HomeMy WebLinkAbout84.Hagen, J. 5-5_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment IV
Michelle McConnell
From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net]
Sent:Wednesday, May 05, 2010 9:02 AM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment IV
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
It is completely inappropriate and perhaps bordering on procedural misconduct for Michelle
McConnell to continue touse her position as a county public servant as a bully pulpit for advocacy
propoganda purposes while a formal public comment period remains open. McConnell's actions
amount to interference with public participation statutes RCW 36.70A140 and WAC 173-26-201(3).
Throughout the SMP process McConnell has constantly marginalized public criticism of the proposed
SMP as "myth" or as "misinformed," but to do so when the public is legally solicited to provide input is
over the top. By insinuating that there are "rumors circulating through our community" the message
below is a clear attempt to influence and control the content of public comment, and worse casts a
chilling and discouraging effect upon citizens who are already shy about expressing their views from
doing so now. The County and DCD has had four years to present their defense of the SMP; now is
the time for citizens to speak freely and for policy and decison-makers to LISTEN. After the close of
public comment the decision-makers can evaluate individual comments on their merit in consideration
of a final decision.
There is an important distinction between rumors - which have a negative conotation - and a
difference of opinion and interpretation. Obviously the SMP update is a very complex undertaking,
otherwise it wouldn't have taken four years to conduct. Key issues such as no net loss remain a work-
in-progress ("Even though the SMP update process has been underway for several years, the path
for SMPs to meet the no net loss policy is still merging." Kramer white paper). Even the Courts and
Legislature have had difficulty clarifying fundamental aspects of how protection of our shoreline is to
be undertaken. There are very few absolutes where SMPs updates are concerned, so for Ms.
McConnell to characterize interpretations of the SMP she doesn't agree with as "rumor" only reveals
her activist slant. Every source listed by Ms. McConnell is sponsored by DOE or the County,
presenting a one-sided story that many feel sugar-coats some very real consequences for
landowners. The 200 page SMP comes with fine print.I can go down the list below and offer
legitimate contrasts to every single point. And I intend to, and I expect my comments won't be
dismissed as based on"rumor." And while there may be disagreement, we live in a society where
differences of opinion are honored. This is particulary the case during formal public comment. Under
Ms. Mcconnell's standard there would be no need for public comment. Her comments below reflect
a view that is disconnected from the public it serves.
I find particularly disturbing the phrase, "we want citizens to be well informed as they form opinions
and potentially provide comment..." What the County or Michelle McConnellwants is not relevant
here. Public employees do no set the standard for what is "wanted" from citizens. And by her tone
and the one-dimesional information list, I beleive Ms. McConnell is mistaking
"inform" for "conform." Formal public comment is the opportunity for citizens to express their input
on the proposed regualtions and for the powers-that-be to LISTEN. And exactly what is meant by "we
want?" Who is "we?" I thought this process has moved on to Ecology review. Why is McConnell
1
speaking to this when she is not involved in the review? We have been told over and over that the
County and DOE have been acting independently where policy development is concerned. Does the
message below represent Ecology's views on what it "wants?" I would think what Ecology wants is
widespread participation and diverse input by citizens who will have to live with these rules.
If you want to get into rumor, I can only refer back to a power point presentation given by Ms.
McConnell when review of the draft SMP came before the Planning Commision. One of the prominent
Existing
slides stated "SMP generally Does NOT Regulate Uses/Developments" (captials and bold
not mine). Is that a fair representation of the effect this SMP will have, and are comments that
challenge that "rumor, myth, or misinformed?" There are some very important questions relating to
nonconforming uses that remain unanswered.
Finally, the fact that "many Jefferson County residents and land owners have been tuning in for the
first time in this nearly 5-year process" indicates the County has failed in its public outreach efforts.
Generally performance is judged not by intentions but by results. Throughout the SMP process
citizens have begged the County and DOE to contact every single shorelineowner but this never
happened. Most of this kind of direct outreach was a result of private efforts.
This is not the only example of interference by public officials who would have done better to sit back
andlet the public review fulfill its vital and legal function. On January 30, 2009 and June 17, 2009
Jeffree Stewart provided input to the Planning Commission on behalf of DOE. In January he stated
that while it was appropriate for the PC to conduct an review of the Preliminary Draft SMP, "the draft
SMP you are reviewing appears fairly close to being ready for approval by the Department of
Ecology." On June 17 Mr. Stewart wrote, after intensive and dedicated efforts by the PC that resulted
in some revised recommendations, that "Ecology will not approve the SMP as currently written for the
reasons noted." This is an inappropriate and premature judgement that effectively stifles public
particiapation before it has run its course, and reinforces many citizen's perception that the outcome
of the SMP has been pre-determined by a select few.
There has been a desperate and telling argument by SMP supporters that many objections are
coming up right at the end and therefore somehow lack merit. This is consistent with many comments
that have beleived the work by the SMP Committee provided the necessary public participation
requirements and produced a result that didn't need amending. The SMP Committe process marked
the beginning of the public process, not the end. This is made clear by the Planning Enabling Act
and by theRCW and WAC. Comments received in May of 2010 are as valid as those in December of
2008.
Jim Hagen
Director, Citizens Alliance forProperty Rights
Director, Olympic Stewardship Foundation
Jefferson County.
From: Michelle McConnell [mailto:mmcconnell@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 3:42 PM
To: Michelle McConnell
Subject: SMP: Answering your questions
Greetings Interested Parties,
2
GET THE FACTS
As the Locally Approved SMP (LA-SMP) continues through the State review process, many Jefferson County
residents and land owners have been tuning in for the first time in this nearly 5-year process. There seems to be
a mix of facts and rumors circulating through our community. We want citizens to be well informed as they
form opinions and potentially provide comments on the proposed update to the existing Shoreline Master
Program (SMP).
For your convenience, here are links to some informational publications:
?
WA Dept of Ecology website about the State review process of our LA-SMP
?
WA Dept. of Ecology website of Frequently Asked Questions
?
WA Dept of Ecology Blog ECOconnect with postings about SMPs and related issues (e.g. non-
conforming structures; rebuilding after damage; erosion prevention)
?
Jefferson County Legal Counsel Frequently Asked Questions handout
?
Jefferson County Legal Review on Takings handout
?
Jefferson County Buffer Science Summary handout
REMINDER
As a reminder, the LA-SMP is not currently in effect. Once final adoption is complete, the new SMP will apply to
new shoreline use and development and will not make properties unbuildable. Some key points to consider – if
the LA-SMP is adopted as proposed:
Existing Homes that become Non-Conforming:
?
Won’t have to be relocated to comply with the new standard buffer – existing structures are
‘grandfathered’;
?
You can keep mowing your lawn, tending your garden & landscaping like always;
?
Will be allowed to rebuild on the same location if damaged by fire etc.
?
May be allowed to expand/enlarge the footprint if certain criteria are met –
minor expansion with only an administrative shoreline exemption approval,
o
moderate expansion with a conditional use permit;
o
substantial expansion with a shoreline variance approval.
o
New Homes:
?
Must locate outside standard buffer, or adjust the buffer with one of the 6 options provided
?
Single family homes will be allowed on non-conforming lots that are too small for the standard buffer
?
Will be allowed along Natural designated shorelines, where currently prohibited
Buffers & Shoreline Designations:
?
Standard buffers of 150’ (marine and rivers) and 100’ (lakes) are proposed along with 6 options to
adjust the buffer if criteria are met. The current Critical Areas Ordinance already requires a 150’ buffer
along fish & wildlife habitat and Type ‘S’ streams.
?
Buffers are based on 1) State requirements and 2) review of science as documented in the 2008 Final
Shoreline Inventory & Characterization Report
?
The buffer area is not a complete ‘no-touch’ zone –
20% can be active use (i.e. lawn, pathway, garden/landscaping)
o
Some vegetation trimming/removal will be allowed for views
o
Water dependent uses/structures (e.g. boating facilities) can be located in the buffer if criteria
o
are met
Single family homes will not be forced to allow the public on your property
o
3
?
Shoreline Environment Designations allow the regulations to be tailored to actual conditions so that
sensitive areas get the most protection for natural resources. Two shoreline designations generally
apply – one for the on-land portion and one for the in-water portion.
On land the 4 options are Natural, Conservancy, Shoreline Residential, and High Intensity
o
In the water the 2 options are Aquatic or Priority Aquatic
o
?
What do the shoreline designations mean?
Check the maps to see what designations apply to your area
o
Look at the Article 4 Allowed Use Table for a ‘quick glance’ overview of what’s allowed/prohibited
o
based on the designation
Read the details in Articles 6, 7, and 8 for specific criteria and standards
o
And as always, if you have questions contact Jefferson County DCD or WA Dept of Ecology.
Best regards,
Michelle
No reply to this message is required. You have received this message as a member of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master
Program (SMP) Interested Parties Email Distribution List. If you do not wish to receive further project notices, reply to this
message with "UNSUBSCRIBE" as the subject and body text. Anyone who wants to be added to the list may send an email
with "SUBSCRIBE" as the subject and body text. Please note: Recipient names and email addresses are not shown to keep
that information private.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner - LRP Lead
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Long Range Planning Division
621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368
MAIN 360.379.4450 DIRECT 360.379.4484 FAX 360.379.4473
WEB www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment
OFFICE OPEN: 9:00 a - 4:30 p Monday - Thursday; Closed Friday
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure
under Chapter 42.56 RCW and as such may be viewed by parties other than the intended recipient.
4