Mayor gets in the ring for shoreline process

Published 5:00 am Wednesday, October 2, 2002

Mayor Darlene Kordonowy “stands behind the process” that has generated a controversial draft shoreline plan.

But she takes no position on the content of the proposals, saying that they are still in such an early stage that a stand is unwarranted.

“This is not yet at the decision-making level,” Kordonowy said in an interview Tuesday. “It is still at the data-gathering phase, and people are doing the right thing in speaking out.

“We are listening, re-thinking and will come back again to see if we can do it better.”

A draft of an updated shoreline plan drew an overflow crowd to last week’s Planning Commission meeting.

Speakers, most of them waterfront property owners, protested what they saw as government infringement on property rights, particularly proposals for a zone of native vegetation along the shorelines.

The plan grandfathers existing uses, including non-native landscapes, as non-conforming uses, but calls for non-conformities to be phased out over time.

That provision led some speakers at last week’s meeting to argue that the city might, at some point, require them to move their homes farther back from the shore.

“It was never the city’s intention to make people move their homes,” Kordonowy said. “The city does not want to make angry or fearful those people whom we are trying to serve.”

Much of the problem, she said, comes from what she views as two confusing documents – the 1996 shoreline plan and the proposed revision.

“We needed to modernize the old document and make it clear,” she said.

“We undertook this process to streamline and improve the document.”

Veg regs

Aside from the arguments that houses might have to be moved, the most controversial proposals could require native vegetation between homes and the water, a buffer that planner Peter Best has said would include trees.

Kordonowy said the public protests are part of the process she endorses, and should continue at the next commission meeting on Oct. 10.

“I hope those people do come,” she said. “They don’t need to be belligerent or threatening, because the staff and the Planning Commission are listening to them.”

Indeed, the mayor said some of the issues that have generated the most criticism might have been avoided had people gotten involved earlier in the process.

“We’re not trying intentionally to undermine people’s rights,” she said, “but the less you participate, the better the chances that the policies do not reflect community aspirations.”

While endorsing going forward with the process, Kordonowy said she wants to take a hard look at some of the specifics.

She learned only recently that the city proposals do not, in fact, reflect a state mandate, because the state has withdrawn its own policy proposals that the city was trying to track.

“If there is no longer a mandate, we need to seriously rethink it,” Kordonowy said.

She also wants to know when and why the city planning staff implemented “restoration and enhancement guidelines” for shoreline planting that include trees 12 feet apart, which had not previously been required.

But Kordonowy said she believes the underlying goals are widely shared.

“The current confusion and anger may be a result of people being unclear that we are trying to protect the environment and the quality of life that people value,” she said.

“It may be that the way we get compliance is to offer people a menu of ideas, not telling them it has to be done a certain way.”

A draft of an updated shoreline plan drew an overflow crowd to last week’s Planning Commission meeting.

Speakers, most of them waterfront property owners, protested what they saw as government infringement on property rights, particularly proposals for a zone of native vegetation along the shorelines.

The plan grandfathers existing uses, including non-native landscapes, as non-conforming uses, but calls for non-conformities to be phased out over time.

That provision led some speakers at last week’s meeting to argue that the city might, at some point, require them to move their homes farther back from the shore.

“It was never the city’s intention to make people move their homes,” Kordonowy said. “The city does not want to make angry or fearful those people whom we are trying to serve.”

Much of the problem, she said, comes from what she views as two confusing documents – the 1996 shoreline plan and the proposed revision.

“We needed to modernize the old document and make it clear,” she said.

“We undertook this process to streamline and improve the document.”

Veg regs

Aside from the arguments that houses might have to be moved, the most controversial proposals could require native vegetation between homes and the water, a buffer that planner Peter Best has said would include trees.

Kordonowy said the public protests are part of the process she endorses, and should continue at the next commission meeting on Oct. 10.

“I hope those people do come,” she said. “They don’t need to be belligerent or threatening, because the staff and the Planning Commission are listening to them.”

Indeed, the mayor said some of the issues that have generated the most criticism might have been avoided had people gotten involved earlier in the process.

“We’re not trying intentionally to undermine people’s rights,” she said, “but the less you participate, the better the chances that the policies do not reflect community aspirations.”

While endorsing going forward with the process, Kordonowy said she wants to take a hard look at some of the specifics.

She learned only recently that the city proposals do not, in fact, reflect a state mandate, because the state has withdrawn its own policy proposals that the city was trying to track.

“If there is no longer a mandate, we need to seriously rethink it,” Kordonowy said.

She also wants to know when and why the city planning staff implemented “restoration and enhancement guidelines” for shoreline planting that include trees 12 feet apart, which had not previously been required.

But Kordonowy said she believes the underlying goals are widely shared.

“The current confusion and anger may be a result of people being unclear that we are trying to protect the environment and the quality of life that people value,” she said.

“It may be that the way we get compliance is to offer people a menu of ideas, not telling them it has to be done a certain way.”