It is normal for an oversight agency to prepare a “Responsiveness Summary”, wherein the agency will review how well public comments have been addressed (i.e., by Jefferson County’s response to comments). Comments, responses, and Ecology’s evaluation of whether the response is sufficient should all be part of the “Responsiveness Summary”. The public comments may not be shared in raw form. Instead, they will likely be compiled into a tabular format of comments, responses, and Ecology’s interpretation of response sufficiency. Thus it is important to demand that the public comments be posted and shared publicly in their raw form also. That way we can verify that all comment issues are in fact included and responded to in the Responsiveness Summary, and ensure nothing has been dropped by the wayside.

Scott

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 -----

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 <preussenfrau@hotmail.com> 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

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 -----

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

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Norman MacLeod wrote:

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 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.