+menu-


  • Category Archives Public Comments
  • Clallam County SMP Update

    Clallam County SMP Update

    CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS  HAVE A  VOICE

    A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    MARCH 30, 2015 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDE, CLALLAM COUNTY AFFECTED VESTED SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, INVESTMENT PROPERTY OWNERS, LOCAL BUSINESS,  THE TIMBER INDUSTRY,

    IN PART, OTHERS HAVE THEIR VOICE TOO, PAID  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES  NGO OUT OF TOWNERS, FEDERAL, STATE, AND COUNTY  AND THE TRIBES.

    2015 Comments

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    031815 – PHewett

    031815 – KSpees

    2015 Comments

    031515 – KSpees

    031515 – PHewett

    031415 – KSpees

    031315 – KSpees

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    022815 – PHewett

    SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2015 Comments

    022715 – ForksCity

    022715 – BrandtPtOwners

    022715 – HSmyth

    022715 – SierraClub

    022715 – CGeer

    022715 – LPhelps

    022715 – RFletcher

    022715 – KNorman

    022715 – SBruch

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – DStahler

    022715 – MDoherty

    022715 – SBogg

    022715 – RKnapp – JKT

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – RPhreaner

    022615 – JLarson

    022515 – SierraClub

    022515 – TEngel

    022515 – AMatthay

    022515 – LPhelps

    022515 – KSpees

    022415 – DeptOfInterior

    022415 – TSimpson

    022415 – TFreeman

    022415 – BLake

    022415 – JCress

    022415 – Taylors

    022415 – EGreenleaf

    022315 – GBergner

    022015 – BBrown

    022015 – GBrown

    022015 – TRief

    022015 – RAmaral

    022015 – WCook

    022015 – DKalinski

    022015 – DFrascati

    022015 – JHelpenstell

    022015 – JFletcher

    022015 – CTilden

    022615 – PABA

    022015 – GJensen

    022015 – SWikstrom

    022315 – SBonner

    022215 – JElleot

    022115 – TSage

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    021915 – DWahlgren

    2015 Comments

    021915 – NKoseff

    021915 – KDuff

    021915 – BVreeland

    021915 – CStrickland

    021915 – EStrickland

    021915 – GSmith

    021915 – DOE

    021915 – SGilleland

    021915 – LBowen

    021915 – HMeier

    021915 -DChong

    021915 – SAnderson

    021915 – OEC

    021915 – RHuntman

    021915 – BLynette

    021915 – CWeller

    021815 – WFlint

    021815 – SNoblin

    021815 – LNoblin

    021815 – PHewett

    021815 – KAhlburg

    021815 – EBowen

    021815 – PFreeborn

    021815 – TTaylor

    021815 – KGraves

    0218105 – GCase

    021815 – KCristion

    021815- SReed

    021815 – SLaBelle

    021815 – MGonzalez

    021815 – JAdams

    021815 – SKokrda

    021815 – KFarrell

    0211815 – MMazzie

    021815 -HKaufman

    021815 – MCrimm

    021815 – CCarlson

    021815 – SFarrall

    021815 – JWinders

    021815 – TErsland

    021815 – FWilhelm

    021815 – SPriest

    021815 – RHolbrook

    021815 – LLaw

    021815 – LHendrickson

    021815 – JMaddux

    021815 – DHagen

    021815 – MHinsdale

    021815- DWatson

    021815 – DWarriner

    021815 – DRigselie

    021815 – JBaymore

    2015 Comments

    021815 – Plauché & Carr LLP

    021815 – PHewitt

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – CMiklos

    021815 – PMilliren

    021815 – RPhreaner

    021815 – BBurke

    021815 – GCrow

    021815 – CJohnson – NOTC

    021815 – CParsons – State Parks

    021815 – JMarx

    021715 – JDavidson

    021715 – RAmaral

    021715 – CGuske

    021715 – TTrohimovich – Futurewise

    021815 – DSchanfald

    021715 – Port of PA

    021715 – PMillren

    021715 – EWilladsen

    021615 – EChadd-OCA

    021315 – SLange

    021315 – CKalina

    021215 – RCrittenden

    021115 – RKaplan

    021115 – SScott

    021115 – PHewett

    020915 – RMantooth

    020615 – PRedmond

    020615 – CVonBorstel

    020515 – DHoldren

    020515 – JMichel

    020215 -DHoldren

    020515 – DHoldren

    020415 – SCahill

    020215 – CEvanoff

    013115 – MBlack

    013015 – SHall

    013015 – BConnely

    012715 – BGrad

    012715 – DGladstone

    012715 – BBoekelheide

    012715 – KWiersema

    012015 – JBettcher

    011615 – PHewitt

    011615 – ACook

    011415 – PLavelle

    011215 – PHewitt

    010915 – PHewitt

    010915 – RKnapp

    010715 – WSC

    2014 SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2014 Comments

    122914 – MQuinn

    121614 – OCA

    111814 – PHewett

    111814 – PHewett

    111714 – PHewett

    091514 – PHewett

    081814 – PHewett

    SMP Comments on earlier drafts of the plan can found here

    ———————————————————————–

    SMP Legal Action Continues

    SMP Update fight moves forward – Great Pen Voice Letter by Gene Farr
    To: Karl Spees <76ccap@gmail.com>

    Gene Farr lives in Jefferson County.

    It is the same imposed govt taking without due process we are having in Clallam County. It will be the same in Grays Harbor County and over the whole state.

    I read the letter in the Peninsula Daily News. It was a little hard to follow.  This version is very clear and easy to follow.

    Is it the editing of the local paper or me?

    Karl Spees – Concerned American

    Thx Gene excellent letter.

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Hope you all saw a slightly modified version this in the PDN today.  They added in Hood Canal Sand & Gravel as one of the litigants and changed the title to Shoreline program:

     

    SMP Legal Action Continues

     

    The PDN reported last week that the State Growth Management Hearing Board rejected appeals by the Olympic Stewardship Foundation, the local chapter of Citizen Alliance for Property Rights and others. These legal actions had been launched when Jefferson County adopted and the State Dept of Ecology approved a highly flawed and onerous update to the County’s Shoreline Master Program.

    You read that right. A county can’t adopt its own regulations to suit its local conditions. It must do what the State Department of Ecology wants in order to get the required approval.  Is that Constitutional?

    These legal appeals noted numerous constitutional, legal and procedural issues. The total was over 200 items, yet this Board of political appointees chose to not validate even one issue.  Now the legal action will move on to a real court of law.

    This SMP Update devalues shoreline property by making it less desirable.  It is now harder to develop, improve, repair or replace damaged shoreline property.  With the lower total value of county property as a tax base, the county then must increase property tax rates on all property to raise the same amount of funds.  This affects all property owners.

    CAPR and OSF are working on behalf of all property owners.  OSF is a local organization that believes “The best stewards of the land are the people who live on the land and care for their homes and property.”  We all should support these organizations.

    Gene Farr

     


  • 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 #162

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #162

    A FEDERAL  INTERFERENCE IN A LOCAL PROCESS?

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

    DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI), the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

    RED FLAG WARNING

    WHY ARE THESE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)  the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

    INTERFERING IN OUR LOCAL CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE DUE PROCESS?

    INTERFERENCE  BY DEFINITION to come into opposition, as one thing with another, ESPECIALLY with the effect of hampering action or procedure involvement in the activities and concerns of other people when your involvement is not wanted.

    The Planning Commission extended the written comment period until Friday, February 27, 2015.

    This SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior shall be included in consideration by the Planning Commission.

    Any comments received after February 27 will still  be part of the record that will go to the Board of County Commissioners.

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

    bottom line

    How fortunate I am, to have my website behindmyback.org to post this SMP Public  comment #162  dated Feb. 28, 2015

    ————————————————————————————————

    Direct Quote

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

    We the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

    snippet

    “UNLIKE MANY OTHER AREAS OF PUGET SOUND CLALLAM COUNTY HAS PRISTINE  AQUATIC  AREAS AND SHORELINES THAT ARE IN GREAT CONDITION OR HAVE BEEN RESTORED AND PROVIDE MANY BENEFITS TO THE PEOPLE AND THE WILDLIFE IN THE AREA

    RECOGNIZING THIS FACT, WE SUGGEST THAT THE SMP FOLLOW A HIGHER STANDARD  THAN IS REQUIRED BY THE WA STATE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT’S MIMIMUM PROTECTION REQUIREMENT”

    ——————————————————————————————–

    DO THE FED’S RECOGNIZE THE FACT that that they have PROFILED AND TARGETED ONLY THE 3300 VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS IN CLALLAM COUNTY?

    THE FEDS  WANT A  HIGHER STANDARD FOR THE 3300 AFFECTED?  THAN IS REQUIRED BY WA STATE LAW? Ch. 90.58 RCW – Shoreline Management Act

    ————————————————————————–

    THE FEDERAL WE’S WHO WANT?

    I have been consistently protecting private property rights. Hence,  my #162 Public SMP comment, as a taxpaying American citizen, born in and a  resident of Clallam County and the trustee of 800 acres of PRIVATE pristine forest land that has been owned by and under the stewardship of our family for over 65 years. Indeed, I have been consistently protecting private property rights in Clallam County since Jan. 26,2011.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    DOES THE FEDERAL DOI RECOGNIZE THE FACT  that 89% of Clallam County land is public and tribal land?  that those OTHER 89% of property owners are  exempt from and not affected, by the SMP Update?

    WHAT FACTS ABOUT CLALLAM COUNTY DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE  DOI, RECOGNIZE?

    CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A TAX BASIS OF 11%

    DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT , THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    (DOI) RECOGNIZES THE FACT? That Clallam County’s 3300 vested private shoreline private property owners have maintained, protected and kept their  private pristine  aquatic  areas and shorelines in great condition at their own expense forever?

    ————————————————————————————

    We  the Clallam County’s 3300 vested private shoreline private property owners RECOGNIZING THESE FACTS, including but not limited to all of the above….

    ———————————————————————–

    THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE IS A LOCAL PROCESS

    The primary RESPONSIBILITY for administering this regulatory program is assigned to LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENTS have done so through the mechanism of shoreline master programs, adopted under rules established by the Department of Ecology (DOE)

    ——————————————————————————–

    WHY ARE THESE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

     INTERFERING IN OUR LOCAL CLALLAM COUNTY DUE PROCESS?

    With their SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

    With all due respect, may I suggest that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC) ETC.

    take their big federal noses and stick them  into their own government federal public business, that being, the other 89% of public land and tribal land in Clallam County.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    And, an additional comment and suggestion for the DOI, by a Clallam County taxpaying citizen.  the federal government, the Department Of the Interior etc. HAS FAILED TO MANAGE THE CITIZENS PUBLIC TRUST TIMBER LAND, in the best interest of the people in Clallam County.

    INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, the tribes sued the federal government for failing to manage their tribal trust land and they won.

    Indian Trust Fund Mess – Salazar class-action lawsuit. The case is sometimes reported as the largest class-action lawsuit against the … 1 Early Federal Indian trust law; 2 Fruit of a failed policy;

    Vol. 37, No. 1 – Native American Rights Fund

    www.narf.org/pubs/nlr/nlr37-1.pdf

    Native American Rights Fund

    (and why are some tribes still) suing the govern- ment over … almost 56 million acres of trust land for tribes. Hundreds of … government’s management of tribal trust assets date back to …. hadn’t fixed what they’d done or failed to do in the past.”.

    —————————————————————————————

    The Planning Commission has extended the written comment period until Friday, February 27, 2015. To ensure consideration by the Planning Commission, comments should be received by February 27, 2015. 

    Any comments received after February 27 will still  be part of the record that will go to the Board of County Commissioners.

    bottom line

    How fortunate I am, to have my website behindmyback.org to post this SMP Public  #162 dated Feb. 28, 2015

     

     


  • SMP Public Comment (159)

    SMP Public Comment (159)

    Clallam County Planning Commission

    Public Forums

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Clallam County Planning Commission, for recognizing the need for this additional  step in the SMP Update  process, and voting to provide the public forums  for us.

    I have appreciation and  respect for the dedicated members of Planning Commission that made the (4) regional, informal, public forums a reality. The choice of evening forums, and  having the presenters go to meeting at the four locations, allowed working people to attend.

    ——————————————————————————–

    I did attend two public forums

    Jan. 8, 2015 Port Angeles Public Forum

    The presentation was well done and applauded

    Jan 14, 2015 Sequim Public Forum

    Was a mini- presentation

    ————————————————————————–

    Jan. 8, 2015 Public Forum at the PA Senior Center

    It was very encouraging to see our New County Commissioner Bill Peach, our new DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn, members of the Clallam County Planning Commission and Home Rule Charter Commission  in attendance. It is vital to have our local representative, Involved in, listening to public questions, comments and the many concerns of our local citizens on the SMP Update.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    WE HAVE LOTS OF CONCERNS

    OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS  LOTS OF OPTIONS

    ———————————————————

    ONE EXAMPLE CONSIDER THE LOCAL OPTIONS FOR SHORELAND AREAS …..

    SMP handbook chapter 5

    ———————————————————

    Where does the SMP Update go from here?

    We respectfully request and ask our LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO EXERCISE  THEIR OPTIONS, in the best interest of Clallam County citizens

    Please, READ AND  CONSIDER THE MANY, 447 online, SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS OF OUR LOCAL CITIZENS?  (http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/447-PHewett11-18-14.pdf)

    AND, WE SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

     ——————————————————————————————–

    The  SMP Update  OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANY OPTIONS

    My suggestions and SMP comment Jan 16, 2015

    That, Clallam County DCD, The Planning Commission and our County Commissioners EXERCISE  THEIR LOCAL OPTIONS and ACT on the OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE, WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, from the November SMP Draft Update

    That they act in the best interest of Clallam County taxpaying citizens

    Nothing to lose out of towner’s and members of  special interest group, MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO DUMP, WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, on the backs of the already BELEAGUERED vested private shoreline property owners and taxpaying citizens.

    —————————————————————————————–

    ONE EXAMPLE CONSIDER LOCAL OPTIONS FOR SHORELAND AREAS …..

    Shoreline Jurisdiction – Washington State Department of …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/handbook/chapter5.pdf

    Considering local options for shoreland areas ….. body is then regulated under the local SMP, even if it is not yet listed or mapped in the SMP [WAC. 173-20-046] …

     Options shown below ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO INCLUDE ALL OR PART OF THE FLOODPLAIN, in addition to the minimum shoreline jurisdiction noted above, when determining shoreline jurisdiction along streams and rivers. When making this decision, consider:

    The LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE OPTION of selecting road or railroad corridors, or other features or distances within the flood plain, that provide a suitable upland boundary for the shorelands associated with the river.

    Ecology RECOMMENDS the SMP include the following definition if FEMA maps are used to define the floodway.”Floodway” means the area that has been established in effective federal emergency management agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps

    If the SMP relies exclusively on the FEMA map to identify the floodway, DO NOT USE PART (II) OF THE SMA DEFINITION in your SMP floodway definition. This will help to avoid confusion

    The shoreline jurisdiction map should clearly show where the floodway is based on the FEMA map, the SMA floodway definition or the OHWM

    The SMP or a supporting document should explain why the choice of floodway or OHWM was made, in order to provide a record of the decision

    ———————————————————————————–

    CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL  SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS OF OUR LOCAL CITIZENS

    The shoreline property owners, attending the Port Angeles Forum, were well informed on the SMP Update.  The PA questions and comments were detailed and pointedly skeptical.

    1. PA How much did this cost and who’s paying for it?

    2. PA What will I have to do to, to vest  my permits,  to allow me time to complete my home building project before the new SMP is in force?

    3.PA If this SMP was in place in Louisiana or Texas there would be no more development

    4.PA  Does this SMP ever get any better?

    5. PA Will this power point presentation be available online?

    6. PA How will the value of my shoreline property be effected?

    7.  PA My comment and question during the forum

    There has been county discussion that would REQUIRE critical areas information be recorded on shoreline property owners deeds. How is it proceeding?

    —————————————————————–

    This written  PA comment

    WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW

    Buyers are protected by RCW 64.06.020 –

    Critical areas information being recorded on shoreline property owners deeds, to alert and protect buyers,  is not an SMP requirement. Including this SMP requirement, by Clallam County Planning Commission and or Commissioners in the SMP Update would be  redundant and place an unnecessary financial burden and responsibility on shoreline vested private property owners and all other taxpayers in Clallam County.

    The  County proposed requirement, to place critical areas property shoreline property owners deeds should be removed from the Clallam County SMP Update.

    RCW 64.06.020 – Access Washington

    apps.leg.wa.gov › … › Title 64 › Chapter 64.06

    Washington State Senate

    Improved residential real property — Seller’s duty — Format of disclosure statement … For your protection you must date and sign each page of this disclosure .

    RCW 64.06.020Improved residential real property — Seller’s duty — Format of disclosure statement — Minimum information.

    (1) In a transaction for the sale of improved residential real property, the seller shall, unless the buyer has expressly waived the right to receive the disclosure statement under RCW 64.06.010, or unless the transfer is otherwise exempt under RCW 64.06.010, deliver to the buyer a completed seller disclosure statement in the following format and that contains, at a minimum, the following information:
    —————————————————————–

    This written  PA comment

    NOT REQUIRED BY SMP LAW

    The SMP update includes MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS on development of nine (9) or more units

    RCW 90.58.020 SPECIFICALLY STATES

     (5) INCREASE PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLICLY OWNED AREAS OF THE SHORELINES

    The Clallam County SMP Update does not require the taking of any private shoreline property to provide public access to the public.     

    This  SMP, MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS. by Clallam County Planning Commission and or Commissioners in the SMP Update would be a local legal prerogative, imposed solely by Clallam County  and  place an unnecessary financial burden and responsibility on shoreline property owners and the all taxpayers in Clallam County.

    The burden of expense and paperwork required to MUST provide proof of EXEMPTION from the  MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS (that is not required by law) must not be dumped on the backs of the already beleaguered vested private shoreline property owners.

    Commentary: WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner – commentary by Pearl Rains Hewett

    8/26/2011 If WA State WDFW and DNR can demand access fees for the EXPENSE of allowing public access on public land?

    How can private property owners be required, by the SMP (Shoreline Management Plan) Update, to provide public access on their private property without compensation for land management capital, operational, maintenance renovation, development of new facilities, trails, enforcement needs and allow them to seek restitution from those who damage their private property?

    The SMP, MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS (that is not required by law) should be removed from the Clallam County SMP Update

    ————————————————————————-

    RCW 90.58.020Legislative findings — State policy enunciated — Use preference.

    snippet
    The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of statewide significance. The department, in adopting guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, and local government, in developing master programs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which:
    (1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
    (2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
    (3) Result in long term over short term benefit;
    (4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
    (5) INCREASE PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLICLY OWNED AREAS OF THE SHORELINES


         (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;

    Clallam County has  51% public access, the highest public access in WA State (per Steve Grey)

    November 2014  Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update – Clallam County

    SIGNS indicating the public’s right to access public shoreline recreation areas/facilities SHALL be installed and maintained in conspicuous locations at points of access and entry.

    If people KNOW where it is and can find it,  It will certainly increase recreational opportunities for the public

    (7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary.

    —————————————————————————————————————-
    Sequim and PA PUBLIC FORUMS PROVIDED

    1. An introduction by Steve Gray

    2. A SMP presentation by ESA Consultant Margaret Clancy

    3. An opportunity for the audience to make comments ask questions as a group and get a response.

    4. The informal part,  mix and mingle, the opportunity for one on one personalized attention, staff and a shoreline property owner.

    First by finding the right map, identifying their piece of shoreline property.

    Then the challenging  part..

    Staff decoding the maps and explaining what all of those overlapping colored patches and lines meant?

    —————————————————-

    The reality part

    Wetland? Critical area? flood plain? associated wetland? zoning? setback? Buffer? Conservation? natural? hundred year flood?

    Why is my buffer? setback wider? Why is that patch so big? You mean? I can’t do anything within 100 feet  of that area? FEMA flood plain? I’ll have to get FEMA insurance?

    ———————————————————

    The unbelievable parts

    River meander line? floodplain? What the hell? I live on top of a hill? how can a river meander up to the top of a hill? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MAPPING?

    ————————————————————-

    Remember this part?  WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MAPPING?

    If the SMP relies exclusively on the FEMA map to identify the floodway, DO NOT USE PART (II) OF THE SMA DEFINITION in your SMP floodway definition. This will help to avoid confusion

    The shoreline jurisdiction map should clearly show where the floodway is based on the FEMA map, the SMA floodway definition or the OHWM

    The SMP or a supporting document should explain why the choice of floodway or OHWM was made, in order to provide a record of the decision

    ——————————————

    The reality part

    FEMAS HAS WARPED FLOOD PLAINS

    Behind My Back | 2014 FEMA’s Warped Data?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/22/2014-femaswarped-data/

    Mar 22, 2014 – Homeowners, in turn, have to bear the cost of fixing FEMA’s mistakes. Joseph Young, Maine’s floodplain mapping coordinator, said his office …

    ————————————————————-

    The unbelievable parts Sequim Forum

    Grand fathered in? everything you have, no matter where it is, no matter what it is, is just fine,  it is an acceptable use. No worries, be happy. (read the fine print, unless?)

    ——————————————————

    Sequim Forum

    Adopting Clallam County SMP by Ordinance? OR WHAT OTHER?

    What does this mean? Please explain  and clarify, WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make?

    Shoreline Master Program – City of Kirkland

    www.kirklandwa.gov/Assets/City…/10c_UnfinishedBusiness.pdf

    Kirkland

    Jul 26, 2010 – Adopt Ordinance 4251 approving the Shoreline Master Program …. of the new provisions found in the State Guidelines are “no net loss” of …

    (Ordinance 4251 over a 600 page document)

    —————————————————————————

    WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW

    Something has been added A NEW ONE TIME ONLY  10% BUILD OUT on the SMP Update?

    Is this another of the County’s  unnecessary restriction on Shoreline property owners?

    snippet

    “Well, you have to keep an eye on them, they’ll try to get away with anything that they can.”

    SMP Rude Comments and Conduct

    Posted on by Pearl Rains Hewett

    A nothing to lose member of a special interest group,
    And, a member of the SMP Committee, that wanted to know who would MONITOR county building permits to private property owners,

    “Well, you have to keep an eye on them, they’ll try to get away with anything that they can.”

    This comment was NOT included in the summary of that meeting. Nor, was my response to that comment.

    Disgust, Indeed…. We all know that every private property owner, that wants to add a bedroom or bathroom to his private home on his private property within the SMP jurisdiction is suspect.

    Now? we are confronted with A NEW ONETIME ONLY  10% BUILD OUT? What happens when your mother-in law has to move  in,   or you have twins? and you want a second 10% build out?

    We all know that we will have to keep an eye on them, because they’ll be trying to get away with anything that they can.”  (they’ll get one 10% and then come back for another second 10%  to avoid the 25%)

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

    Jan 14, 2015 Sequim Public Forum

    The SMP mini presentation provided more questions then answers

    Comments and Questions (wait until after the presentation)

    1.  During the ESA presentation, a man raised his had three times, he was shut down two times. The third time, he managed to get in this comment. You are covering too much, I want answers and won’t be able to remember what I wanted to ask.

    2.  Where can I get a copy? (no access SMP online) Answer, go to the library.

    Can I get a copy from you? (aka the county) Answer, yes, but you will have to pay for it.

    How big is it? About two hundred pages plus, 30 plus maps.

    3. There were MANY, MANY comments of CONCERN and questions about AQUACULTURE

    —————————————————————–

    snippets of email comments I received Jan. 12, 2015

    Taylor Shellfish leased 97.8 acres of tidelands from Dungeness Farms (the duck hunting club just west of the old Three Crabs Restaurant).  The lease runs until 2028.  They propose farming geoduck on 30 acres.  Nothing has been said what will be done with the other 67 acres, but Taylor Shellfish leases in the south Puget Sound and they farm geoduck off shore and clams and oysters near shore.  The implication during the presentation was that some aqua farming would happen on the other 67 acres.  The land is at the mouth of the Dungeness River.

    To plant the geoduck seed, Taylor Shellfish will scrape the seabed with heavy equipment.  In the South Puget Sound, they would gather the starfish in a pile and pour lime on them kill them.  Sand dollars are shoveled onto the shore where they die.  They remove any crabs from the area……..

    There were MANY, MANY comments of CONCERN and questions about Taylor Shellfish leased 97.8 acres of tidelands (and fish pens)

    Steve Grey appeared to be stressed? When he had to respond several times?

    It went something like this?

    Emphatically stating that  TAYLOR SHELLFISH had not even  applied for a permit from the county.

    and, that TAYLOR SHELLFISH would be  required to  “run the gantlet” (my words) of fed? state? ecology? impact? before the county could/would approve a permit,

    Even if TAYLOR SHELLFISH HAD applied for a county permit,  and the county had received the application permit, which they do not, the county would have to receive before it could be considered, to be approved

    ————————————————————————————–

    My comment

    Some people just got up and walked out of the Sequim Forum.

    There was NO Applause.

    —————————————————

    the bottom line

    Where does the SMP Update go from here?

    Where do we go from here?

    We respectfully request and ask our LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO EXERCISE  THEIR OPTIONS, in the best interest of Clallam County citizens

    Please, READ AND  CONSIDER THE MANY, 447 online, SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS OF OUR LOCAL CITIZENS?  (http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/447-PHewett11-18-14.pdf)

    AND, WE SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

     


  • WA State Wetland Draft?

    WHAT WA State Wetland Draft?

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

     Please send comments by December 31, 2014 to Susan Buis

    —————————————————————————

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

    WHO?  WAS NOTIFIED ABOUT THIS WETLAND PLAN?

    WHEN WAS THE PUBLIC NOTIFIED?

    HOW DID ECOLOGY NOTIFY THE PUBLIC?

    —————————————————————

     I signed up for ECOLOGY’S WAC TRACK?

    So I could keep track of what ECOLOGY was up to and participate with public comments.

     SOWhen did WA State Department of Ecology NOTIFY THE PUBLIC (that would be me) about THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN, WHAT METHOD OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION DID ECOLOGY USE?   ECOLOGY’S WAC TRACK?

     —————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    IF PUBLIC REVIEW is ACTUALLY an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State?

    As a WA State vested private property owner, I am requesting an extension on the Public Comment period for THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

    GIVEN ADDITIONAL AND  SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT,

    I would be delighted TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

    ——————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | We Need a New Public Notice Act

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/12/…/weneed-a-new-a-publicnotice-act/

    Dec 8, 2014 – WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY CASES IN … to create a more stringent public notification and participation process by …

    ———————————————————————-

    My after the fact comment (Jan. 1, 2015)

    “That any WA State  property owner that lives within 150 feet of a mud puddle has a reason to be concerned,”…

    My comment on Feb. 1, 2011

    “That any type of property owner that lives within 150 feet of a mud puddle has a reason to be concerned,”…

    Clallam County shoreline update draws fears, criticism …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/news/…/clallam-c…

    Feb 1, 2011 Peninsula Daily News

    ———————————————————————————–

    SO…. In 2013, the Department of Ecology received a Wetland Program Development Grant (WPDG), from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to develop a statewide plan for wetlands of the state.

     SO… The WA State Department of Ecology received taxpayers money to spend on this wetland draft?

    INDEED, WE THE VESTED PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY CASES IN ... to create a more stringent PUBLIC NOTIFICATION and participation process by …

    —————————————————————————————–

    WOW…. State agencies involved in WETLAND MANAGEMENT collaborated on developing the plan.  They also received input from tribal governments, local governments, and federal agencies.

    SO…. EXACTLY HOW MANY PUBLIC COMMENTS, FROM VESTED PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS,  DID WA State Department of Ecology receive ON THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN?

    WA State Department of Ecology also received input from local governments?

    What input did WA State Department of Ecology receive from our elected Clallam County Commissioners’ ON THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN?

    ——————————————————-

    AFTER THE FACT CONTACT INFORMATION

    Susan Buis
    Washington State Department of Ecology

    360-407-7653
    susan.buis@ecy.wa.gov

    ——————————————————————————————

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

    A draft of the Wetland Program Plan is now available for PUBLIC REVIEW

    Thank you for your willingness TO REVIEW AND COMMENT on this draft.

    PUBLIC REVIEW is an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State.

    Please send comments by December 31, 2014 to Susan Buis

    —————————————————————

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

    Background

    In 2013, the Department of Ecology received a Wetland Program Development Grant (WPDG), from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to develop a statewide plan for wetlands of the state. A draft of the Wetland Program Plan is now available for public review.

    The WPP outlines what the state strives to accomplish regarding core elements of a wetland program.  It is a comprehensive plan and, as a result, not all of it can be accomplished in the near future.  Therefore, AFTER THE COMMENT PERIOD, decisions will be made regarding which actions identified in the WPP should receive the state’s focus over the next six years. 

    State agencies involved in wetland management collaborated on developing the plan.  They also received input from tribal governments, local governments, and federal agencies.

    More information about the plan can be found within the document itself or on the Wetland Program Plan webpage.

    Informational webinar

    Ecology will be hosting a webinar on December 10, 2014 at 6:30pm to answer any questions you may have about the Wetland Program Plan. To sign up for the webinar, contact Susan Buis (contact information below).

    How to Comment

    You do not have to edit the document for grammar or punctuation. We are asking you to provide feedback on content and your understanding of the document. If you are not able to review the entire document, please focus on the section of most interest to you or provide comments on the action tables at the end of each section. Please let us know if there are any sections that are unclear. We would also appreciate any ideas or suggestions you have to improve the content.

    You can provide comments in several ways:

    1. Download a copy of the document and use track changes.
    2. Request the document in Word 2007 and then provide comments and edits using track changes.
    3. Write comments on a printed paper copy of the document.
    4. Write a separate Word document in which you provide detailed comments or suggestions. Please indicate the section or page and paragraph to which your comment or suggestion applies.
    5. Provide feedback on the Core Element Action Tables (PDF) by taking this Survey Monkey survey.

    Please send comments by December 31, 2014 to Susan Buis via email or postal mail at:

    Susan Buis
    Washington State Department of Ecology
    P.O. Box 47600
    Olympia, WA 98504
    360-407-7653
    susan.buis@ecy.wa.gov

    Thank you for your willingness to review and comment on this draft.

    PUBLIC REVIEW is an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State.

    ————————————————————————

    The bottom line

    IF? PUBLIC REVIEW is ACTUALLY an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State?

    As a WA State vested private property owner, I am requesting an extension on the Public Comment period for THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

    GIVEN ADDITIONAL AND SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT,

     I would be delighted TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON

    THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

     

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     

     


  • We Need a New Public Notice Act

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    CASES IN POINT FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL

    1. THE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT.

    2. THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE.

    3.The Pacific Coast Drone project

    4. The Navy residential training that terrorized Port Angeles WA

    5. The West End Broad Band meetings

    6. WA STATE PARKS BLUE RIBBON PANEL

    Best known as, what we don’t notify  American citizens about “CAN” hurt them,

    BUT… it will all be over before American people find out what the hell is going on, so no worries.

    American people won’t feel a thing until after the comment period has expired.

    Then American people can read all about it in the local newspaper, after it’s been passed, to find out what’s in it, what it is and what it was all about.

    —————————————————————————–

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    WOW… READ ALL ABOUT IT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    —————————————————————————————–

    HERE AND NOW? IN THE REAL WORLD of “We the People”

    WHAT IS THE LOCAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PARTICIPATION STRATEGY?

    IF YOU ARE HAVING A LOCAL, HUGE MULTI-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE SALE, RUMMAGE SALE OR FLEA MARKET?

    AND YOU REALLY WANT THE PUBLIC TO COME?

    You advertise in advance. YOU POST BIG SIGNS WITH THE WHERE AND WHEN every couple of blocks with BIG ARROWS TO KEEP REMINDING AND  INVITING  THE PUBLIC.

    LOCALLY YOU SEE A BIG RUMMAGE SALE BANNER ACROSS FRONT STREET

    AND OUR RADIO STATION KONP GOES ON AND ON ABOUT LOCAL GARAGE SALES

    AND GUYS WEARING SANDWICH BOARDS, DOING THE HAPPY DANCE IN FRONT OF LES SCHWABS, FOR A FLEA MARKET.

    The BIG BANNER across front street even notified THE HOMELESS to come on down to the Vern Burton center and  sign up for local HOMELESS programs and benefits.

    —————————————————————–

    I have mentioned the Real World phenomena  of advertising at Planning Commission Meetings.

    A private (government) response was? “This is not the real world”

    —————————————————————————————-

    OH..BUT… IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO  ADVERTISE AND NOTIFY THE AFFECTED LOCAL’S?

    As FOX NEWS,  Judge Jeanine would say….REALLY?

    —————————————————————————

    After the of the Navy’s PUBLIC FORUM FIASCO in PA,  on Electronic Warfare on  the Olympic Peninsula.

    FIASCO? by definition,  a total failure, especially a humiliating or ludicrous one

    —————————————————————————

    MOVING FORWARD,  WHAT CAN”WE THE PEOPLE DO”?

    Expose them, every time there is a  fatal error in Due Process

    Remind them of WA State Law RCW 42.56.030

    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. etc.

    ———————————————————————————-

    Use Clallam County Home Rule to create a more stringent  public notification and participation process by the county and for the residents of Clallam County, including COUNTY FUNDING for REAL WORLD  advertising.

    Great minds think alike

    HERE IS THE LOCAL SOLUTION

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    Contents

    THREE MINUTES AT THE MICROPHONE

    HOW OUTDATED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION LAWS ARE CORRODING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

    POLICY OPTIONS FOR STRENGTHENING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

    A MODEL MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ORDINANCE

    A MODEL STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT

    AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

    ACT AND GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT:

    THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTEXT FOR VOICE

    RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

    ………………………………………………………………

    From the Deliberative Democracy Consortium:

    Tired of tense, unproductive public meetings? Want to embed better online and face-to-face processes in the way governments work? Making Public Participation Legal, a new publication of the National Civic League, includes a set of tools, including a model ordinance, set of policy options, and resource list, to help communities improve public participation. The publication is now available for free. Download here. 

    Most of the laws that govern public participation in the United States are over thirty years old. They do not match the expectations and capacities of citizens today, they predate the Internet, and they do not reflect the lessons learned in the last two decades about how citizens and governments can work together. Increasingly, public officials and staff are wondering whether the best practices in participation are in fact supported – or even allowed – by the law.

    Over the past year, the Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation has produced new tools, including a model local ordinance and model amendment to state legislation, in order to help create a more supportive, productive, and equitable environment for public participation. The Working Group has been coordinated by the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC).

    Making Public Participation Legal is a publication of the National Civic League, with support from the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. The Working Group also includes representatives of the American Bar AssociationInternational Municipal Lawyers AssociationNational League of CitiesPolicy Consensus InitiativeInternational Association for Public Participation, and International City/County Management Association, as well as leading practitioners and scholars of public participation.

    Communities that want to move forward with new public engagement processes and policies can also turn to an array of new resources being offered through ICMA’s Center for Management Strategies. CMS has assembled a team of leading engagement practitioners, research specialists, and subject matter experts who can help local governments develop and implement effective civic engagement programs.

    —————————————————————————

    WOW AND CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A HOME RULE CHARTER

    AND 15 NEW CHARTER MEMBERS

    AND THREE CONSERVATIVE COMMISSIONERS

    HOT DAMN… LET’S GO FOR IT..

     

     


  • A Comment on Electronic Warfare

    She was there..
    This is her comment
    —————————-
    Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 2:27 AM
    Subject: Olympic peninsula electronic warfare
    —————————————————————–

    Hey Gang

    Great turn out in Pacific Beach. I’d say a good 90% were no more convinced by the meetings end, that the health and safety for human, wildlife or the natural environment, the NAVY EA claims to be safe, really AREN’T proven to be. But who are we to question the Navy?

    Or is it even the Navy we should be questioning?
    Two highly qualified guests on both National Defense and the Environment were present speaking on behalf of the Public concerns as well as opinions of their own.

    PB was happy to welcome Craig B Hulet who has 35 years experience in International Relations,

    Military, Terrorism, Business and Security under his belt. He has been a consultant to Federal law enforcement DEA, ATF&E on Justice and Homeland Security for over 25 years and has written many books on the Geopolitical climate in these areas.

    Karen Sullivan biologist and environmental Science professional was also welcomed and shared the suspected/known dangers of this type of EW technology on ALL life itself.

    The technology that has never been proven safe but only assumed safe and

    still not properly tested. I can’t thank them enough for the informative comments and questions addressed to the Navy. You can view the 139 page PDF of Mr. Hulets scope 

    on the Navy’s 228 page EW Warfare PDF on his website. Just google Craig B Hulet or Karen Sullivan for websites and information pertaining to EW warfare on the Olympic Peninsula. READ these informative PDF’s.

    These contain points from some of the issues discussed at the meeting. I tried to forward the PDF’s but ran into All kinds

    of problems and a clogged up mail box that I can’t delete the sending process from.

    I hope I didn’t pass the mail problem on to all you too.

    Nothing in my outbox, no mail, but it just keeps sending and failing and sending and failing????????? geesh!

    Any way. The outcome of this meeting? I can only give my opinion.

    DOG and PONY SHOW by the Navy? YES. They did what they were

    sent out to do. Read from parts of the 228 page EA assessment and try to verify it’s solidity.
    The Navy stated,  they are up in the skies now! They have been there since the 1940’s. (what’s new?).  They’ve increased their air traffic and flight patterns since 2008 when they started talking about implementing these War plans here,

    with the USFS and the Committee of Armed Forces (that would be Ex-Dicks and

    currently Kilmer?). Yep mister wild lands man himself under the “green mask” was

    here to take land for the federal government in more ways then one, apparently 

    The green groups who secured his position in the House (for his push on Federal

    takeover of PUBLIC lands for locked up wilderness), got their wish. 2 days or so

    after the elections WILD OLYMPICS RE-surfaced.

    Waste no time Kilmer did his part! just days before the Navy’s Warfare Plans

    surfaced, with little to no public knowledge of it’s existence. Has the green party’s

    spiritual environmental plans been crushed?

     WOAH…. Nellie! Right in the thick of it! Gordon and his tam wearing team were

    there just like little statues in a row, as always.  Lining up with panic stricken faces.

    We warned green parties this was not about wilderness or the future of our forests,

    our natural resources or our children and grandchildren.

    It was about occupation and federal control to do ANYTHING and everything

    they deem fit. I think some are catching the clue.

    They must have forgotten  Wa. State has an “Obama Congress”.

    Starry eyed, the green parties believed they were the “chosen ones”. SURPRISE?

    Look who’s pushed them off their table? Their own congressman? 

    What? Never mentioning PUBLICLY EW warfare was already in the making long

    before choking out the worthless, Wild Olympics debacle? Does it matter in which way

    the Federal Government takes our PUBLIC, PRIVATE or RESOURCE lands away? I’m sure they will be very curious to ask congressman Wild Kid bilkhawk what the deal is. Never know when things will come back to kick ones ass (heehaw).
    By the end of the meeting. It was pretty much written in plain black and white.
    Done Deal – To Bad – We’re already here AND DON’T PLAN ON GOING ELSEWHERE

    nor did they give the impression they would be forced to. The Military will

    basically trump the wilderness laws and up their flight activity a said 10%.
    Since 2008 we’ve seen it take a 10% or more leap in air activity already.

    The Military would not discuss the current chemtrailing.

    Their response to that was “we’re here to address the EW only”.

    They were not qualified to speak on anything but the EW presentation.

    They brushed that off their shoulders quite easily. So perhaps another day,

    with another dollar we’ll have to ask for PUBLIC transparency on the military activity

    that is currently spraying our skies and manipulating the natural environment

    in our atmosphere.
    The Military reasoning for moving here was, to save government costs and

    to bring military families closer together with their servicemen.
    (REALLY? I thought that was part of what a military family was geared to compensate for? 

    The possibility of a family serviceman or woman being called upon at any time

    to go preform their duties? That’s what they sign up for. Has the military become

    whiners now too under Obama-man? 

    Perhaps obama feels our military should be

    equal to the same room and board the foreign invaders are receiving with every illegals,

    father, brothers, sons, mothers, daughters cousins and their strings of children

    are now getting for busting over our borders. Closer family accommodations.

    450 Jose’s a day? Pick your family we will pay)

    Sorry everybody I couldn’t help myself).

    Saving on Government costs?

     
    FYI – One growler jet burns up to 1000 gal of fuel per hour. 8 hours of exercises

    (cut down from their original 12) per day and estimated 11 exercises per week.

    88,000 Gal. of fuel per week? HELLO EMISSIONS!

    The Olympic pristine environment?

    MOVE IT ON OVER!

    Human carbon emissions? Stop breathing or pay a higher price for your airspace!

    The US Navy is here.
    Violations were found by the USFS failures

    to go through necessary approval processes including Nepa assessment. 

    The Navy had the Nepa EA permit processing guidelines approved only.

    No sound testing for using this technology just guidelines they must follow.

    Of coruse they said they would follow. But no proof can be presented, without production,

    so to speak.
    Last but not least a question asked to the Navy: What are the health and safety

    concerns you have taken to protect the officers that will be operating inside of

    these emitter trucks at very close range and doesn’t this present a greater danger

    to them?

    The Navy stated under the their strict frequency guidelines and airspace,

    where these mobile emitters will be directing these waves (away from the truck),

    they foresee no problem or danger. Now here’s the “Tell all”.
    Also these won’t be Navy officers, they will be CIVILIANS who will be inside

     

     

    the emitter trucks!!!!!! DID YOU HEAR THAT DIANNE????

    I heard C-I-V-I-L-I-A-N-S.

    Correct me if I’m wrong
    So in other words,  if there are any guinea pigs out there, will you please raise your hands?

    Put the young boys on the front lines and civilians in the electromagnetic emitter trucks.

    Sound about right? What difference does it make? They are just numbers on paper,

    no special significance, just numbers similar to the young Viet-Nam war casualties.


    Lots of Reading to do on this highly controversial Warfare training.

    Both Craig B Hulet’s PDF and Karen Sullivens PDF are well worth your time

    in understanding the issues on all sides of the spectrum.
    A BIG thanks to Grays Harbor Commissioner Wes Cormier

    for arranging the Meeting in Grays Harbor County that Congressman Kilmer

    had no time for and felt it insignificant.

    Very poor representation on Kilmers part, our fine member on the board of

    The Committee Of Armed Forces. Ever hear him mention EW during his

    “visiting the naval base” back patting appearances?
    Lots of Quinault Residents showed up! NICE TO SEE.
    Only so much can be accomplished at an “informational” public meeting.

    From my observation this “informational” meeting proved only, that much

    more discussion needs to take place, more knowledge brought forward from all

    sides and many undocumented legal processes need to be thoroughly applied for

    and also studied before this plan should be allowed to move forward and be fully

    implemented. The comment period needs to be extended through next year I feel.

    BIG issues should not be allowed to offer the general public only a LITTLE time frame

    in order to bring all the necessary agencies and proper channels together to provide

    honest factual representation of this “proposed action. If you catch the scent of dead fish

    in the air you’ll know where it’s coming from.

    I personally see a Military coupe over U.S. Citizens coming in and taking the coast

    and half of Washington State with it. As Craig Hulet said (in so many words) he has never

    known the Military to stop in growth, once boots are on the ground.

    Move it on over the big bad dogs moving in. Remember,  the Military takes it’s orders

    from who ????????
    I believe this goes far deeper than Dean the Bean Millett.

    He’s the stoolie. I do believe most all of the Peninsula and half the Seattle and Tacoma

    and beyond have big issues with Dean.
    FYI – The USFS was not their to represent their case on their permit proposal.

    Dodging tomatoes can be exhilarating. Dean must be hiding under Mother May I’s apron strings.


    Who controls the USFS?
    Who controls the DEPT of INTERIOR and DEFENSE.

    Do we even know anymore? for sure?

    This has all the signs pointing to Agenda 21 full speed ahead and I do believe

    the military is here to begin it’s UN implementation. The Navy is extending their

    presence here to do this under orders, to do the job they are assigned to do. 

    I can respect that. But BY WHO’S IRON FIST? and for WHO’S real purpose.

    Does the military even know anymore?

    I guess it’s not their job to know. They are our Armed Forces and take

    the orders from the (choke) commander in chief by way of DHS/DOD, when the commander

    himself is out at a golf game and unavailable to take responsibility for action on anything. 

    No questions are supposed to be asked, they just serve.


    I love our Military and do genuinely thank them for their service and dedication. What would

    we have done in the past without them? I myself haven’t enough guts that come anywhere

    near the courage and dedication it takes to put their lives on the line everyday during

    training or actual combat missions. I appreciate what they do but I don’t feel this is the

    place to do it.

    Who can we trust anymore during a time when the American people seem to be under siege

    by their own U.S. President? to be turned over into hands of the United Nations warlord

    banking cartel?

    My instincts tell me to DUCK! cause we are under fire

    Well Doug and Dianne were there and may have absorbed things a bit differently.

    I know Dianne’s not shy so if I’ve crossed my wires, she will correct me.

    So Dianne please share how you comprehended what was revealed from this meeting and where you foresee this all going.
    My next Digest will follow the Grays Harbor SMP  Dec 17 also at Pacific Beach.
    Cheers!

     


  • SMP Cumulative Impact on People

    SMP  Cumulative Impact on People

    This is my Clallam County SMP Public comment and objection

    comment code CIA – Cumulative Impacts Report

    directed to Deputy Director Steve Gray and Planning Commission

    on the  Nov. 2014 Clallam County SMP Updated Draft

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————

    I have been researching documenting and commenting on the Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan Update since Jan.26, 2011.

    I  have 156 SMP Public Comments posted on the SMP website on the CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF THE SMP UPDATE ON THE 3300 VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS IN CLALLAM COUNTY WA.

    But? Then?  WHAT DO I KNOW ABOUT THE SMP UPDATE WEBSITE?

    The vast majority of my “CUMULATIVE IMPACT” SMP Public Comments on “We The People” have been posted  and coded as “GENERAL COMMENTS?”.

    How could a thing like that happen?

    ————————————————————-

    The  Nov. 2014 Clallam County SMP Updated Draft?

    By his own admission to me, with no help from ESA facilitator, Margaret Clancy, Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager has completely rewritten, revised, altered, edited, expanded, reworded, and RE-DRAFTED the the Clallam County Shoreline Management Update.

    Steve Gray has presented two meetings of his Updated SMP RE-DRAFTED SMP  to The Clallam County Planning Commission, ESA facilitator, Margaret Clancy, is assisting him.

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

    I strenuously object to the hastily rewritten RE-DRAFTED SMP Update presentations of maps and language. Using  the ESA consultants and ECOLOGY’S SUSTAINABILITY NO NET LOSS jargon,

    Sometimes including a brief stop to mention the  Advisory Committee

    The  SMP GOBBLEDYGOOK being presented, using more words than necessary, especially to avoid expressing it directly,  to an ill-prepared Planning Commission, goes far beyond the understanding of a reasonable person. (why Lake Sutherland has a 35 foot setback)

    THE OVERLAPPING MAPS? UNUSUALLY  hard to understand THE SHALL AND MUST PROTECT  of , 200 foot setback, the critical areas set- backs, plus the exceptional feeder bluffs, plus the flood plain, plus the rivers meander line, PLUS THE ASSOCIATED WETLANDS, plus the protected wetland habitat,  and the mention of SEASONAL STREAMS…

    UNUSUALLY, HARD TO UNDERSTAND HARD TO SWALLOW.

    ———————————————-

    Obama Administration Is Writing Huge “Rule Change” to Take Private Land

    —————————————————————————————–

    The new rules and wording added to our Nov. 2014   Shoreline Management Update by Steve Gray indicate that it is a done deal… plus the associated wetlands, plus seasonal streams.

    ————————————————————————

    The changed suggested by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency is being protested by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a group which has challenged water-related regulation before the Supreme Court — and won.

    “On its face, the proposed rule covers virtually every water in the nation,” PLF told the government in public comments, according to WND.

    ———————————————————————————-

    The understanding of a reasonable man? The intent of a party can be determined by examining the understanding of a reasonable person, after consideration is given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices the parties have established between themselves, usages and any subsequent conduct of the parties.

    —————————————————————————————

    Why call it GOBBLEDYGOOK? in an SMP Update in ESA and ECOLOGY language characterized by circumlocution and the use of more words than necessary to express something, especially to avoid saying it directly.

     And saying the word water, and more water, Indicates water, the movement of water, standing still water, the high water mark, failed to mention the difference between an SMP shoreline and the SMP shorelines of Statewide significance, past the  taking of  private property value, somebody, vested private property owners… 

    Sometimes including a brief stop to mention the  mitigation process, so a vested Clallam County private property owner can use and develop his own private property.

    Using  the ESA consultants and ECOLOGY’S SUSTAINABILITY NO NET LOSS jargon

    Sometimes including a brief stop to mention the  Advisory Committee

    And THIS IS  really, really hard to swallow after spending over two years as a vested private shoreline property owner on the …….

    Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Advisory Committee

     MEMBER FROM  first meeting April 11, 2011 to last April 9, 2013

    But? Then?  WHAT DO I KNOW ABOUT THE SMP UPDATE?

    Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    With 29 members include some (5) vested private Clallam County citizens, but most (24) members of the committee represent environmental and other advocacy groups or are paid staff of the Department of Ecology (DOE), Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and Puget Sound Partnership. The Tribes, The Serra club, and NGO special interest groups.

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

    The SMP Advisory Committee was under the direction of,  E.S.A. Adfolson Consultants, Margaret Clancy  and Jim Kramer. How could anyone forget to mention the Facilitators?

     ———————————————————–

    E.S.A. Adfolson Consultants had already COOKIE CUT  24 SMP UPDATES ACROSS WA STATE by the time they got down to their $599,930 grant from Ecology’s business on the Clallam County SMP Update.

    ————————————————————————————

    COOKIE CUTTING   24 WA STATE SMP UPDATES?

    ONE PREDETERMINED SMP  PATTERN DOES NOT FIT ALL SHORELINES

    SMP E.S.A. Adfolson Consultants Public Participation Meeting Jan. 26, 2011

    The OXYMORON Public Participation Meeting by invitation only?

    —————————————————————————

    THEN ON TO THE MAIN EVENT

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, April 9, 2013:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Draft Agenda – April 9, 2013
    • SMP Committee PowerPoint Presentation – April 9, 2013
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes – April 9, 2013 pending
    • Memo RE: Cumulative Impacts Analysis (CIA) & No Net Loss Report (2-2013)
    • DRAFT Clallam Co. Cumulative Impacts Analysis and No Net Loss Report (2-2013)
    • Memo RE: Clallam Co. SMP Shoreline Restoration Plan February 2013 (2-2013)
    • DRAFT Clallam Co. SMP Shoreline Restoration Plan February 2013 (2-2013)

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, January 15, 2013 materials pending:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – January 15, 2013
    • SMP Committee PowerPoint Presentation – January 15, 2013
    • SMP CMZ Implications – January 15, 2013
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes – January 15, 2013

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    2012 SMP Committee Meetings:

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, December 11, 2012:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – December 11, 2012
    • SMP Committee PowerPoint Presentation – December 11, 2012
    • Clallam County Feeder Bluff Mapping for SMP Update Presentation by Jim Johannessen – December 11, 2012
    • SMP Committee Meeting draft Notes – December 11, 2012
    • Memo RE: Explanantion of proposed shoreline buffer widths – December 11, 2012

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, July 10, 2012:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – July 10, 2012
    • SMP Committee PowerPoint Presentation – July 10, 2012
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes – July 10, 2012
    • Clallam SMP Revised Buffer Strategy Outline
    • SMP Work Activities Completed/In Progress Since April 24, 2012
    • Preliminary Working draft SMP comments summary (since Feb. 2012)

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, April 24, 2012:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – April 24, 2012
    • SMP Committee PowerPoint Presentation – April 24, 2012
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes – April 24, 2012
    • WDOE Handbook Chapter 11:  Vegetation Conservation, Buffers and Setbacks
    • WDOE Handbook Section:  Existing Development

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, March 27, 2012:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – March 27, 2012
    • SMP Committee PowerPoint Presentation – March 27, 2012
    • SMP Committee Clallam County Public Access Presentation – March 27, 2012
    • SMP Shoreline Environmental Decision Tree – 4-20-2012
    • Matrix of Issues – March 27, 2012
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes – March 27, 2012

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, March 6, 2012:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – March 6, 2012
    • SMP Committee PowerPoint Presentation – March 6, 2012
    • SMP Committee draft Meeting Notes – March 6, 2012
    • Memo RE:  Basis of proposed shoreline buffer width recommendations
    • Introduction to the Preliminary Draft Clallam County Shoreline Master Program

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, February 28, 2012:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – February 28, 2012
    • SMP Committee Meeting PowerPoint Presentation – February 28, 2012
    • SMP Commitee Meeting Notes – February 28, 2012 – REVISED
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes – February 28, 2012
    • SMP Summary Comparison Matrix
    • Clallam County SMP Preliminary Working Draft Document
    • Clallam County SMP Draft Shoreline Environmental Designation Maps
    • Clallam County SMP Update:  Shoreline Environment Designations (SEDs) (Working Draft Memo)
    • Clallam County Shoreline Draft Designation Maps
    • FINAL WRIA 17-19 Clallam County SMP Update Vision Report
    • WDOE Statutory Basis for SMP

     

    2011 SMP Committee Meetings:

     

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, November 15, 2011:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – November 15, 2011
    • SMP Committeee Meeting PowerPoint Presentation – November 15, 2011
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes Appended – November 15, 2011
    • Clallam County SMP Update: Shoreline Environment Designations (SEDs) (Working Draft)
    • Clallam County Shoreline Draft Designation Maps

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, October 18, 2011:

    • SMP Committee Agenda – October 18, 2011
    • SMP Committee Meeting PowerPoint Presentation – October 18, 2011
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes – October 18, 2011
    • Clallam County Shoreline Draft Designation Maps
    • Clallam County SMP Update: Shoreline Environment Designations (SEDs) (Working Draft)
    • Final Consistency Review Report
    • 1976 Clallam County SMP
    • WAC 173-26-211

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, September 27, 2011:

    • SMP Committee  Agenda – September 27, 2011
    • SMP Committee Meeting PowerPoint Presentation – September 27, 2011
    • SMP Committee Notes – September 27, 2011
    • SMP Committee  Meeting Materials Packet – September 27, 2011

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, July 11, 2011:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Memo – July 12, 2011
    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – July 12, 2011
    • SMP Committe Notes – July 12, 2011
    • Draft Clallam County SMP Update Vision Report – June 27, 2011
    • Draft WRIA 17-19 (Straits) Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report
    • Draft WRIA 17-19 (Straits) Shoreline Maps

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Monday, April 11, 2011:

    • Welcome Letter
    • Meeting Agenda – April 11, 2011
    • Meeting Presentation – April 11, 2011
    • Meeting Notes – April 11, 2011
    • General Operating Procedures & Ground Rules
    • Draft CC-SMP Consistency Report

    Reference Documents:

    • SMP Committee Work Plan & Structure for Committee Meetings
    • General Operating Procedures & Ground Rules
    • CC-SMP Process Overview Timeline – February 2011
    • SMP Committee List as of 1-2012
    • Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (1992)
    • Chapter 173-26 WAC Shoreline Master Program Guidelines
    • Introduction to WA´s SMP (WDOE)
    • SMP:  Making Sense of Tough Issues (WDOE)
    • SMP:  Frequently Asked Questions (WDOE)
    • WRIA 20 (Pacific Coast) Visioning Forum Report (October 2010)
    • CC-SMP Summary of Focus Group Meetings (January 2011)
    • CC-SMP Revised Public Participation Strategy (March 2011)
    • Summary – SMP Public Forums (April 2011)
    • WRIA 20 (Pacific Coast) Revised Draft Inventory and Characterization Report (June 2011)
    • Comments – Consistency Review Report (June 2011)


    THANK YOU SMP COMMITTEE  FOR YOUR TIME, DEDICATION and ATTENTION TO DETAIL,COMPREHENSIVE COMMENTS, EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS,EXTENSIVE INPUT, and HARD WORK!

    THE NEW November 2014 draft Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Update :

    Prepared by The CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE has been hastily completely rewritten, revised, modified, altered, expanded, reworded,  SMP Update

     

    Nov.18,2014

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

    I strenuously object to the hastily rewritten SMP Update presentation of maps and language.The  SMP gobbledygook being presented, using more words than necessary, especially to avoid expressing it directly,  to an ill-prepared Planning Commission, goes far beyond the understanding of a reasonable person.

    BUT THEN? WHAT DO I KNOW ABOUT THE SMP UPDATE?

    November 2014 … THE NEW draft Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Update :

    Prepared by The CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE?

    With Assistance?  by the CLALLAM COUNTY DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION.

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

     

     


  • SMP Bluff Retention Devices

    Bluff Retention Devices (BRDs)
    Eroding the right to protect private property at the coast
    ——————————————————————
    Moreover, the provision that property owners waive their right to construct BRDs in the future if they wish to remodel or add to existing structures is unconstitutional; it conflicts with Nollan v. California Coastal Commission’s prohibition on unrelated conditions on permits. 
    ————————————————————————-
    I did submit this SMP Public Comment September 13, 2013
    I am resubmitting this SMP Public Comment Nov. 17, 2014
    to the Planning Commission.
    It has not been posted on the Clallam County  SMP website.
    ———————————————————————————

    Eroding the right to protect private property at the coast

    Beach and Bluff Conservancy v. City of Solana Beach

    Contact: Paul J. Beard II

    Status: Complaint filed in the San Diego Superior Court on Apr. 26, 2013.

    Summary: PLF attorneys represent the Beach and Bluff Conservancy, a nonprofit organization of coastal property owners, in their suit against the City of Solana Beach over severe new restrictions on the use of Bluff Retention Devices (BRDs) — such as seawalls — to protect coastal property.

    In March, 2012, the California Coastal Commission certified its own staff’s proposed Land Use Plan, which took Solana Beach’s already heavily modified plan and added 153 more changes — including serious limitations on the use of BRDs. The City adopted the Commission-modified plan in February, 2013.

    The new policies are inconsistent with the Coastal Act, which mandates approval of BRDs “when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion.” Moreover, the provision that property owners waive their right to construct BRDs in the future if they wish to remodel or add to existing structures is unconstitutional; it conflicts with Nollan v. California Coastal Commission’s prohibition on unrelated conditions on permits.

     ———————————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 10:06 AM
    Subject: Public comment for Planning Commission

    Tami,

    It is my understanding that you are in charge of SMP Update comments for the Clallam County Planning Commissioners.

    Thank you for providing this comment to them in a timely fashion.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    —————————————————–

    Comment

    Clallam County SMP Update

    Planning Commissioners

    Bluff Retention Devices (BRDs)

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     

    Eroding the right to protect private property at the coast

    Beach and Bluff Conservancy v. City of Solana Beach

    Contact: Paul J. Beard II

    Status: Complaint filed in the San Diego Superior Court on Apr. 26, 2013.

    Summary: PLF attorneys represent the Beach and Bluff Conservancy, a nonprofit organization of coastal property owners, in their suit against the City of Solana Beach over severe new restrictions on the use of Bluff Retention Devices (BRDs) — such as seawalls — to protect coastal property.

    In March, 2012, the California Coastal Commission certified its own staff’s proposed Land Use Plan, which took Solana Beach’s already heavily modified plan and added 153 more changes — including serious limitations on the use of BRDs. The City adopted the Commission-modified plan in February, 2013.

    The new policies are inconsistent with the Coastal Act, which mandates approval of BRDs “when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion.” Moreover, the provision that property owners waive their right to construct BRDs in the future if they wish to remodel or add to existing structures is unconstitutional; it conflicts with Nollan v. California Coastal Commission’s prohibition on unrelated conditions on permits.