According to a notice sent out Wednesday morning, Feb. 1:

Amendments to Burien Zoning Code to revise definitions relating to impervious surface and schools; change review process for quasi-judicial land use decisions from Type 3 to Type 2; change review process for certain park and recreation facilities from Type 2 to Type 1; eliminate Type 1 review for auto repair in the CC zone; add minimum floor area requirement for mixed use in the CI zone; eliminate outdated and redundant references; establishing a process and requirements for legalization of non-conforming accessory dwelling units; eliminating requirement to maintain a database of significant trees; changing “wetland” to “stream” in a stream regulation; clarifying the location of stream buffers on property; establishing standards for increasing impervious surface coverage on sites where impervious surface coverage is already non-conforming; revising road capacity levels of service; establishing standards for community gardens; and, allowing options to preparing a parking study to determine parking requirements.

The specific proposed 2012 Zoning Code Amendments and project file is available for viewing at Burien City Hall during regular business hours.

Any person may submit written or oral comments or testimony at the public hearing, or may submit written comments prior to the hearing. Written comments may be submitted in person, via mail, e-mail or by facsimile. All documents submitted or requested as part of this application, including the City staff report are available for review at City Hall during regular business hours.

Scott Greenberg, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Burien
400 SW 152nd St, Suite 300
Burien, WA 98166

Phone: (206) 248-5519
E-Mail: scottg@burienwa.gov

Read through the proposed changes to the Burien Comp plan, outlined in the Planning Commission packet of Oct 12 (see pages 4 – 10, especially sections 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6). It raises many questions and concerns. What are the overall risks? Are there some hidden agendas that are going to end up costing everyone in Highline? What are the contingencies if the rosy scenarios turn out not to be true? Hopefully on Oct 26, the Planning Commission will ask some very hard questions, not just rubber-stamp the proposal.

First, these changes appear to give free reign to any public entity, such as the Port, to acquire land for any purpose anywhere in the City of Burien. Not just a traditional public purposes, but “any” purpose that meets the wishes of the public entity. Think about this. When property is bought, it goes off the tax rolls, reducing revenues to the Highline School District at a time when school revenue is already declining. Taking property off the tax rolls also makes it more difficult to issue future school construction bonds.

Second, one wonders if there’s some hidden agenda or side deal going on.

Usually, comp plans drive zoning. Usually, zoning is carefully structured so it is not in conflict with a comp plan. Here, the opposite seems to be the case: zoning is driving the Comp Plan. Isn’t this troubling? One wonders what else the Burien City Council was not informed of when it passed Ordinances 528 and 529 in Dec 2009.

528 is a comp plan amendment. It created two designations, AI and PR, and some other elements related to the Comp Plan. 529 specifically relates to NERA zoning. Note item 6, related to adult entertainment, and item 7, about cargo containers, as well as many other things.

Third, read the history section. “In 2003 the third runway …”. I’ve seen that type of language before. It reads just like the phony history and junk data the Port always uses to justify its goals and agendas. That paragraph is particularly odious because so much is missing.

For example, it completely ignores the reality that many residents still live in the area. Also it overlooks the reality of pollution in the Lora Lake area. Is this on purpose?

Wishful thinking won’t make the pollution magically disappear. So why surrender any mention of SEPA and EIS for the NERA area in the comp plan? If one does believe this is only about changes to a comp plan to make it comply with zoning (with no hidden agendas at all), one could ask what section of the zoning code does having SEPA and an EIS conflict with?

Wouldn’t nearby residents and the children and adults who use Moshier Field and who are at nearby Highline High School and the Sunnydale site like to know they have as much protection against air and water pollution as possible?

One also wonders what the real story is about secured sex offender housing and adult entertainment. Also, the Comp Plan has both zoning and design standards in place. Who will set design standards?

As bad as all this is, I can actually think of a worse aspect. There are persistent rumors Port staffers that a fourth runway would be north of 518. This could well be an east – west runway, and it would include property now a part of the City of Burien. By removing controls for buyout areas, the city appears to be smoothing the way for the Port to do this. The language removing SEPA and EIS would apply both to the Lora Lake contaminated area and to new buyout areas, such as the fourth runway site.

There are so many mysteries and unknowns in this Comp Plan revision. It deserves a great deal of scrutiny, citizen discussion and review about the risks, uncertainties and real long-term costs, impacts, beneficiaries and losers.

- Stuart Jenner

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first of several articles focusing on economic development in the Highline area that will appear on The B-Town Blog in the next few weeks.

One issue that has elicited concern has to do with the city's revisions of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Northeast Redevelopment Area (NERA). We are doing our best to cover this from both sides, and we encourage our Readers to chime in with Comments below, or email us a Letter to the Editor for consideration of publication. We also encourage all concerned residents to speak up at the City Council and Planning Commission meetings, the schedule of which can be found on the city's website here.

The following post includes concerns submitted by area activist Stuart Jenner, added to our original story by Editor Scott Schaefer; Jenner's concerns appear in italics, indented, with a gray background:]

by Ralph Nichols

Burien Planning Commission members will review on Tuesday, Oct. 26, at 7 p.m., proposed amendments that would delete from the city’s comprehensive plan outdated policies for the Northeast Redevelopment Area (NERA).

This has a few local residents up in arms, however, fearful that in doing so Burien would surrender to the Port of Seattle control of both developments in this area, north of Sea-Tac International Airport, and environmental regulations there.

Some residents say that the language being stripped out of the Comp. Plan implies that lands owned by public entities (like the Port of Seattle) do not have to be developed in a manner consistent with City regulations.

The Port owns a number of properties in NERA – which is located within the Burien city limits – where it hopes to attract businesses that will support airport activities.

Some say that this plan for redevelopment “happened when the Port approached the City of Burien’s planning staff to consider some new business working arrangements.” These same residents also “wonder what kind of businesses the Port is planning to put in their neighborhood? This is a neighborhood that has significantly suffered from the development of the Port’s Third Runway. They are wondering what the Port has in store for them next.”

But proposed changes to the comprehensive plan in what appears to be a housekeeping measure will not exempt NERA from city zoning requirements on developers who build there.

Some claim that the changes to the Comprehensive Plan appear to exempt the Port from the City’s planning, development standards, health and safety regulations, modifications, demolition and relocation of structures permits.

Several city staff said whoever buys or builds on property there will still be required to comply with all applicable zoning laws – whether the owners and developers are public or private.

Some wonder if these developers will have to comply with the vision of the City of Burien, and will the residential members of the NERA neighborhood be adequately protected without the safeguards that existed in the Comprehensive Plan.

Likewise, state law permits no exemption for the Port or any other public agency from complying with the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA).

Previously, the City of Burien was involved in the Lora Lake Apartments, which was proclaimed as a toxic waste contaminated site. Some wonder if the City will just leave that up to the Port to take care of all of the SEPA compliance. According to some citizens, the Port has not always been very good at this. These citizens are concerned for the water quality of Miller Creek, which runs through the NERA neighborhood, helps recharge the Highline aquifer, and drains into Puget Sound.

Furthermore, public agencies are prohibited by state law from using public funds to buy property or invest in uses that have no public benefit. A potential non-public use of public funds by the Port is another concern of these citizens.

The comprehensive plan policies in question are being removed simply because they “aren’t consistent with the most recent planning efforts and zoning implementation” for NERA, said Senior Planner David Johanson.

Some citizens question how zoning and planning could have been put in place before addressing the intended limits on public entities in the Comprehensive Plan. Essentially, they wonder why this did not happen in the correct order according to the City’s rules.

“We’re removing that inconsistency, based on the planning efforts which include residential uses that were done in cooperation with the Port.”

Some citizens are wondering how these new residential uses will change the character of their existing neighborhood. They thought they were going to just get some new car dealerships over on SW 152nd. But what are they really going to get with this new cooperation from the Port?

Allowable land uses in NERA were modified by the city council in November 2009 – among other things easing restrictions on the use of residential property for homeowners living there – along with related zoning changes.

However, someone apparently made these zoning changes without first checking to see if they were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

These revisions were made over several weeks without extensive discussion and with no public controversy.

Some citizens say that they do not recall having gotten a mailed notice that this was happening. They simply don’t recall being notified about a hearing. Were there any hearings?

Since then, city staff found incompatibilities between the updated zoning regulations and older comprehensive plan requirements.

The proposed amendments are written for “compatible land use and economic diversification” in NERA, Johansen continued. “We don’t want just more retail in the city. We already have retail and residential. This is an opportunity to maybe diversify our economic base.”

What some citizens want to know is, what will this economic diversification look like and how will it impact their neighborhood? If it is not retail, light industry or the car dealers, what is it going to be? These citizens are not eager to have the NERA neighborhood become a dumping ground for businesses that no one wants, such as secured sex offender housing or adult entertainment. They already have the airport noise – what other nuisances will come with the new economic diversification? What type of image will this create for all of Burien? This is literally Burien’s front door and is even visible to people landing at the airport.

In addition to encouraging new commercial activity in the city, including airport-related businesses, more jobs for residents of Burien and the surrounding area are expected to be created.

Some citizens are asking what might this commercial and airport-related business and jobs look like and how will it benefit their neighborhood. They say their neighborhood has already “suffered the most significant damage from the Port and they have gotten very little in return from the Port.”

Des Moines is involved in a somewhat similar activity in planning with the Port for development of the Des Moines Creek Business Park south of Sea-Tac just west of Pacific Highway S.

Some citizens feel that if this process had been done in the correct sequence for a change to the Comprehensive Plan and if more city had done more public relations outreach on planning, they might have fewer questions about what is really happening here.

The policies proposed for deletion from the comprehensive plan “aren’t consistent with the most recent planning efforts and zoning implementation, and that’s why they’re being removed,” Johansen added.

Deleting these policies from the Comp Plan, the way this process was handled and the lack of public information that was available for citizens to look at are all cause for concern.

“We’re removing that inconsistency based on planning efforts done in cooperation with the Port and existing homeowners” in NERA.

These changes apply to all of Burien, not just NERA. Deleting one whole goal and nine policies from the Comprehensive Plan seems to be more than a housekeeping issue to these citizens. How much notification have all citizens been given? How much involvement was there? How much notification specifically to NERA residents and residents who live nearby NERA, including users of the nearby parks, schools, and bike and pedestrian trail nearby that will be connecting Puget Sound to Lake Washington?

Here are links to documents that are relevant to this issue (all are PDF files):

• Planning Commission Packet for Oct. 12, 2010
• Ordinance 528, which amends the city’s Comp. Plan
• Ordinance 529, which relates to zoning in NERA

[Coming next week: A closer look at SEPA in NERA.]

by Ralph Nichols

On the same day that more than 30,000 people demonstrated in the “other” Washington against pending health-care reform, more than 300 people gathered in our Washington to consider ways to counter threats to private property rights.

“We can take America back,” keynote speaker Fred Kelly Grant, president of the American Stewards of Liberty, told Alliance members at the March 20 annual banquet of the Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) at the Double Tree Suites in Tukwila.

Grant is also author of the recently published Justice My Ass, a personal remembrance of his years as a federal prosecutor, state’s attorney and defense lawyer in Baltimore, and later as a criminal law consultant in Idaho, before he became involved with property rights.

Most of those attending the banquet and Alliance-sponsored workshops were from the Puget Sound region, but others came from around Washington state, several from California, where CAPR has two chapters, and one person traveled from Wisconsin.

Fred Kelly Grant

Their focus ranged from impacts to homeowners of proposed revisions to shoreline management regulations to the legal challenge that overturned King County’s 65 percent taking of private property in its critical areas ordinance.

One interested participant was from Bellevue-based Washington Sensible Shorelines Association (sensibleshorelines.org), which organized to watchdog that city’s updating of its shoreline management plan but now includes residents of other cities concerned about their own local shoreline planning processes.

Receiving special acknowledgement at the banquet were James and Doris Cassan, whose defense of the right to develop their private property resulted in the City of SeaTac rescinding in January a prior condemnation of their Park-and-Fly lot on International Boulevard.

New SeaTac City Councilman Rick Forschler, who is also King County Chapter President of the Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights, is credited with helping reverse the controversy in favor of the Cassans’ property rights.

In his remarks, Grant told participants they can use a “coordination process” to protect their rights against encroachment by the federal government.

“Federal statues require federal agencies to coordinate with local governments in the application of environmental regulations if local governments want it,” Grant said. “Coordination means that local government has an equal, not a subordinate, position with federal agencies.”

Local agencies that can participate include the state, cities and counties, small towns, and special districts such as water and sewer – and even cemeteries, he noted.

“Congress requires agencies to make every attempt in good faith to work with local economic policy,” Grant continued. “That’s the hook on this thing. They cannot just talk. They have got to work with [local agencies] to try to reach consistency.”

Property rights groups need to press for coordination beginning with “the lowest level of government that isn’t corrupted … [by] the use of bad science, which is the worst kind of corruption in my mind.”

Grant stressed the importance of requiring lawmakers and regulators to produce the laws that regulations targeting property rights are based on, and for them then to produce the science on which the laws are based.

“If your groups can get local government to take part in the coordination process,” he added, “you will be successful. But local officials won’t do it without pressure from you.” If this process “spreads to enough local governments, we can take America back.

“And,” Grant added, “believe me, in my experience that’s the only thing that works.”

Property rights today “are under heavy assault by various departments of the government from federal agencies to the counties … and environmental nuts,” said Al Anding, of Anding Realty Inc. in Madison.

The same threats to private property along shorelines that concern Puget Sound residents are being promoted in Wisconsin, Anding noted.

Some environmentalists now want the director of that state’s Department of Natural Resources to be appointed not by the governor but by an unelected board – thereby removing the director from direct accountability to state residents.

He called the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights “a godsend” for countering these trends. The organization “looks at the science [that regulations are based on] and makes sure the agencies are using actual science and not junk science. Actual science is on the side of common sense.”

Forschler told The B-Town Blog, “Property rights have been under assault for many years by folks who don’t appreciate the success that private property ownership has historically played in both protecting the environment and enhancing economic development.

“Some think it’s a battle between property rights and the environment, but that’s incorrect. It is more often a difference of opinion between the most effective way to protect the environment. Some people use a regulatory approach to protect the environment, but this has a very poor track record for success.

“CAPR – myself included – believe that protecting property rights is also the most effective way to protect the environment.”

The role of the Citizens Alliance, he added, “is to be a resource to individuals and organizations working to promote property rights as a solution to problems including the environment, governmental overreach, and community development.”

So why are the citizens of Burien complaining about the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP)?

Perhaps it is because they are witnessing the creation of still one more badly crafted, inaccurate document by the City of Burien’s staff. No matter how much public input the citizens are trying to provide to help clean it up and turn it into a workable document, the City Council, the Planning Commission and the city staff are ignoring them. The City of Burien operates on the 5 D Method of Government when dealing with citizens: Deny, Deflect, Derail, Delay and Don’t allow or listen to citizen comments. Over 400 citizens signed a petition and asked that the work on the SMP be slowed down so that it could be correctly written. The Community Development Director, Scott Greenberg, has made it clear, through the Planning Commission, that no further public comment is going to be allowed at the meetings regarding the SMP. The document is going to be hurried through the Planning Commission in spite of its errors.

This is not the first time that Mr. Greenberg has used this strategy to fast track ordinances and plans that he wants incorporated into city documents. While authoritarian control of the Planning Commission has moved documents along quickly in the past and in the direction he and his predecessors have wanted them written, it has left the citizens of Burien with documents that are poorly written, riddled with errors and ripe for potential lawsuits. When citizens make honest requests to have these ordinances or plans corrected, they are pretty much told to get lost. It was this general attitude by city staff that resulted in Burien losing a lawsuit for approximately $14,000,000.

Additionally, other documents that are of little interest to him or the City Manager, Mike Martin, remain in antiquated condition which also creates situations that put the city at risk of being sued. There are many of these outdated ordinances and codes that no one can make any sense of-including the city staff. A number of Burien’s documents still reference King County Codes that King County got rid of 14 years ago.

As an example, Burien’s most current Critical Areas Ordinance, dated 2003, which is supposed to be based on Best Available Science (BAS), contained a Critical Areas Map that was in disagreement with the written document. It still contains a wetland rating scale that is based on no science. Additionally, the Critical Areas Ordinance does not agree with the Comprehensive Plan which is the “guiding” document for the city.

The Comprehensive Plan, which is also supposed to be based on the Best Available Science, does not agree with the Best Available Science in the Critical Areas Ordinance. For the past seven years of 2003-2010, the Comprehensive Plan contained a different Critical Areas Map which showed the neighborhood of Hurstwood to be a wetland. However, Hurstwood was not a wetland because homes were obviously built in it. Someone in city hall made an error and turned to property lines into wetland lines on the map. How did this go unnoticed for so long?

Then, within the Comprehensive Plan, there are Policy descriptions that do not agree with the maps contained in the Plan. As a result of these errors, there are then errors in the zoning codes. This is clearly sloppy workmanship at tax payer expense and probably could have been prevented if sufficient citizen input had been allowed, seriously considered and the correct amount of time had been given to editing.

Now, these same errors are being replicated and perpetuated in the Shoreline Master Plan. The city staff does not welcome comments and does not wish to address or correct errors. The city staff’s only major goal is to get the Shoreline Master Plan done quickly regardless of its quality or accuracy. The real losers in this process are the citizens. The SMP draft is one more piece of junk paper being produced at a cost of over $117,000 to the citizens of Burien and the State of Washington.

For those new citizens recently annexed to Burien-approach this city government with caution. What ever happened to government of the people, by the people and for the people?

I guess not in Burien.

- Chestine Edgar

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review, we'll most likely post it. Otherwise, feel free to leave a Comment below...]

The City of Burien announced Thursday (March 25) that it will be holding a “special meeting” this coming Tuesday, March 30th at 7pm in the city council chambers to continue working on the Draft Shoreline Master Program.

UPDATE 3/26/10: Please note that there will NO public comment allowed at this hearing; it is simply a working session of the planning commission.

To download and read the agenda for this meeting, click here (PDF file).

Here’s the notice in its entirety; it’s also viewable on the city’s website here:

CITY OF BURIEN SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE

The Burien Planning Commission will conduct a special meeting on Tuesday, March 30, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber/Multipurpose Room at Burien City Hall/Library, 400 SW 152nd St., to continue working on the Draft Shoreline Master Program.

The City of Burien strives to provide alternate communication opportunities. Please contact the City Clerk’s office, 206/248-5517, twenty-four hours prior to the meeting, for assistance.

The meeting also will be televised live on TBC 21 (The Burien Channel), live streamed on the City’s website, and available via archived video on the website.

To learn more about Burien’s SMP (including documents), check out the city’s website here.

The City of Burien will be holding “Planning Commission special meeting” on the Shoreline Master Program this Tuesday night (Mar. 16th) at 7pm at city hall.

If you are at all concerned or interested in what plan the city is developing for its shoreline and waterfront, you should attend.

Here are the details:

WHAT: Shoreline Master Program Planning Commission special meeting.

WHEN: March 16, 2010 beginning at 7pm.

WHERE: Burien City Hall, 400 SW 152nd Street, 1st Floor, Multipurpose Room/City Council Chamber; Burien, WA 98166

CONTACT: (206) 248-5510 or via Email

INFO: According to the city’s website:

To continue working on Shoreline Master Program update.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE:

• Will Burien’s Shoreline Master Program Timeline Be Extended?
• LETTER: Response To Councimember Brian Bennett’s Lake Burien Stance
• Burien Residents Air Concerns At Packed Shoreline Program Meeting
• Councilmember Brian Bennett: Open “Limited Secure Access” To Lake Burien
• Shoreline Master Program Meeting Tonight; Some Misinformation Debunked
• Educational Meeting On City’s Shoreline Program Is Saturday At Mick Kelly’s
• LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Burien’s Shoreline Master Program Requires Citizen Involvement

by Ralph Nichols

Burien’s Shoreline Master Program will be in the spotlight again tonight (Tuesday, March 9) when the Planning Commission meets at 7pm to continue working through the details of proposed revisions to the document.

Tonight’s meeting comes in the wake of recent requests by residents of Burien’s affected shoreline areas – Three Tree Point and Lake Burien – that the city council extend the time for planning commission review of public input before sending a final draft to the council.

A petition bearing the signatures of 401 shoreline residents requesting an extension of the review process was submitted by Carol Jacobsen to the city council at its March 1 meeting.

“We’re still confused about what’s going on,” Jacobsen told the council at that time. “We are requesting an extension of time for review of the Shoreline Master Program before the planning commission submits it to the city council.”

She said the shoreline residents want a six-month delay. Here’s a copy of her cover letter from the city’s public record:

Click to see larger image.

But, Mayor Joan McGilton told The B-Town Blog last week, “The timing is up to the planning commission. Let the process move forward [at the planning commission]. The last thing the council needs to do is get involved inappropriately.”

Asked whether council members might consider setting aside the draft revised Shoreline Master Program for a month or two after receiving it from the planning commission, before proceeding with their review of the document, McGilton added, “That’s up to the council” to decide.

She said the council will look to city staff for advice on whether to proceed with their discussion of Shoreline Master Program revisions soon after receiving the draft document, or whether to postpone consideration for a few weeks.

Commenting on the possibility of a time extension, planning commission Chairman Joe Fitzgibbon said, “I think we’re just going to move through the document at the same pace as we are now. When we’re done we’ll forward it on to the council. It’s not going to take six months….

“I think people who saw us at our Feb. 23 meeting see how serious we are … I think at this point we’re doing a good job of taking into account all the ideas and concerns we’ve heard.”

The planning commission stopped receiving public testimony at that meeting, and began the process of working through citizen comments point by point.

Written comment is still being accepted, addressed to either the Burien Planning Commission or Senior City Planner David Johanson, at 400 SW 152nd St., Burien, WA, 98166, or by emailing DavidJ@burienwa.gov.

Although a general time frame for Shoreline Master Program review indicates the planning commission will complete its work by the end of March and forward the draft document to the city council, which then will adopt a final plan by July and submit it to the state Department of Ecology for final approval, Fitzgibbon suggested this is not a strict timetable.

The planning commission is “not trying to guess when we will finish,” he said. “We would like to finish soon, but we will take as long as it takes. We’re not looking at any date and saying, ‘that’s our deadline.’”

Requests for the city council to extend the time for planning commission review of the draft plan were repeated at their March 8 meeting.

Tades Kisielius, an attorney representing the Burien Marine Homeowners Association, urged the city council to add another public hearing to the process or to extend the time for planning commission review, noting that the petition with 400 signatures had made such a request.

There has been “no real substantive discussion … on significant regulations,” he said. These include a 65 foot setback from the average water line, non-conforming structures, and public access.

The homeowners want the planning commission to work out these and other concerns before the plan goes to the city council, Kisielius added.

Shoreline resident Dennis Reed said they wanted the opportunity to review a final planning commission draft that includes all changes before it is sent to the city council.

City Councilwoman Lucy Krakowiak later asked City Manager Mike Martin to direct the planning commission to extend the review process – apparently overlooking the fact that such a request must come from the council and neither staff nor an individual council member.

This letter is in response to the article posted about Brian Bennett and the Shoreline Advisory Committee that he served on (read the original story here). In this article, Brian claims that he has his own higher priority for what should be the purpose of Shoreline Master Program. The State’s priorities are, “protection of the environment so that there is no net loss, enhancing public use on publicly owned shorelands while protecting private property and public safety and the coordination of shoreline development around the state to protect the shorelines.”

Perhaps his misunderstanding of what are the priorities for the Shoreline Master Program stem from the fact that he did not attend the 50% of the four critical writing meetings. And the last meeting he attended, he came unprepared without his document that was to be discussed. He was unaware of the functioning rules of the committee and did not know how to take citizen input at the meetings. Perhaps this is why citizens did not get heard at this level. These issues of attendance, not bringing your homework to the meeting and not knowing the operating rules are of importance when you are acting as the chair of the committee, as Brian was supposed to be doing.

Additionally, had Brian read the Appendices to the draft document he was reviewing, he would be able to answer the question he posed in the blog article, “How to create public access to Lake Burien without impacting property owners around the lake?” The consultants to the study noted that there is visual access to the lake from several streets. These points could be further enhanced by the city to provide visual public access points to the lake. Whether the city will pursue them is another question and the real one that he should be addressing as a councilmember. The City of Burien has a number of beautiful public access points to the city’s shorelines which they currently do not secure or protect adequately. Jim Branson has written a number of blogs about this problem with the city not being willing to spend any money on enforcement and protection of shorelines and parks. The city has a legal obligation to protect them under the Shoreline Master Program.

Lastly, the Ruth Dykeman Children’s Center is a wonderful asset to the state, community, children and families. It requires high security for its clients. The last thing that they need is a public park next to them. This will breach their security. Brian knows that the Center has not put their land up for sale as of yet and they have clearly stated they do not want a public access next door to them. During the same time that the City of Burien issued a public statement that it was not seeking a public access to Lake Burien, behind closed doors, Brian directed the city manager to contact the Ruth Dykeman Children’s Center to again try to buy their land. Ruth Dykeman repeated they were not interested. But still again in this latest article, Brian makes a public issue of wanting to buy their land again. This demonstrates a complete lack of respect for private property rights and does not follow the concept of transparent government practices. This councilmember needs to do his homework and brush up on the etiquette of good manners with regard to the property of others.

- Chestine Edgar

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review, we'll most likely post it. Otherwise, feel free to leave a Comment below...]

by Ralph Nichols

Burien residents had their final opportunity on Tuesday night (Feb. 23rd) to voice to the Burien Planning Commission their opinions and concerns about proposed rule revisions in the draft update of the city’s Shoreline Master Program.

Written comment still will be accepted, addressed to either the Burien Planning Commission or Senior City Planner David Johanson, at 400 SW 152nd St., Burien, WA, 98166, or by emailing DavidJ@burienwa.gov.

Concerned citizens will also have opportunities to speak out on the draft plan at public hearings, which will be scheduled later, conducted by the Burien City Council and the state Department of Ecology.

After hearing the last of the public testimony Tuesday evening, Planning Commission members began the process of working their way through a detailed summary of earlier comments by shoreline-area residents and draft responses prepared by city staff and consultants.

Public interest in this issue is so great – as is the level of concern among local shoreline residents who fear their property rights could be impacted by a revised plan – that the Burien Planning Commission, which will continue its review of the plan, will meet in the City Council chambers on the first floor of City Hall.

Almost 200 people, troubled primarily about the impact revised regulations – and public access to shorelines – will have on their property, crowded a smaller room for the Planning Commission two weeks ago.

But in the wake of that meeting, said several persons involved in the planning process, many of those commenting on the draft document were not well informed or were basing their concerns on “disinformation.”

Burien City Manager Mike Martin and Senior City Planner David Johanson recently sat down with The B-Town Blog to address what they said is misleading information circulating about provisions in the draft update of the Shoreline Master Program; here are their reactions:

Non-conforming structures on shoreline property cannot be rebuilt if damaged.

Martin: “That absolutely is not the case.”

Turnout was so high at the last meeting that Tuesday night's Shoreline Master Program meet was moved to city council chambers.

Martin: “It does not do that. Period.”

Rights-of-way at the water’s edge can be taken over by the city.

Martin: “Contrary to what anyone may have heard, there is nothing in the document that gives the city new authority to take over any right-of-way.

The Planning Commission will make the final decision to approve the shoreline plan.

Martin: “That absolutely is not true. The City Council will make the final decision.”

The Planning Commission is expected to deliberate on the public comment it has received, complete its review of the document, and forward a recommendation to the City Council by the end of March.

At least one public hearing will be held by the council while it considers the plan before taking final action. Once the city has adopted its updated Shoreline Management Program, it still must be reviewed and approved by the state Department of Ecology.

Because of widespread misconceptions about provisions in the draft plan, some Planning Commission members are encouraging concerned shoreline residents to read it first, and then ask questions and address specific concerns, rather than simply reacting to rumors about what purported new regulations would do to their property.

The draft shoreline plan is available on the city’s website at http://burienwa.gov/index.aspx?NID=851.

Johanson noted that updating the city’s Shoreline Master Program is not a local option. “The state requires us to do this … over 200 jurisdictions [in Washington] are doing this.”

The state requires all cities and counties to periodically update their Shoreline Management Programs, which implement the Shoreline Management Act at the local level.

According to Ecology, local plans are based on state law and regulations, but “are tailored to the unique geographic, economic and environmental needs of each community.”

This is to improve and protect the health of Puget Sound and other waterways, improve water quality and salmon recovery, and enhance the state’s economy and tourism, Johanson added.

Information about the Shoreline Management Act and guidelines for local Shoreline Master Programs is available on Ecology’s website at http://www.ecy.wa.gov.

Burien was awarded a $117,000 state grant from Ecology for this project, which began with a comprehensive review of the current document by the Shoreline Advisory Committee. The committee then made recommendations and submitted that draft to the Planning Commission.

Martin stressed that the draft revisions give the city “no new rights or authority under its shoreline document.” This includes Lake Burien, which has no public access to its shoreline.

“The city does not have any more authority in this document to provide public access [to the lake] than at any time in the past,” he said.

Johanson said setbacks allowed in the proposed revised plan, in the event of reconstruction due to property damage, are “similar to those of other urban jurisdictions” in an attempt “to strike a balance between state objectives and the urban setting” where shorelines already are developed.

The draft plan would require a 65 foot setback from the average high water level, compared to a current setback of 20 feet along the Puget Sound shoreline. If adopted, those homes would be classified as non-conforming structures – but could be rebuilt on their existing footprint if damaged.

Johanson indicated that after the Planning Commission has finished taking public testimony, staff will compile a list of frequently asked questions together with clarifications and answers, and post this on the city’s website.