----- 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 electron=
ic
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 lik=
e 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!
Friday, July 09, 2010 8:12 AM
To:
Re: State review continues
Ecology sent
all the public comments to Jefferson on May 28
for County "feedback." At that time Ecology said they w=
ould
create a summary of comments that would be posted on their web-site for pub=
lic
viewing. (They have said posting individual comments would "take up an
inordinate amount of server space."). The Ecology web-site has describ=
ed
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 court=
esy
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 t=
he
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 affect=
ed.
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 pu=
blic
hearing at Ft. Worden, nearly 90% expressed opposition to the proposed new
shoreline rules. No matter, to date citizen participation has continuo=
usly
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 an=
gry
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 Co=
unty.
Happy
Summer,
Jim
-----
Original Message -----
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 - a=
nd
delivered to the each of the BOCC, personally !
On
Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, E S <preussenfrau@hotmail.com>
wrote:
If Michelle is making substantiv=
e comments
as an employee facilitator of the county/DOE then the&n=
bsp;
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" a=
ll 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 d=
oing
it because 'I said so' "
-----
Original Message -----
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 wid=
e ???
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 spok=
en
and she has no right to clarify or 'feedback' - ANYTHING. (we should dem=
and copies
of everything she fed back)
This is especially true because she is paid from a state DOE
grant - a very incestuous situation !! Wh=
y is a
defacto state employee representing the property
owners of Jefferson County who pay the property taxes and who are being hur=
t by
this SMP ?? (essentially DOE represents the c=
ounty
in DOE decision making)
As far as I am concerned Michelle's actions reopen the comme=
nt
process and roll back the timeline, otherwise we are denied equal protectio=
n as
guaranteed by the 14th amendment! Our comments have not been protected from=
her
SPIN !
Ken
From: Michelle McConnell [mailto:mmcconnell@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:15 PM
To: Michelle McConnell
Subject: SMP: State review continues
Greetings & Happy Summer<=
/i>
Interested Parties!
STATE PROCESS
The State’s review of our =
Locally Approve=
d 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 lett=
ers
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 th=
eir
Findings and Conclusions along with their decision to A) approve; B) approve
with required changes; or C) deny the SMP. If changes are required, s=
ome
dialogue may be required to find complete agreement between the State and t=
he
County.
3.
After Ecology approval, the final
step is for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the new SMP by ordin=
ance
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<=
/b>
You may have seen the recent
articles in last week’s Leader newspaper – a few points =
of
clarification are needed:
· =
Buffers & Setbacks – W=
hile
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 option=
s 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 th=
an
20 acres in size, rivers/streams with less than 20 cubic feet per second me=
an
annual flow, and lands under federal or tribal ownership do not qualify.
Thanks for your continued intere=
st,
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 w=
ho
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<=
/span>
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 vie=
wed
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.