of it”.

    Unfortunately, due to the Critical Area Ordinance update we have had to change what we recommend. We now must caution buyers on the purchase of waterfront lots, parcels with wetlands, and those homes or cabins that are underdeveloped and may become non-conforming should the update increase the buffers to undesirable levels and make a high percentage of the buffer “no touch”. Homes that are already developed to their highest and best use, such as a large waterfront home, with guest house and dock, in all likelihood should increase in value since you may not be able to create those improvements or have those views in the future. As those homes are already in place, you won’t be concerned over the non-conforming growth restrictions as contained in the current regulations; however, the next owner may have wanted to expand the home.

    ————————————————————
    Posted on line as SMP Public comment #254

    I would like to comment and make a suggestion on future DOE SMP questionnaires used at Clallam County Public Forums.  I suggest the following questions, in order, by priority.

    1. Are you attending this forum to find out how your private property will be affected by the proposed SMP Update?

    2. Are you concerned about the proposed marine and freshwater, critical areas, shoreline setbacks and buffer zones?

    3. Do you want to know  the percentage of your property that will become non-conforming under the proposed setbacks and buffers?

    4.Do you know the difference between grandfathered and non-conforming?

    5.Do you want to know what affect the term non-conforming will have on your property?

    6. Are you concerned about how the term non-conforming will affect your property value?

    7. Do you want more information on the mitigation process for non-conforming homes/property?

    ———————————————————————————————

    3/01/15 PLUS THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

    Buying and selling DOE SMP non-conforming shoreline property?

    Documentation on policy from local lending institutions?

    RESEARCH

    1. 5/ 01/12  I spent 45 minutes being transferred, from one person to another, and finally spoke to a loan officer, at my bank(of 30 years). He was sympathetic, he used to live in Port Townsend. He had information on non-conforming loans, but no information on loans on non-conforming property. He suggested I talk with the president of my local bank branch.

    2. 5/02/12  I drove to and talked with the local bank manager. There is only one loan officer for this bank, in this area, located at the Sequim Branch.

    3. 5/02/12  I drove from PA to Sequim and the loan officer and I talked for over 30 minutes. She was very helpful. She lives on a local marine bluff.

    4. 5/03/12 called another local bank loan officer indicated she was not qualified to answer my question. I was given the bank’s Mortgage Director’s phone number.

    5. 5/04/12 Mortgage director returned my call, after a 30 minute conversation. She said only the information recorded with the auditor’s office shows up on applications for home loans.

     

    Bottom line Q’s and A’s

    I asked if she could give me anything in writing regarding the buying and selling of DOE SMP non-conforming shoreline property?

    The bank’s Mortgage Director answer was, not without writing it up, sending it to corporate headquarters and having it reviewed and approved by their attorneys.

     

    GENERIC STATEMENTS

    Home mortgages are never black and white.

    DOE SMP  setbacks and buffers ARE.

    Mitigation is always a grey area.

    Times have changed, with all of the foreclosures and bank ownership of homes, all applications for home loans are under more scrutiny.

    Appraiser’s may RED FLAG the appraisal for your home loan application.

    ————————————————————————————————

    BACK TO THE POSTED  online  SMP Public Comment #254 (full text)

    Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:13 AM

    To: zSMP; sgrey@co.Clallam.wa.us; Miller, Sheila Roark

    Cc: Karl Spees; Jay Petersen; McEntire

    , Jim; lois Perry; marv chastain; harry bell

    Subject:

    REAL ESTATE MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

     

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    I submit this as my comment on the SMP Update

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

     

    The good news is

    There are compliments all around for staff and consultants regarding the handling of the SMP Advisory Committee meetings.

    Thank you for compiling and disclosing the statistics on the setbacks and buffers on the marine SED  priority feeder bluffs.

     

    The bad news is

    SAN JUAN ISLAND REAL ESTATE MARKET SUMMARY (full text follows)

    Spring 2012 Issue, SMP critical areas, setbacks, buffers, wetlands and NON-CONFORMING property.

    What you may want to be concerned about is the decrease in value of the waterfront lots, parcels with wetlands and future non-conforming underdeveloped properties and their subsequent impact to not only you directly, but also to our tax rolls and the revenues that our county services depend upon.

     

     

    I would like to comment and make a suggestion on future DOE SMP questionnaires used at Clallam County Public Forums.  I suggest the following questions, in order, by priority.

     

    1. Are you attending this forum to find out how your private property will be affected by the proposed SMP Update?

    2. Are you concerned about the proposed marine and freshwater, critical areas, shoreline setbacks and buffer zones?

    3. Do you want to know  the percentage of your property that will become non-conforming under the proposed setbacks and buffers?

    4.Do you know the difference between grandfathered and non-conforming?

    5.Do you want to know what affect the term non-conforming will have on your property?

    6. Are you concerned about how the term non-conforming will affect your property value?

    7. Do you want more information on the mitigation process for non-conforming homes/property?

     

    SAN JUAN ISLAND REAL ESTATE MARKET SUMMARY

    Merri Ann Simonson

    Managing Broker

    Sales Manager

    simonson@sanjuanislands.com

    General Advice: In the old days, we use to advise clients that waterfront homes and anything with a dock would appreciate at the highest rate in our market. We would say “buy waterfront, and lots of it”.

    Unfortunately, due to the Critical Area Ordinance update we have had to change what we recommend. We now must caution buyers on the purchase of waterfront lots, parcels with wetlands, and those homes or cabins that are underdeveloped and may become non-conforming should the update increase the buffers to undesirable levels and make a high percentage of the buffer “no touch”. Homes that are already developed to their highest and best use, such as a large waterfront home, with guest house and dock, in all likelihood should increase in value since you may not be able to create those improvements or have those views in the future. As those homes are already in place, you won’t be concerned over the non-conforming growth restrictions as contained in the current regulations; however, the next owner may have wanted to expand the home. What you may want to be concerned about is the decrease in value of the waterfront lots, parcels with wetlands and future non-conforming underdeveloped properties and their subsequent impact to not only you directly, but also to our tax rolls and the revenues that our county services depend upon.

    Spring 2012 Issue

    Real Estate News—Page Two

     

     

     

     

     


  • Over 70 K-12 School Shootings?

    After over 70 K-12 School Shootings in America?

     After the Oct.24, 2014 Marysville WA School Shooting

    Herman Williams a Tulalip tribal executive, said “We must find out why this is happening and  a way to stop it.” (I can’t find his exact quote)

    ———————————————————————

    TODAY,  WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2014 IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING……

    THE FEDERAL EXPERTS TRAINING  PLAN  TO PREVENT SCHOOL SHOOTINGS

    ————————————————————————————

    K-12 SCHOOL THREAT ASSESSMENT & THREAT MANAGEMENT

    —————————————————————————————

    TODAY,  WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2014

    WHAT IS THE PLAN IN WASHINGTON STATE?

    ————————————————————————————–

    BEHAVIOR THREAT ASSESSMENT SUMMIT – STATE OF ILLINOIS

    www.state.il.us/iema/training/behaviorsummit

    Wednesday, November 5, 2014 – 8:00am-5:00pm. Registration will be …. School (K12) and Campus Behavioral Threat Assessment Training. 9:00a – 12:00p.

    K-12 SCHOOL THREAT ASSESSMENT & THREAT MANAGEMENT:

    SINCE 2000, FEDERAL AGENCIES including

    1. THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

    2. U.S. SECRET SERVICE, and

    3. FBI HAVE RECOMMENDED

     THAT K-12 SCHOOLS DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT BEHAVIORAL THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAMS TO PREVENT SCHOOL SHOOTINGS AND OTHER SCHOOL VIOLENCE.

    This course provides instruction in school threat assessment best practices, guidance in developing and operating an effective school threat assessment team,

    strategies to allow information sharing, and hands-on experience

    4. using the recommended U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION /  U.S. SECRET SERVICE threat assessment procedures in several tabletop exercises.

    5. This course will be instructed by Marisa Randazzo, Ph.D., former chief research PSYCHOLOGIST,

     U.S. SECRET SERVICE.

    http://www.state.il.us/iema/training/behaviorsummit/

    ———————————————————————————–

    WHY QUESTION THIS FEDERAL RESEARCH PSYCHOLOGIST BEHAVIORAL THREAT ASSESSMENT?

    For more than a decade Some 90 PERCENT OF SCHOOL SHOOTINGS BY BOYS, have been linked to a widely prescribed type of antidepressant called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

     There is no BLOOD TEST, NO single medical, physical, or other test for diagnosing ADD/ADHD.

    Drugging American MALE, BOYS WITH High doses of the drug methylphenidate(Ritalin) HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY SOLUTIONS to school shootings.

     ———————————————————————————————–

    TIME FOR A NEW PLAN?

    GETTING PHYSICAL WITH SCHOOL SHOOTINGS

    PUBERTY IS A PHYSICAL FACT

    TESTOSTERONE LEVELS  ARE A PHYSICAL FACT

    100% of all K-12 school shooters are boys, males.

    100% of K-12 school shooters are going through puberty

    100% of K-12 school shooters are producing  testosterone

     —————————————————————–

    MALE Puberty, Testosterone

    Earlier, later PUBERTY MAY TRIGGER AGGRESSION IN BOYS, researchers find

    Date May 3, 2010 Source: Penn State

    Puberty that arrives earlier or later in adolescent boys relative to their peers CAN TRIGGER CHEMICALS that are related to antisocial behavior, ACCORDING TO RESEARCHERS, whose findings have key implications for parents with aggressive boys.

    ——————————————————————–

    Conclusions: There is a link between T, DHT and EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIOR IN MALE ADOLESCENTS AT RISK FOR PSYCHOPATHOLOGY. Due to the findings of highest androgen levels in boys with persistent externalizing behavior, a role of androgens in the development of DISRUPTIVE or later antisocial disorders CAN BE HYPOTHESIZED.

    ————————————————————————————-

    THE HIGHEST SERUM TESTOSTERONE LEVEL OCCURS IN THE MORNING AT AROUND 8.00 A.M.

    MOST SCHOOL SHOOTINGS OCCUR IN THE MORNING.

    HYPOTHESIZE THIS

    to be continued…

     

     


  • Against the Law to try to Protect One’s Health?

    Against the Law to try to Protect One’s Health?

    ON THE BASIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS IF THE FACILITIES MEET FCC STANDARDS FOR EMISSIONS?

    ————————————————————————————

    The Telecommunications Act of 1996?

    and its consequences?

    The Act denigrates health concerns by assuming that FCC standards for electromagnetic emissions will protect the public health.

    Denigrates by definition, to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame: to denigrate. to treat? or represent? as lacking in value? or importance? belittle; disparage: PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS?

    —————————————————————————

    read the full document http://rense.com/general81/emfs.htm 

    Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D.

    At present, in the so-called “democratic” USA, the “Telecommunications Act of 1996” ­ an undemocratic and unconstitutional US law on the books ­

    Prohibits communities to legally object to the erection of cell phone towers on the basis of health or environmental concerns.

    This hence MAKES IT AGAINST THE LAW TO TRY TO PROTECT ONE’S HEALTH OR THE HEALTH OF THE ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE FOUND IT MORE IMPORTANT TO PROTECT THE MOBILE-PHONE INDUSTRY’S PROFITS. 

    The Act also specifically prohibits states and local governments from regulating the placement and construction of communications facilities, like antennas and towers,

    ON THE BASIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS IF THE FACILITIES MEET FCC STANDARDS FOR EMISSIONS.

    The Act pays lip service to the importance of local zoning regulation, sufficient to encourage litigation, but without any genuine recognition of the importance of a homeowner’s property values, peace of mind, and, particularly, health concerns.

    THE ACT DENIGRATES HEALTH CONCERNS by assuming that FCC standards for electromagnetic emissions will protect the public health. That assumption [was] premature, given the large amount of ongoing scientific research on the subject and the lack of clear conclusions.

    The Congressional Conference Report indicates that the Act preempts state and local regulation of the environmental effects of electromagnetic emissions when it has requirements beyond those of FCC rules.

    This preemption discourages states from doing their own research on the health effects of these emissions because they cannot rely on the results in formulating regulations. That result does a disservice to the public.

    THE FCC, IN PROMULGATING ITS RULES SETTING A SPECIFIC ABSORPTION RATE LIMIT FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC EMISSIONS AT FOUR WATTS PER KILOGRAM,

    Noted that  research in this area related to human health and safety is ongoing and that changes to recommended exposure limits are possible in the future.

    With that admitted uncertainty, it is unreasonable to limit what states and local governments may do to protect their residents. (Martin)

    This extremely undemocratic law is outright morally wrong ­ and moreover is not only a clear violation of the right of every American to protect themselves, but also a clear violation of laws meant to protect our precious animals: (1) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, (2) the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and (3) the Endangered Species Act. Hence, on these grounds, it should be immediately and unconditionally rescinded. The evidence collected at this point that this technology is extremely harmful to both human and animal life on this planet is completely and utterly overwhelming ­ and this is in spite of the mobile-phone industry’s attempt to control the government and to manipulate both the science and the media. To protect life on this planet ­ regardless of any economic concerns ­ these towers must be taken down now!

    read the full document http://rense.com/general81/emfs.htm

    Are Microwaves Killing The  Insects, Frogs, And Birds? And Are We Next?
    3-20-8

    A vivid lesson in……

     WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PUBLIC POLICY IS MADE LARGELY WITHOUT EITHER INFORMING OR CONSULTING THE PUBLIC?


  • International Wars on Electronic Warfare?

    International War on Electronic Warfare?

    As a Canadian (she said, he said) “That was unneighborly”   I object!!

    Has the Canadian government been informed about this exercise?

    Dear Members of the Canadian Parliament… I live in Victoria… living in Saanich British Columbia…. As a resident of West Vancouver, BC, Canada…. We write to express our extreme disagreement……

    Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental …

    citizensforsafetechnology.org/Pacific-Northwest-ElectronicWarfare-Ran…

    Oct 8, 2014 – Dear Members of the Canadian Parliament, The US Navy plans to do testing of powerful RF devices along the shores of northern Olympic …

    ————————————————————————————–

    Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Excellent Letters written re US Navy testing of in Pacific Northwest

    Below are just some of the excellent letters written today that some of you might find useful in writing your own. Please, take a few minutes and write by the new deadline of Friday, October 31.  If you do so, then there will be the opportunity to have further input in the future.

    Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    To: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us

    We are a family of six living in Saanich, British Columbia. We write to express our extreme disagreement with the US Navy’s intention to test RF devices along the shores of the northern Olympic Peninsula.

    Both U.S. residents and residents of Canada, not to mention wildlife in an ecologically sensitive area, will be exposed to high frequencies and high levels of radiation. There is absolutely no evidence that such testing is safe for humans, wildlife, or important plant ecosystems. This is an an enormous and foolhardy risk. It brings to mind the nuclear testing conducted in the southwest United States that contaminated much of the United States with radioactive fallout for many years.

    The dangers of EMF radiation are many and real. The prestigious and respected American Academy of Environmental Medicine has made this an area of concern, and recently gave their highest award to Dr. Martin Pall of Washington State University for his research in this area. Dr. Pall has explored how EMFs act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels, and how EMF exposures can cause physiological effects including cancer, oxidative stress and EHS. In addition many physicians are discovering that their patients are experiencing difficulties because of EMF exposure, and Women’s College Hospital in Toronto has recently established a program to educate doctors about this threat, which some public health professionals call the greatest challenge to human health in the twenty-first century.

    Our family does not give our permission for the US Navy to subject our children to this serious health threat. Both the United States and Canada should look to other countries whose standards regarding EMF exposures are much more demanding, and whose forward thinking should lead the way on this issue. We insist that the residents of this area be considered, and that the US Navy be prevented from such testing.

    Forwarded to : Popham.MLA, Lana ; john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca; premier@gov.bc.ca; elizabeth.may@greenparty.ca; leader@greenparty.bc.ca; Randall.Garrison@parl.gc.ca; editor@thetyee.ca; Edward Hill ; contact@straight.com

    ____________________________

    To each BC MP:

    Dear Members of the Canadian Parliament,

    The US Navy plans to do testing of powerful RF devices along the shores of northern Olympic Peninsula (Clallum county faces Victoria and BC). The frequencies are high, 4-8 GHz, and signals using these frequencies travel great distances. We very likely will be exposed to high levels of radiation that the military will be testing.

    Comments are being accepted from the public at comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us until Oct. 10. Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA) must be on the subject line.

    The Navy is saying there is no evidence of harm to animals or humans. Independent scientific evidence proves this statement to be incorrect. Inadvertently, but without doubt, the US Navy will be experimenting on Canadians, on our families and on our wildlife.

    Has the Canadian government been informed about this exercise? If so, what was the reaction? If not, there should be a strong objection to such an exercise from taking place in an area where Canadians will be exposed. There is no way to limit exposure to such emissions which have been shown to have dangerous effects, especially on children and fetuses, those with compromised immune systems, and the elderly.

    This must be stopped. This trespass into our environment must not be allowed. I implore you to ask your leaders to contact the US government and demand that our sovereignty and safety be respected.

    Sincerely,

    Sharon Noble

    ______________________

    I am writing in utmost concern for your intention to permit the Olympic National Forest to be used as an electronic warfare testing ground by the US Navy. If passed, this decision will undoubtedly cause irreversible harm to the plants, birds, animals, ecosystems, and humans directly in, and in areas within a several hundred-mile radius of this site.

    Studies conducted by world-class, non-industry-funded scientists show there is NO SAFE level of radiation, and that radiation from all sources is cumulative. Furthermore, a peer-reviewed study published May 7, 2014 in Nature, International Weekly Journal of Science proves the negative effect of EMF on migratory birds. ” So far, no putative effect of anthropogenic electromagnetic noise at intensities below the guidelines adopted by the World Health Organization 1, 2 has withstood the test of independent replication under truly blinded experimental conditions. No effect has therefore been widely accepted as scientifically proven.  Here we show that migratory birds are unable to use their magnetic compass in the presence of urban electromagnetic noise. These fully double-blinded tests document a reproducible effect of anthropogenic electromagnetic noise on the behaviour of an intact vertebrate.”

    In regards to your comment that “There are no conclusive direct hazards to human tissue as a result of electromagnetic radiation, last August the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine published a paper by Washington State University Professor Emeritus of biochemistry Martin Pall, which documents how EMF affects the flow of voltage-gated calcium channels in our cells. Pall links this change in cellular activity to a plethora of physical ailments. Basing his conclusions on 24 studies, he has this to say about short high-intensity pulses of microwave radiation: ” We know from the nanosecond pulse studies[that these pulses] can be very damaging and act via VGCC activation, with activation continuing long after the pulse has ceased (7). It has been known for over 30 years that short microwave pulses can cause massive cellular damage (57).” EMF has been recognized as a potential carcinogen by the WHO in 2011 (alongside lead and DDT), and scientifically linked to autism (which is up by 33%), skyrocketing ADHD, the disappearing honeybee, and more. Read the literature, and it becomes clear that the potentially harmful effects of EMF exposure are much greater than the thermal (heating) risks current exposure standards attribute to it. In 2011, the Council of Europe (47 countries, 800-million people) urged all of its member nations to “reconsider” their relationship with ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) whose radiation Exposure Limits are almost universally adopted and, instead, observe the limits recommended in the BioInitiative 2007 Report. This report, if adopted, would require Canada and the USA to reduce their radiation Exposure Limits 10,000 times. In section 7 (Technological progress and economic growth at the expense of environment and health protection ) subsection 29 of their 2011 parliamentary report on the potential danger of EMF, the Council of Europe states:

    “…it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields.”

    Lastly, neither Lloyds of London nor Swiss Re Insurance will insure against health-related claims attributed to devices emitting non-thermal microwave radiation.

    In light of all of the above, I sincerely hope that reason and prudence will prevail, that you do not permit the testing of these weapons to proceed, but keep the Olympic National Forest as a pristine refuge, a haven for wildlife and for future generations, a place that promotes not destruction and illness, but health, balance, and well being, _______________________________________________________________________

    Dear Mr. Greg Wahl,

    See below my concerns with the future testing of weapons and RF exposure. Please keep me informed of any and all decisions made in this regard and please ensure that my concerns are included in the decision making, as it impacts my life directly. I appreciate your time and effort in ensuring that people’s quality life is protected at all times, never at the expansion of technology or security.

    Sent: October 8, 2014 9:02 PM

    To: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us
    Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Importance: High

    My name is XXX , I live in Victoria and suffer the daily effect of RF radiation emanating from cell phone, WIFI, cell tower and every devices like microwave etc… and computer in my work place. No one can convince those suffering from these effects that they don’t exist, cause we know the facts and we know they exist. RF radiation is a challenge on our health as we experience them daily. I’ve acquired an RF device to help protect me by making adequate adjustment to my home as to prevent further damage while resting at home. There is a time when as a customer we need to out-way, speed/efficiency against our quality of health and life.

    I do not support anyone bringing danger to my close environment, myself and family, which RF is a danger. WE have a right to protect ourselves. These RF effects are proven scientifically to cause cancer; and I personally don’t need anyone to prove or convince me otherwise, since I experience lots of side effect at first hand, such as the effect of headaches, nausea, sleep deprivation, ringing in the ear, racy heart, chest pressure, sneezing/allergies, my vision having drop way too quickly as they increased Wi-Fi service in my workplace and feeling completely helpless to protect myself, as it’s costing me a fortune in compensating to protect my health and shielding myself from the RF. Meanwhile no one listens, yet those same individuals bringing this new technology are starting to show the same signs I describe but no one bothers to connect the dots, as to work together in stopping this dreadful expenditure for profit and profit only and full harm to your health and quality of life.

    I ask that you reconsider this testing and please do not bring in anymore radiation to our home and environment. All this technology and yet we have less and less freedom and quality of life, the only one seeming to benefit is big business for profits. What’s the use of looking after our health if these test are going to continue destroying us. Contradictory in term, and costly to our Healthcare. I work harder than I ever did when I was younger, and no matter how healthy I try to maintain, there isn’t a day when I’m not having to fight to protect myself not only against RF but against the ignorance perpetuated in our population by our government agency by not providing the truth to the populace and keeping our world inform and safe. Unless you’re planning on killing us, then please take those testing somewhere safe and controlled so that our environment or self aren’t affected. We’ve been working real hard at cultivating bees back at a very slow pace. Everything is linked together. Any damage caused has ripple effect to the masses. Those intelligent enough to understand that, and who are in a role of authority need to protect the planet, and certainly not test to see how far they can go and learn from those testing’s. There has been enough research done already and sufficient proofs have been provided and yet ignored by convenience by those in authority and paid to protect those who pay their services. Who decide who has the authority. Scientists are scientists and too many have spoken and been ignored and continue to be ignored. There is no need for more testing. What more do we need in this world to live happy and peaceful. We don’t need more scientist to do what has been already done and proven and ignored. You do not do research until it fits your bill, you do research to find what action need be taken as to maintain life and quality of life. Refuse to do military or otherwise testing in regard to RF as the risk is already too much. Time to listen and pay attention and protect the planet and every living cellular being on it. I look forward to hear that this project is canceled and look forward to your confirmation of such in support to life in general.

    Thank you for hearing me out and please don’t allow the testing to take place, for everyone’s best interest.

    Best regards,

    ___________________________

    To: ‘comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us
    Cc: ‘gtwahl@fs.fed.us
    Subject: FW: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Importance: High

    From: edgar murdock (name left at request of author)

    To: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us
    Cc: thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca ; greg.kyllo.mla@leg.bc.ca ; john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca ; una@citizensforsafetechnology.org ; director@stopsmartmetersbc.ca ; billvanderzalm1@gmail.com ; adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca ; info@oipc.bc.ca ; patrick.wruck@bcuc.com

    Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 8:56 PM

    Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    As a Canadian, but more importantly as a human being and one of millions of innocent victims of whatever protocol the world’s dominant governments & corporations wish to force on the global population, I take great umbrage at the suggestion that this initiative by the US Navy will have no impact on humans. The information offered also points out that the impact to small animals is unknown at this time. There is no mention of the impact on avian or marine wildlife or that of insects, beneficial or otherwise.

    The impact on humans is quite well-known. This denial, in the light of a mountain of evidence to the contrary by respected, independent medical personnel and research scientists world-wide with absolutely nothing to gain career-wise or financially, is a downright abrogation of responsibility by the American military and its cohorts.

    There is world-wide concern that the biologic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic low-frequency radiation such as wi-fi and microwave cellular radiation and that emitted by the so-called smart meter and smart grid protocols, is cumulative and considered to be carcinogenic by the WHO and many other health organizations, although not recognized as such by the ridiculously inadequate standards set by Health Canada and the United States FCC, EPA and FDA agencies.

    The politicians, military personnel and corporate entities who, for whatever iniquitous reasons, are attempting to apply Guinea pig status to the population of all living creatures in this geographical quadrant and to use the Pacific Northwest habitat as a testing ground for EMF warfare is an unconscionable, egregious and reprehensible act of aggression to the Nth degree. My mind boggles and my entire psyche reels at the thought.

    MK-ULTRA and the CIA’s Project Pandora and other such nefarious programs by virtue of the Freedom of Information Act are well-known efforts of the US Military to control mankind and it seems to me that this Environmental Assessment is another step in the directed energy experiment designed to bring ordinary people to their knees.

    Please, please when coming to a decision in this matter consider the humanitarian issues at stake here. Apply the Precautionary Principle diligently and with respect to the unwary citizens of both the United States and Canada and remember that accountability goes with the position and if the results are adverse and pernicious to any degree, those promoting the program must all also bear the guilt of the consequences.

    Respectfully submitted,
    _________________________

    Sent: October 8, 2014 10:17 PM
    To: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us
    Subject: Weapons testing off the Olympic Peninsula

    I object!! Not only does RF destroy marine life, it destroys all life. I am already electrosensitive and don’t need or want any more electromagnetic pollution affecting my body. The USAF have known since WW2 that this stuff is deadly; the Russians proved it by irradiating the US embassy in Moscow, remember? What more do you need to know?

    Stop the psychopathic behaviour before you kill the entire planet.

    __________________________

    Sent: October 8, 2014 9:21 PM
    To: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us
    Cc: Jerry Flynn; ralph.sultan.mla@leg.bc.ca; weston.J@parl.gc.ca

    Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Ladies and gentlemen;

    As a resident of West Vancouver, BC, Canada I am alarmed at the proposed RF tests by the US military on the Olympic Peninsula.

    I have a medically diagnosed condition of electro hyper sensitivity to all electromagnetic radiation, even at very low frequencies, well within what Canada and the US claim to be harmless.

    Today several thousand independent scientific studies call for lowering the allowable levels currently part of standards and emitted by cell towers, and other wireless technologies.

    While these tests may be facing away from American cities,you seem to forget that most of BC’s population lives precisely along the border. This is, as i understand it, the precise direction in which the radiation will be fired.

    Please remember: We are also human, and do not deserve to be showered with military strength radiation!

    I strongly object to having my family and myself treated as collateral damage to the US military experiments! Or should that be experimental rats?

    I hope the US Navy can find a different location for their tests, or better still abandon them altogether. Surely enough is known about the damaging effects of this technology after decades of testing it. . . .

    For your information I am enclosing a powerpoint presentation by Captain (ret.) Jerry Flynn of the Canadian navy, who worked for 22 years in radiological warfare.
    __________________________

    From: Dennis and Sharon Noble dsnoble@shaw.ca
    Sent: October 9, 2014 11:33 AM
    To: ‘comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us’
    Cc: ‘gtwahl@fs.fed.us‘; Christy Clark (premier@gov.bc.ca); John Horgan. Leader NDP; ‘Elizabeth.May@parl.gc.ca‘; randall.garrison@parl.gc.ca; Alex – Riding 1 Atamanenko

    Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    I am writing with regard to the US Navy plan to establish a training facility in Northern Washington dedicated to Electronic Warfare. According to information provided, the environmental assessment says:

    “The purpose is to train to deny the enemy “all possible frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (i.e. electromagnetic energy) for use in such applications as communication systems, navigation systems and defense related systems and components,” and

    “There are no conclusive direct hazards to human tissue as a result of electromagnetic radiation.

    “Links to DNA fragmentation, leukemia, and cancer due to intermittent exposure to extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation are speculative; study data are inconsistent and insufficient at this time”. While it might be argued that there is no “conclusive” evidence of direct hazard to human health, there is a multitude of independent peer-reviewed studies and reports by world renowned scientists that show that prolonged exposure to even low levels of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is extremely harmful, especially to those most vulnerable: fetuses and children, those with impaired immune systems, and the elderly, and wildlife.

    Even 60 years ago the US military knew the significant danger associated with EMR, recognizing its potential as a military weapon. It therefore is confusing that the US military today denies this science. Further it is of interest that in their documents they admit this radiation “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” living creatures.

    The public deserves to have access to information explaining the effects. An effect is either harmful or beneficial. Is the US Navy saying that exposure to manmade, unnatural radiation is beneficial?

    With regard to the transmitters which will be on the northern tip of the Olympic Peninsula, these transmitters plus the associated military equipment (satellites, planes, mobile transmitters) are within a few miles of a major Canadian city, Victoria, British Columbia. Were the Federal and Provincial governments advised of the plans to build a permanent training facility with weapons grade transmitters? Did they agree to allow military weapons to be pointed at a friendly country? Why was Northern Washington selected, rather than an inhospitable location like Death Valley?

    I wish to express my deepest concern about this plan, and ask to be granted standing in order to provide additional information during future considerations.

    Sincerely
    Sharon Noble

    Read On

    read more at, http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/Pacific-Northwest-Electronic-Warfare-Range-Environmental-Assessment-EA,95,4035

    —————————————————————————————————-

    I submit this as an additional objection and comment on the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A  2014 UPDATED ASSESSMENT ON THE  BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC  RADIATION (RADIOWAVES AND MICROWAVES) IS DOCUMENTED AND FULL DISCLOSURE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE AMERICAN AND CANADIAN  PUBLIC.

     Pearl Rains Hewett


  • The Biological Effect of Electronic Warfare?

     The Biological Effects of Electronic Warfare?

    ONCE CLASSIFIED BY DIA-DT

    Biological Effects of Electromagnetic  Radiation  

    DEFENSE INTELLIGENCY AGENCY

    BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC  RADIATION

    (RADIOWAVES AND MICROWAVES)

     —————————————————–

    PREPARED BY U.S. ARMY

    MEDICAL INTELLIGENCE AND

    INFORMATION AGENCY

    OFFICE Of THE SURGEON GENERAL

    DIA TASK PT-1810-02-75

    —————————————-

    This  information was CLASSIFIED BY DIA-DT

    —————————————————–

    What are the 2014  Updated  assessments on the following?

    BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RADIOWAVES

    AND  MICROWAVES

    ——————————————————-

    PART  1 – Blood

    ————————

    PART 2 – Cardiovascular System

    ————————

     PART 3 – Cells

    ———————-

     PART 4– Central Nervous System

    ———————–

    PART 5 -Digestive  System

    ————————-

    PART 6 – Glands

    ————————–

    PART 7 -Metabolism

    ——————————

    PART 8 – Reproduction

    ————–·————–

    PART 9 -Visual Systems

    ————————–

    PART 10-Internal sound perception

    —————————————————————-

    Are the 2014  Updated  assessments  on BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC  RADIATION CLASSIFIED?

    ——————————————————–

    Read the full report here

    biological effects of electromagnetic radiation – Dr. Magda …

    www.magdahavas.com/…/BIOLOGICAL_EFFECTS_OF_ELECTROMA

    by PBYUS ARMY – ‎Cited by 2 – ‎Related articles

    (U) The effects of radiowaves and microwaves em bi-ological systems have …. ‘l’he chanaes 4appeared to be a cumulative result of repeated irradiatioas.

    ———————————————————————————

    DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

    BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC  RADIATION

    (RADIOWAVES AND MICROWAVES)

     —————————————————————

    PREPARED BY U.S. ARMY

    MEDICAL INTELLIGENCE AND

    INFORMATION AGENCY

    OFFICE Of THE SURGEON GENERAL

     

    This is a Department of Defense Intelligence Document prepared by

    the US Army Medical Intelligence and· Information Agency and approved

    by the Directorate for Scientific and Technical Intelligence of the Defense

    Intelligence Agency.

    ———————————————————————-

    DIA TASK PT-1810-02-75

    CLASSIFIED BY DIA-DT

    EXEMPT PROM GENERAL DECLASSIFICATION

    SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11652

    EXEMPTION CATEGORY 1. 2. 3

    DECLASSIFIED UPON NOTIFICATION BY THE ORIGINATOR

    (a 35 page report)

    —————————————————————-

    Supersession Notice,

    This document supersedes  ST-CS–01-74-74, dated March 1974

     ————————————————————————

    DST-1810S-074-76

    March 1976

     

    SECTION  II -BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RADIOWAVES

    AND  MICROWAVES

     

    PART 1 – Blood

    ————————

    PART 2 – Cardiovascular System

    —————-

    PART 3 – Cells

    ————–

    PART 4-Central Nervous System

    ————

    PART 5 -Digestive  System

    ————————-

    PART 6 – Glands

    ———————

    PART 7 -Metabolism

    ——————————

    PART 8 – Reproduction

    ————–·—–

    PART 9 -Visual Systems

    —–

    PART 10-Internal sound perception

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    SNIPPETS

    These lesser reported research areas include  nonthemal effects, immunological studies. and use of radiowaves for functional control of organic systems.

    ——————————————————————-

    No unusual devices or measures for protection from radiowave exposure

    were noted. but a continued  stress upon personnel protection in occupational

    situations was apparent  here protective goggles and clothing are  recommended when working in regions of microwave radiation.

    ——————————————————————————

    If the more advanced  nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standard there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output AND MILITARY FUNCTIONS. The Eurasian communist countries could, on. the other hand, give lip service to strict standards, but allow their military to operate without restriction and thereby gain the advantage in ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNIQUES and the development of antipersonnel applications

    ———————————————————————————————-

    http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/BIOLOGICAL_EFFECTS_OF_ELECTROMAGNETIC_RADIATION-RADIOWAVES_AND_MICROWAVES-EURASIAN_COMMUNIST_COUNTRIES.pdf

    ——————————————————————————————-

    Update 2014 AND THEN, THERE IS THIS

    International War on Electronic Warfare?

    “That was unneighborly,” (she said, he said) As a Canadian, I object!! Has the Canadian government been informed about this exercise? Dear Members of the Canadian Parliament, I live in Victoria, living in Saanich, British Columbia, As a resident of West Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental …

    citizensforsafetechnology.org/Pacific-Northwest-ElectronicWarfare-Ran…

    Oct 8, 2014 – Dear Members of the Canadian Parliament, The US Navy plans to do testing of powerful RF devices along the shores of northern Olympic …

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    read more here

    REPORT: DIA – Biological Effects of Electromagnetic …

    electroplague.com/2014/…/report-dia-biologicaleffects-of-electromagne

    Sep 4, 2014 – Posted: September 4, 2014 In March 1976, the US Defense … REPORT: DIA – Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (1976). 6 Replies.

     

    I submit this as an additional objection and comment on the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A  2014 UPDATED ASSESSMENT ON THE  BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC  RADIATION (RADIOWAVES AND MICROWAVES) IS DOCUMENTED AND FULL DISCLOSURE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE AMERICAN AND CANADIAN  PUBLIC.

     Pearl Rains Hewett