The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-654 c ~ 24 ft~ ( Jeanie Orr ;;>~"""\ From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jeanie Orr Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:57 AM scoopy@rainierconnect.com Jeanie Orr RE: Shoreline Mgmt Plan Comments (Advise receipt of email and fax) \ (~ 1-\ ',--~~ Received fax and letter and will be part of formal SMP comments Thank you Jeanie Orr Planning Division Clerk Dept of Community Development jorr@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4488 360-379-4451 (fax) All email sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County email system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW Please note that DCD hours changed as of December 1, 2008. Our office is open to the public 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Monday to Thursday, closed Fridays. -----Original Message----- From: scoopy@rainierconnect.com [mailto:scoopy@rainierconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:29 PM To: #Long-Range Planning Subject: Shoreline Mgmt Plan Comments (Advise receipt of email and fax) RE: SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE Faxed 8:30 pm June 17, 2009 Duplicate of email sent at same time Please acknowledge receipt of email and fax. fax 360 893 2000 or email: scoopy@rainierconnect.com or leave a message: 253-279-2106. Thank you Cordell Burke 1 Jeanie Orr From: Sent: To: Subject: Jeanie Orr Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:08 AM Michelle McConnell; AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Jeanie Orr FW: Shoreline Mgmt Plan Comments -----Original Message----- From: scoopy@rainierconnect.com [mailto:scoopy@rainierconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:13 PM To: #Long-Range Planning Subject: Shoreline Mgmt Plan Comments Date 6-17-09 Time emailed: 8:29 pm Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the update to the Shoreline Management Plan. with only a quick glance through the SMP the most glaring flaw is the fact that all properties are regulated the same. Are you looking at building an inch in elevation above the OHWM or 300 feet above it. Doesn't matter.. . ONE PLAN FITS ALL. It doesn't. Jefferson County seems to be at the front of every piece of opinionated non-scientific paperwork that the Department of ~Ecology" puts out. They speak and Jefferson County jumps. Why not for once just refuse to cooperate? Make them PROVE there is a cause an effect relationship behind whatever the current regulation of the month is. A good case could be made that DOE has no business making ANY suggestions or regulations involving shoreline pollution or harm. Instead of going after known polluting septic systems; DOE appears more concerned about property owners who install new septic systems. You took this as requiring you to force (some would say extort) to sign septic maintenance agreements. I know this monitoring business makes everyone feel good; however it does absolutely nothing to solve the current real septic problems along Hood Canal (if even they exist) . Yes, this is DOE's idea; but you are going along with it. DOE.. .the same agency that was in charge when 10-20,000 gallons of untreated waste went into Hood Canal off Port Ludlow (result: no permanent damage it was said) . DOE was in charge of state sewer issues when the 140,000 oops NOW 250,000-400,000 gallons went in to puget Sound off of Bainbridge Island recently. Result: readings appear normal. If a brand new system needs constant monitoring; and needs it immediately; how can you waste resources on this shoreline plan without addressing OLD systems 10 feet from the water; installed near sea level? How can you waste resources at all with this SMP update when the pollution from old systems accumulates in the waterways? The utility involved in the Eagle Harbor spill said ~Maybe we will start inspecting these old pipes" MAYBEl Where is DOE and their volumes of regulations? This boggles the mind. This is DOE in action. Make sure we all build back 160 feet from the canal to ~protect" it. I would respectfully suggest throwing out this entire document and saving the attorney fees that will inevitably result and using the funds to make sure Port Townsend's sewer system is up to snuff on our own. Heck maybe even take it a step further and start using the technologies that are working to remove prescription drugs, heavy metals and a host of other REAL problems from entering the water. Jefferson County does not practice forward thinking; it 1 does not "act" it only "reacts". The problem is not where people are building. It appears that the problem is people have septic systems at all; anywhere. If you just dump tens/hundreds of thousands of gallons straight into the water there is apparently NO PROBLEM. Yet my system in 9 feet plus of dry medium sand needs to be monitored for failure at a ridiculous cost. Either DOE is lying on the spill issue; or constantly lying about septic systems; the facts don't add up. This off topic detour attempts to describe the source of the problem with the SMP update. It was flawed from the get-go because you relied on the DOE's opinions that are not backed up by any known science. DOE in Washington State since about 1999 has lost its credibility. Has anyone heard a public statement from them on the spill off of Bainbridge Island? What you WILL succeed in doing by passing this update with its current language is turn neighbor against neighbor. "Look Mr. Johnson is illegally trimming a bush, I'm calling the county". Don't think it won't happen. I've seen people with 10 acres go nuts over a yard of topsoil. The neurotic "I've got mine the heck with anyone else" people are going to have fun with this document. Shouldn't Jefferson County's goals include BUILDING a sense of community? Most people on a very local level will listen to reason. What this update is lacks a proof of current damage due to house location or even vegetation issues. If these buffers ARE so necessary; tear down the existing houses. All of them. Start with Port Townsend itself. Water Street looks to be inside the 160 foot buffer. Am I being facetious? Maybe. But without making an equal playing field you are doing a fantastic job of turning "new" residents against "old" residents. We bought our waterfront twenty years ago after a ten year search BECAUSE it was pristine. My twenty years experience with this bluff and the vegetation tells me there are many areas that your regulations on both this document and the critical areas ordinance(s) are in conflict with the facts. A geologist says one thing, a forester says another; agreeing with each other; and still DOE wants you to regurgitate their ideas into regulation. When do you just tell them to step off? Any mention of subjective regulations in the SMP update i.e. how the property should "look"; indicate to me someone wants me to keep my property a certain way so they can go by in their boats and enjoy the view of MY land. Maybe I could paint the house in camouflage or throw a WWII camoflauge net over it to hide it? Seeing potential regulations or "suggestions" on how one may choose to live or "look"; can tend to render the reader blind to possibly useful ideas the document may include. If the purpose of this SMP update is to you not removed power boating from Hood "protecting the ecological functions". what happens when the bank is undercut by wave action. Don't get me wrong; the boats go by; but be realistic, the bank is going to me up 1000 feet from the bluff and it is STILL going to worst offender. She likes things flat. The person up on problem. The SMP supposedly hopes to increase water appropriate uses. Every car that drives over the new Hood Canal Bridge has the potential to leak oil. Every boat can leak. truly to protect the bluff and shoreline why have Canal? Again facetious? I thought we were If you want to look at bank slides please look at I enjoy seeing be damaged by them. You could back be damaged. Mother Nature is the top of the bluff isn't always the What pollution is coming from these boats; or from the cargo ships in puget Sound? Has Victoria even bothered to put in a sewer system yet? Doesn't the entire city just flush directly into the Strait? The water should be protected; both under and above ground. Why not detour the funds into public awareness of 2 Victoria's place in polluting ~OUR" water? Spend the resources going after the legitimate problems. DOE is so concerned with septic systems (making sure new ones are monitored ad nauseum). I wonder if any of Jefferson County's or DOE's employees have even stepped foot out of their offices to look at waterfront property. It is covered in bear scat, cougar scat, racoon, deer and coyote droppings and some droppings I am afraid to even think of guessing at. They don't care where they go. We can do our best but do not keep thinking moving houses around will change the ~ecological functions" of Hood Canal. This update will do a great job of alienating anyone who actually cares about the native condition of their property. In a few years we have seen the human-friendly place we ~discovered" in 1989 is marching on towards what you find in other counties. Complete and utter hatred due to ham-fisted nonsensical and illogical regulations. I enjoyed the ~instructions" on how to prepare my comments; especially about not using derogatory language. If there was but one of you that had not yet built a home; and been confronted with the endless expensive and pointless (i.e. solve no known problem) restrictions this county spews out you might be able to understand how difficult it is to discuss any of these Shoreline/Septic/"Critical Area/Well issues with any modicum of civility. Show me a true cause and effect relationship that indicates what I want to do WILL damage the shoreline and I'll be at the front promoting the change. Cordell Burke PO Box 38 Port Gamble, WA 98376 3