----- Original Message -----

Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 8:52 AM

Subject: RE: State review continues

The concept of this
kind of data taking up “an inordinate amount of server space” is
absolute rubbish.  You can get hard drive storage at retail for about $65
per terabyte right now . . . and government contract prices are no doubt
significantly less than the open market.

Full text electronic
copies of the comments would take only a miniscule portion of a current
technology 2 TB hard drive that can be had from Newegg.com for a whopping
$129.99.

If Jefferson County
DCD got the comments to respond to on May 28, they’ve already had more
than enough time to respond to them . . . so long as the comments were
agreeable toward what they are trying to do . . . or lack substance if they are
in opposition.  That would tend to indicate that they are having a hard
time with the substance.

Responsiveness has not
been a hallmark of the Jefferson County SMP update process.

Just as an outlier
aside . . . does anyone find:

P
SAVE PAPER - Please do
not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary

. . . at the bottom of that county email to be something like a
tiny glass sliver under a fingernail . . . really totally annoying?  I buy
my paper, and I’ll print anything I want, regardless of whether or not
it’s actually necessary to do so, thank you very much!

From:

Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 8:12 AM

To:

Cc:

Subject: Re: State review continues

Ecology sent
all the public comments to Jefferson on May 28
for County "feedback." At that time Ecology said they would
create a summary of comments that would be posted on their web-site for public
viewing. (They have said posting individual comments would "take up an
inordinate amount of server space."). The Ecology web-site has described
this as a "Responsiveness Summary."
But it is over two months after the April 20 public hearing and still
there is nothing for the interested citizens of Jefferson to review. But the
County has them. Can't the citizens of Jefferson be extended the same courtesy
as the agencies that supposedly serve them? This is not exactly Responsive. The
citizens of Jefferson are once again on the outside looking in.

The
sheer volume of comments and subsequent delay in making them available to the
public ought to be the canary-in-the-coal-mine that the SMP process in
Jefferson has failed to represent and serve the people directly affected.
It certainly couldn't have been a surprise that there would have been this
level of citizen comment. Of the roughly 200 people who showed up at the public
hearing at Ft. Worden, nearly 90% expressed opposition to the proposed new
shoreline rules. No matter, to date citizen participation has continuously
been marginalized and even belittled by the County. With that kind of
track record, people are very curious to see how their
"feedback" is being translated by same County staff. Add to that
Commissioner Austin's remark that the 200 people at the hearing were the angry
ones and didn't represent the true sentiment of the County. This is the same
John Austin who told a citizen the 150 foot buffers were final before the
Planning Commission had even embarked on their review of the draft
SMP. The philosopher William James called this "contempt prior to
investigation."

At
this time it is more important than ever that citizens be kept directly in the
loop. Citizens deserve immediate access to the same individual
comments - not just a summary - as are available to Ecology and the County.

Happy
Summer,

Jim

-----
Original Message -----

From:

Sent: Thursday, July
08, 2010 12:27 PM

Subject: Re: State review continues

This should be done in the form of a
legal demand letter from the attorneys of either OSF, or CAPR - or both - and
delivered to the each of the BOCC, personally  !

On
Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, E S <[email-masked]>
wrote:

If Michelle is making substantive comments
as an employee facilitator of the county/DOE then the
process is obviously flawed. It also is blatantly obvious that
Michelle's job is to skew the process into whatever the county commissioners
and DOE thinks it should be.

For a public employee this is highly unethical if not also illegal.

Since we still live in the USA and "We the People" takes precedent
and not -"we the bureaucrats" or "we the politicians" all  comments  must be made public ASAP!

RCW 90.58.090 among others that Jim
Hagen found obviously will have legal
ramification?

Edel

From:

Subject:
Re: FW: State review continues

Date:
Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:27:57 -0700

Ken, you are right.
The County must make Michelle's comments available and allow comment on
them.  State agencies allow comments to be submitted, but do not make
their replies available until it is too late to respond back.  Kind of a
parent-child relationship, "I don't want to hear your excuses, we're doing
it because 'I said so' "

-----
Original Message -----

From:

Sent: Wednesday,
July 07, 2010 10:41 PM

Subject: Re: FW: State review continues

"1.       The
County is currently working to provide Ecology some feedback on the issues
raised by the 300+ comment letters received during the state-wide public
comment period. "

OK, why was the comment period state wide ???
Oh, I know, everyone on the planet has an interest in MY PROPERTY
!

Why can our 'County' (who else but - Michelle?) provide DOE with
'some feedback' after the comment period ended ??

The County is US, WE THE PEOPLE - not Michelle. We have spoken
and she has no right to clarify or 'feedback' - ANYTHING. (we should demand copies
of everything she fed back)

This is especially true because she is paid from a state DOE
grant - a very incestuous situation !!   Why is a
defacto state employee representing the property
owners of Jefferson County who pay the property taxes and who are being hurt by
this SMP ?? (essentially DOE represents the county
in DOE decision making)

As far as I am concerned Michelle's actions reopen the comment
process and roll back the timeline, otherwise we are denied equal protection as
guaranteed by the 14th amendment! Our comments have not been protected from her
SPIN !

Ken

From: Michelle McConnell [mailto:[email-masked]]

Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:15 PM

To: Michelle McConnell

Subject: SMP: State review continues

Greetings & Happy Summer
Interested Parties!

STATE PROCESS

The State’s review of our Locally Approved SMP
(LA-SMP) continues with WA Department of
Ecology:

1.
The County is currently working to
provide Ecology some feedback on the issues raised by the 300+ comment letters
received during the state-wide public comment period.

2.
After our Response to Comments is
submitted to Ecology (within the next month or so), Ecology will prepare their
Findings and Conclusions along with their decision to A) approve; B) approve
with required changes; or C) deny the SMP.  If changes are required, some
dialogue may be required to find complete agreement between the State and the
County.

3.
After Ecology approval, the final
step is for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the new SMP by ordinance
as new components of the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code.

So while the process is
moving forward, we still have a few months to go before final adoption and the
new SMP takes effect.  Stay tuned… this email list will continue to
receive project updates.

NEWSPAPER CLARIFICATIONS

You may have seen the recent
articles in last week’s Leader newspaper – a few points of
clarification are needed:

·         Buffers & Setbacks – While
it may seem a finer point, there is a difference between the terms buffers and
setbacks as proposed by the LA-SMP.  The 150-foot distance proposed is a
standard shoreline buffer for stream/river and marine shorelines that
fall under SMP jurisdiction.  There are separate 5-foot side-yard and
10-foot building setbacks proposed as well.  Far from a
‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, the LA-SMP also proposes 6 options to
adjust the standard shoreline buffer when specific situations arise.

The current SMP has only requires
setbacks:  30 to 100-feet for residential and a minimum of 15-feet for
commercial and urban development.  The County’s Critical Areas
Ordinance has included a 150-foot buffer for fish & wildlife habitat
conservation areas since early-2008, and has successfully withstood legal
challenge.  The City of Port Townsend SMP requires buffers that range from
50 to 200-feet.  Other jurisdictions around Puget Sound also have 150-foot
buffers in place (e.g. Whatcom County).

·         SMP jurisdiction – Not all
shoreline areas in the county meet the statutory definition for
‘Shoreline of the State’.  The SMP will apply to all
shorelines that meet the criteria for SMP jurisdiction.  Lakes less than
20 acres in size, rivers/streams with less than 20 cubic feet per second mean
annual flow, and lands under federal or tribal ownership do not qualify.

Thanks for your continued interest,

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.

P
SAVE PAPER - Please do
not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary

The
New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get started.