HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102201Distrid No. 1 Commissioner: Dan TiHerness
Distrid No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford
Distrid No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt
County Administrator: Charles Saddler
Deputy County Administrator: David Goldsmith
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of October 22, 2001
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Glen Huntingford. Commissioners Dan
Titterness and Richard Wojt were both present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of October 8, 2001 were approved by motion of
Commissioner Wojt, and seconded by Commissioner Titterness. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Letter to Washington State Liquor Control Board: Commissioner Titterness moved to
approve the letter to the Liquor Control Board for the Special Occasion Liquor Permit for an event at the
Jefferson County Fairgrounds. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
AGREEMENT, Interagency: DUI Traffic Safety Project; Jefferson County Sheriff's
Office; Washington Traffic Safety Commission: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the agreement with
the State Traffic Safety Commission for the Sheriff's Office DUI Traffic Safety Project. Commissioner
Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
week.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: There was no briefing session this
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: One person made the following comments: what is the
actual growth in the County over the past two years; and what has been happening with the economy during
that time?; there is a rumor that QFC is going to locate a regional store in the County, where would that be
located?; two people who wanted to attend the Tri Area Planning Committee meeting last week didn't know
where it was being held and went to the wrong location; and people need to be able to find out what happens
at staff meetings between agencies.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Titterness
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2001
moved to delete Item #3 and to adopt and approve all of the items on the Consent Agenda as presented.
Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. AGREEMENT re: Medicaid/CHIP Outreach; Jefferson County Health and Human Services;
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services
2. AGREEMENT, Addendum #1 re: Collection Services; Acknowledging Vendor Name Change;
Jefferson County District Court; AllianceOne, Inc. (Formerly Allied Credit Companies)
3. DELETE Agreement re: Design Services for the H.J. Carroll Park Picnic Pavilion; Jefferson County Public Works; Timbercraft
Homes (See item later in minutes.)
The Board interviewed Dwayne Wilcox who is interested in serving on the Jefferson County
Planning Commission representing District #2.
Appointment re: Planning Commission Representative from Commissioner District #2:
Chairman Huntingford reported that he knows that Dwayne Wilcox has been very active in the Port Ludlow
area since he moved to the County and that he is taking an interest in the community. Commissioner Wojt
moved to appoint Dwayne Wilcox to an unexpired term on the Planning Commission. His term will expire
March 17, 2003. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
BID OPENING: South Discovery Road/Railroad Bridge Overcrossing Replacement,
Project #CSl176: John Wayand, Public Works, opened and read the bids received for this project as follows:
Engineer' s Estimate $ 489,580.66
Seton Construction, Inc. Port Townsend, WA
Bruch & Bruch Construction, Inc. Port Angeles
Jansen, Inc. Bellingham, WA
Stan Palmer Construction, Inc. Port Orchard, WA
Pacific Road and Bridge Company, Arlington, WA
McConnell Construction, Port Townsend, WA
Primo Construction, Inc., Carlsborg, WA
Lakeside Industries, Port Angeles, WA
Strider Construction Company, Inc. Bellingham, WA
285,234.67
334,656.38
504,237.10
424,673.30
424,427.60
401,984.45
388,025.64
413,344.90
416,077.50
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2001
John Wayand reported that the apparent low bidder is Seton Construction. Commissioner Titterness moved
to have the Public Works staff check the bids for accuracy and make a recommendation for bid award that is
to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous
vote.
HEARING re: Community Development Block Grant Grievance; Mark Rose: Chairman
Huntingford reviewed the hearing procedures and read an opening statement that explained the decision
process. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez explained that Mark Rose and Josh Peters, representing
DCD, will give oral statements regarding each grievance. He added that the Board may ask questions and no
public comment will be allowed.
Grievance #1 Group Membership:
Mark Rose explained that the following people either resigned from the Brinnon Sub-area Planning Group or
have not participated in the last year: Lynnette Antijunti, Lea Silsbee, Eleanor Sather, Richard Coone and
Stan Johnston. He referenced a memo from DCD regarding the receipt of formal letters of resignation from
Lea Silsbee and Lynnette Antijunti.
Mark Rose stated that Tom McNerney's status on the committee is not clear. In the meeting minutes in
February he is listed as a visitor; in the April and early May minutes he is listed as a member; and in the May
8 draft plan he is listed as an advisor. One committee member's email states that Tom McNerney "is not a
direct member of our group." He asked DCD several times for clarification on Tom McNerney's role. He
questioned whether there 11 members on the committee, or 16?
David Alvarez asked if the Board had questions for Mr. Rose? Commissioner Wojt stated that the "Blue
Book" has definite requirements regarding attendance. Mark Rose answered that it is his understanding that
if a member misses 3 or more meetings without an excused absence, they forfeit their membership. All the
people he listed, with the exception of Tom McNerney, have missed more than 3 meetings. These members
were not present for the vote on the final plan, but their names are listed.
Chairman Huntingford asked if Mark Rose would agree to listing these people as participants in the planning
process and not members? Mr. Rose replied that they have not attended the meetings since February and
they shouldn't be listed as participants or members.
Commissioner Titterness noted that Mark Rose's recommended action is to set the official membership of the
group at 11. He asked how this would benefit the process? Mark Rose answered that it would be a more
accurate reflection of who developed and approved the plan.
Commissioner Wojt asked how Mark Rose's recommendation addresses the additional concerns regarding
Tom McNerney's role? Mark Rose reiterated that it would be a more accurate reflection of the actual
membership of the committee.
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2001
Josh Peters, Associate Planner, read an overview of the planning process for the Brinnon Sub-area Plan. He
explained that Mark Rose filed a complaint that CDBG funds were misused because of faults in this process.
(See attached document.) He also submitted a packet of documents in support of the oral statements. David
Alvarez asked that this packet be identified as DCD Document 1-1.
Josh Peters' responded to Grievance #1 as follows, referencing an April 16, 2001 memo to the Board and an
email from Linda Tudor:
· On November 22, 1999 the County Commissioners appointed 15 citizens from the Brinnon area to
the committee. After the initial appointment, the committee became a self-perpetuating group of
volunteers.
· On several occasions, the committee discussed adding new members. A few months into the process,
they agreed that it would take too much time to educate new members later on in the process.
· They also discussed criteria for dismissing members. The conclusion of the committee was that
members could not be removed except for cause. Both Lea Silsbee and Lynnette Antijunti submitted
official resignations.
· There was a question about whether Tom McNerney's membership on the committee was a conflict
when he was appointed to the Planning Commission. He did not sign the members sheet while the
County was researching this issue.
· According to the Chair of the Brinnon group, Tom McNerney was always a member of the
committee.
· Staff supports Chairman Huntingford's suggestion that the roles of the committee members be
clarified in the final plan, such as those who voted on the plan, those who participated at some level,
or were part of the final membership.
Mark Rose asked what the majority, or consensus, is based on if some of the members are moved to these
other categories?
Josh Peters responded:
· Early in the process, DCD supplied the committee with several documents on consensus.
· The definition of consensus came up again when it was time for the recommendation on the final plan
to be submitted to the County.
· The committee agreed that there are different levels of consensus including not agreeing for the
record. They decided to use a "red flag" method when they strongly disagreed. To his knowledge,
no red flag was raised at their meetings.
· At the meeting for the vote on the final draft, Lynnette Antijunti, one of the members who had
resigned, raised a "red flag," but her issues were settled.
Commissioner Wojt asked how this relates to the CDBG grant? Josh Peters reiterated that how the
membership was handled was entirely up to the committee and was part of the planning process. Mark Rose
responded that he doesn't feel these grievances need to relate directly to the grant. It is his opinion that it is
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2001
arbitrary to say that the committee has rules and they can enforce them whenever they want. He noted that it
is his belief that this grievance hearing is not limited to grievances about the grant.
Grievance #2 Violations of Open Public Meetings Act:
Mark Rose read excerpts from the Open Public Meetings Act. He feels that this act applies to the Brinnon
Sub-area Planning Group. He believes that a majority of the committee met at a secret meeting on April 11,
2001 at the home of the Kate Marsh to discuss public testimony from their meeting on April 10 and strategy
for deliberations. Tom McNerney, Planning Commission Chair, attended this meeting. Mark Rose wants the
Brinnon Sub-area Planning Group polled regarding who was at this meeting and they should also be asked
what discussion or action took place. He contacted Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez about this
meeting. David Alvarez then contacted Josh Peters, but nothing substantial resulted. A1 Scalftold Mark
Rose that he was not going to take action on the complaint because Kate Marsh said it was a social event and
a quorum was not an issue. Mark Rose noted that this incident also brings up the issues of majority and
consensus.
Another incident occurred at the July 24 meeting when the people in attendance were told that there would
be another meeting before the final draft was made public and that they could comment at that meeting. At
that point, these people left the meeting, which continued with the committee and staff. At the close of the
meeting, the committee agreed that another meeting wasn't necessary. Mark Rose noted that this may not be
a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act, but in his opinion it is ethically irresponsible.
Mark Rose stated that his recommended action is to poll the committee, including Tom McNerney, to
determine who was present at the April 11 meeting and that any business from that meeting be submitted into
the public record.
Josh Peters responded:
· Al Scalf responded to Mark Rose's request regarding the April 11 meeting at a Planning Commission
meeting and then again in writing by email. He said that he would not pursue this complaint.
· Speaking to the committee and advising them about the Open Public Meetings Act is the DCD's
responsibility, but conducting an investigation to find out if there was a violation of the act is not
DCD' s role.
· Regarding the complaint about the July 24 meeting, he believes that this happened at the July 10
meeting and it was the July 24 meeting that was canceled. Public comment was taken before the
regular closing time of the meeting. Some members of the public left, but the committee stayed, as
did some of the people (i.e., the public) in the attendance.
· Decisions were made and minutes taken.
· The committee met over 40 times and had the authority to cancel a meeting.
Chairman Huntingford asked if the minutes of July 10 reflect the business of the remainder of the meeting
after the public comment period, and if they referenced the cancellation of the July 24 meeting? Josh Peters
explained that on the day after the meeting he sent a detailed email to all the committee members and the
interested public, which included Mark Rose, on the decisions that were made after the public comment
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2001
period. Chairman Huntingford requested a copy of the July 10 minutes and a copy of Josh Peters' email.
Commissioner Titterness asked Mark Rose if he thought the public was led to believe that there would be
more meetings, then the meeting ended and they left? Mark Rose replied that another meeting was scheduled
and the next day they found out that it had been canceled.
Mark Rose stated that the Open Public Meetings Act is State law. He questioned why DCD does not have
the authority to police private citizens to ensure that they obey the law? Josh Peters answered that DCD is
given the legal authority to enforce land use violations only. Their responsibility regarding the Open Public
Meetings Act was to inform the planning committee of the Act, but not to enforce it.
Mark Rose pointed out that DCD is the lead agency for the CDBG grant and is responsible for compliance.
Josh Peters answered:
· The CDBG grant contract is between OCD and the County and the County did not violate any State
laws.
· It has not been established whether the committee is a sub-agency of the legislative body.
· The committee wasn't established by ordinance.
· DCD is not certain that the formation of the committee wasn't a prerequisite to the passage of the
Brinnon Sub-area Plan.
· During the planning process, the committee operated as if it were a sub-agency by advertising their
meetings, doing minutes and having a website.
#3 Compliance with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
Mark Rose stated that he has asked DCD and the Planning Commission several times if the Brinnon Sub-area
Plan needs to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan? No one seems to be sure. How can there be a
planning process without a clear answer to this question? He referred to a memo from Josh Peters to the
Board dated April 16 explaining that a sub-area plan must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Titterness asked if Mark Rose sees the sub-area planning process as a process which
incorporates the goals of the Comprehensive Plan but would result in suggested amendments to the plan?
This would make the sub-area plan inconsistent. Mark Rose agreed that if the sub-area plan is inconsistent,
the Comprehensive Plan can be amended.
Josh Peters responded:
· The April 16 memo answered Mark Rose's question.
· When the Deputy Prosecutor was asked to do a legal review of the final draft of Brinnon Sub-area
Plan, he was specifically asked to make sure it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
· OCD and other agencies are also reviewing the draft plan.
· At this point in the process, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is not an issue. The grant states
that the final product must be in compliance.
· The Comprehensive Plan may not be appropriate for all regions of the County and a sub-area plan is
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2001
more specific to a certain region.
One method being considered to achieve consistency between a sub-area plan and the Comprehensive
Plan is to come in at the same time with amendments to the Comprehensive Plan itself as long as the
central tenet of the Comprehensive Plan is not thwarted.
Another option is to create a sub-area plan as a consistent document and come in with the
amendments during the Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle to make the two better integrated.
There will be new ideas in the sub-area plans that were not thought of during the Comprehensive Plan
process.
Chairman Huntingford asked if DCD went to Brinnon to carry out LNP 4.8 of the Comprehensive Plan?
Josh Peters explained that the people in Brinnon were interested in pursuing this goal, they had a community
plan from 1995 and wanted to bring it up to speed with the Comprehensive Plan. DCD recommended that a
sub-area plan would be the best method and they could probably apply for a grant to help fund the planning.
Chairman Huntingford stated that this seems more like a question about the process. Is it best to take the
Brinnon Sub-area Plan as a whole? Are there parts of the plan that have to be thrown out because they are
not in compliance? Those decisions will have to be made when the final document is brought forward.
#4 Compliance with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
Chairman Huntingford pointed out that Grievance #4 relates to Grievance #3 and he asked Mark Rose if his
concerns were addressed in the previous discussion? He asked if Mark Rose wanted to add anything? Mark
Rose replied that going into detail for Grievance #4 would take a lot of time. He summarized by saying that if
there is a ruling on Grievance #3 that it does need to comply, his contention is that it doesn't and that is
where the process comes into play. In his opinion, the Brinnon Sub-area Plan is extensively not in
compliance in the most part because of the process. In addition, he is concerned that the Planning
Commission Chair can steer the dialog in the Planning Commission deliberations by saying that the plan
doesn't have to be in compliance.
Commissioner Titterness asked that Mark Rose submit a list of page numbers in the Comprehensive Plan
where the Brinnon Sub-area Plan is not in compliance. Mark Rose agreed to submit sections of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Brinnon Sub-area Plan and the documentation from DCD about the process.
Chairman Huntingford explained that Mark Rose is welcome to submit this information, but he feels that this
information would be more appropriate if it was submitted to the Planning Commission at their public
hearings on the plan.
Josh Peters did not have any information to add on Grievance #4.
#5 Inability to Render Non-Biased Opinion, Thomas McNerney:
Mark Rose stated that this grievance deals with the recusal of Tom McNerney from voting on the Planning
Commission recommendation of the Brinnon Sub-area Plan. His reasons include:
Page 7
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2001
Tom McNerney signed the Planning Commission bylaws that were adopted July 23, 1997 and
amended May 16, 2001. Tom McNerney's role on the Brinnon Sub-area Planning Committee
violates the section regarding conflict of interest on site specific recommendations.
Tom McNerney has stated several times at the Planning Commission and the Brinnon Planning
meetings that he does not believe that the Brinnon Sub-area Plan needs to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Mark Rose feels that this is contrary to what is reflected in the Planning
Commission bylaws, the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA.
Tom McNerney told Mark Rose in July that he attended the alleged secret meeting.
Tom McNerney is very familiar with the Open Public Meetings Act.
Tom McNerney was Chair of the Planning Commission when they inappropriately passed the ruling
on Black Point without a quorum and without public notification that the vote would take place.
At a meeting of the Brinnon group on August 14, public testimony from habitat biologists regarding
the Brinnon area was dismissed and derided. At the Planning Commission Meeting the following day,
Tom McNerney voiced his opinion regarding the direction of the Brinnon Sub-area Plan and how he
intended to vote.
Tom McNerney passed rumors around Brinnon regarding Mark Rose and other people who he thinks
are trying to subvert for the Brinnon Plan.
Mark Rose stated that he does not feel Tom McNerney has a fair and open mind to fulfill his role on the
Planning Commission as it relates to the Brinnon Sub-area Plan. Mark Rose added that he sent a letter to the
County Commissioners to make them aware of his concerns about Tom McNerney's activities and actions.
Josh Peters explained that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine does not apply in legislative decisions, it
only applies in quasi-judicial decisions. Under this doctrine, an individual can only recuse him or her self.
There is no provision in the law for one body, in this case the County Commissioners, to recuse a member of
another body, the Planning Commission. The Board can remove an appointee on the Planning Commission
for cause. This does not appear to apply in this case.
Chairman Huntingford asked Josh Peters to address the Planning Commission's decision on Black Point. Josh
Peters stated that he can only speak as a DCD staff member because he was not the lead staff working with
the Planning Commission at that time. He explained that the Planning Commission has 9 members, but
currently there is one vacancy. The bylaws were unclear about how many members represented a quorum in
this case. The vote that Mark Rose mentioned was not considered a vote and was redone when a quorum
was present. David Alvarez confirmed that the vote was redone and an absolute majority of the Planning
Commission did vote to recommend Rural Residential, 1 residence on 10 acres for Black Point.
Josh Peters added that Tom McNerney investigated the State statutes regarding his role on both the Brinnon
committee and the Planning Commission. The Deputy Director of DCD also reviewed this issue and
confirmed that a person can serve on both committees without being in violation of State law.
#6 Inability to Render Non-Biased Opinion, John Hynson:
Page 8
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2001
Mark Rose stated that this grievance deals with the recusal of John Hynson from voting on the Planning
Commission recommendation of the Brinnon Sub-area Plan. He paraphrased an email dated September 28
from John Hynson to Josh Peters and all members of the Planning Group. The email was copied to the Board
of County Commissioners and the consultant. In this email, John Hynson explained methods that "no
growth" people will use to "subvert" the Brinnon Plan. He also stated in his email that the recipients should
not respond because he would not respond to any replies that he received.
Mark Rose said that he thought John Hynson's comments were far from appropriate and he obviously
already has his mind made up about how he will vote on the Brinnon Plan, therefore he should be recused
from voting.
Chairman Huntingford asked Mark Rose his opinion of the emails that have been part of the Brinnon Sub-
area Plan process? The Board has some concerns about the use of email in this situation. Mark Rose
responded that it depends on the email and whether it is informational or divisive. He suggested that the
County create a website for each sub-area planning area, where documents are shared and there are no
secrets as far as public documents.
Josh Peters stated that DCD's response is the same as for Grievance #5. He added that the Appearance of
Fairness Doctrine is a different statute than the one that deals with conflict of interest or bias. In relation to
the CDBG grievance, the only conflict of interest issues would have to be between the consultant and the
County and this is addressed in the consultant's contract.
#7 Inability to Render Non-Biased Opinion, Dan Titterness:
Commissioner Titterness stated that because this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, he will excuse himself, but he
will be available for questions.
Mark Rose stated that this grievance deals with the recusal of Commissioner Titterness from voting as a
County Commissioner on the Brinnon Sub-area Plan. His reasons included:
· Commissioner Titterness sent him an email on April 11 writing that "surely you or anyone who is a
member of the Brinnon community should have access to documents currently under discussion."
Mark Rose reported that the Brinnon Group subsequently refused to release documents to the public
at meetings and refused to give copies of the draft plan to the public. Commissioner Titterness was
made aware of this several times and took no action.
Mark Rose outlined his grievances before the County Commissioners on April 16. These included the refusal
of the Brinnon Group to give documents to the public; conflict of interest for Linda Tudor and Chuck Finnila;
and blocking the public, State agencies, and interested parties from participating in the Plan as required by the
CDBG grant and GMA. He got no response from the Board.
· He sent a letter to Commissioner Titterness and others regarding compliance with the "Blue Book"
and did not get a response.
Page 9
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2001
He referred to an email from Eleanor Sather, dated January 20, 2000, where she stated that
Commissioner Titterness' political views were discussed during the Brinnon meeting. The committee
supported Commissioner Titterness. Mark Rose feels that politics should not be involved in group
planning.
Mark Rose referenced an opinion piece he wrote in The Leader on May 23 where he said that
Commissioner Titterness had indicated that he was interested in offering an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to allow more Master Plan Resorts in the County because if he didn't do that, he
would not be able to review the Brinnon Plan. How did Commissioner Titterness get a copy of the
plan when it was not completed or available to the public? It appeared to Mark Rose at that point
Commissioner Titterness had already made up his mind about how he was going to vote on the plan.
Commissioner Wojt pointed out that the Brinnon Sub-area Plan is still being reviewed by the Planning
Commission and the County Commissioners don't have a hearing scheduled yet. He again asked how this
relates to the CDBG grant? Mark Rose replied that he does not know how it relates, but it is his belief that
Commissioner Titterness cannot be objective in considering the plan. He doesn't know what law would
apply or whether this grievance is applicable to the grant. Commissioner Wojt asked Mark Rose to reassess
the timeliness of this grievance. Mark Rose responded that he thinks now is the time to address this concern.
Chairman Huntingford asked if Mark Rose feels that he and Commissioner Wojt are biased because they
voted on the original goal in the Comprehensive Plan to allow for the community planning process? Mark
Rose replied that a bias from Chairman Huntingford or Commissioner Wojt has not been demonstrated to
him. Commissioner Titterness has made several comments that demonstrate his bias.
Josh Peters stated that DCD's response is similar to Grievance #5 and #6 that the Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine doesn't apply because it is a legislative matter. Commissioner Titterness is a defacto party to the
CDBG grant contract, because it was signed before he became a County Commissioner. The facts do not
indicate a conflict of interest, and DCD is not aware of any conflict of interest between Commissioner
Titterness and the consultant. He recommended that the Board dismiss this grievance and address it with
their legislative discretion and the personal discretion of Commissioner Titterness as a legislator.
#8 Lack of Public Process:
Mark Rose stated the following issues:
· In a memo dated August 9 from Frank Gifford, Public Works Director to A1 Scalf, Community
Development Director, he indicated that the Public Works Department had reviewed the Brinnon
Sub-area Plan and had several concerns including how the Capital Facilities element would be funded.
Frank Gifford also noted in his memo that state agencies need to be involved in the planning process
and not be brought in after the plan is finished.
· In a memo dated August 14, Paula Mackrow, Director of the North Olympic Salmon Coalition, asked
Linda Tudor, Chair of the Brinnon Group, for a copy of the plan and to be involved in the production
of the plan. According to the grant, many state agencies need to be involved in the production of the
plan. Paula Mackrow's request was denied because the plan was not ready for public distribution.
Page 10
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2001
Ted Labbe, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, requested a copy of the plan and to be involved in the
process and received no response.
Several members of the public who attended a committee meeting commented on March 1 to Josh
Peters that public comment was actively discouraged and they were basically told that they were not
welcome at the meetings.
On June 7, Mark Rose requested information on the section of the plan dealing with WaWa Point
because he was working on that section. One of the committee members had a copy, but he was
denied this request.
He asked for the legal and regulatory justification regarding whether the committee can decide
arbitrarily when and to whom information is made available and has received no reply.
He asked for copies of all drafts currently in the possession of the County or consultants employed by
the County and has received no reply.
He asked about the Brinnon Group's compliance with the Open Meetings Act and has received no
reply.
He sent a memo to David Alvarez, Deputy Prosecutor, asking his opinion on these questions, and he
replied that he was not allowed to give legal advice to Mr. Rose and instead responded to DCD about
the request.
On March 29, he sent a memo to A1 Scalf about the committee's meeting where the public was not
given a copy of the document that was being discussed.
At the August 14 meeting, written testimony by 2 tribes and the Salmon Coalition was rejected.
He read RCW 36.70A.035 regarding public participation notice provisions; RCW 36.70A.070.3
regarding the requirements for the capital facilities element; and RCW 36.70A.070.5(b)3 regarding
rural element restrictions.
He has sent emails and memos to the County complaining about the Brinnon Sub-area Planning public
process for the last 8 months. Public process has continued to be discouraged.
The CDBG grant outlines agencies that are required to be involved in the production of the
document. The shell fish lab and Boy Scout Camp at WaWa Point were not consulted. Many habitat
groups who would have an interest in the plan were not consulted. There was no outreach.
Page 11
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2001
In Mark Rose's opinion, some members of the Brinnon Group made a conscious effort to discourage public
input because they wanted the plan to represent what they wanted. He stated that there needs to be a true
process that follows the rules, obeys the law, and includes the public, State agencies, and interested parties.
His recommendation is nullification of the current Brinnon Sub-area Plan and institution of a new process.
Josh Peters explained that it would take time to respond to all of the concerns that Mark Rose listed.
Commissioner Titterness asked him if the process was advertised as it was originally developed, according to
statute? Josh Peters replied that it was. Commissioner Titterness asked if the meetings were advertised
according to statute? Josh Peters replied that they were.
Chairman Huntingford asked at what point in the process DCD plans to address the concerns regarding the
Capital Facilities Element and the Critical Areas Element of the plan? Josh Peters reported that the Public
Works Department submitted their comments to the Brinnon Group, but because the committee was nearing
the end of the process, DCD advised them that the department would take up the outstanding issues
regarding the Public Works comments. On October 4, DCD sent a memo to Public Works, the Health
Department, Central Services, and the Assessor's Office asking for help in the review of the draft plan. They
will send any comments they receive to the Planning Commission. This is a continuation of the planning
process.
Chairman Huntingford asked ifDCD has informed the tribes and other interested agencies that the County is
soliciting comments on the Brinnon Sub-area Plan? Josh Peters answered yes. He went on to explain that:
· DCD contends that the public process did not violate the CDBG grant contract, the Comprehensive
Plan, the GMA, or Federal law.
· They used the "Blue Book" as a guide. The project embodies a "from the ground up" approach.
· Acceptable minimal standards of public participation are subjective.
· Attachment 1, Section B of the CDBG contract lists the goals, expected results, and products related
to public participation.
· The public process is standard for all Comprehensive Plan amendments.
· DCD contends that the public process was more than adequate and was supplemented by a website
which included documents, statements and maps and an interactive mapping server for map
proposals.
· An "interested parties" email list received any correspondence that the Brinnon Group received.
· There were 36 meetings in Brinnon with 2 public comment periods per meeting.
· There was a community meeting in Brinnon on July 31.
· The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 17.
· The County Commissioners will probably be scheduling another public hearing before the Brinnon
Sub-area Plan is adopted.
· The pre-application and grant materials list agency contacts. DCD sent letters to the list of agencies
that OCD recommends for all Comprehensive Plan amendments. Those agencies include all the State
agencies that Mark Rose cited. Local entities listed in the grant application such as the Port of Port
Page 12
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2001
Townsend, Chamber of Commerce, and the School Districts, have commented to the Planning
Commission.
Regarding the comments from the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, DCD cannot control how the
Brinnon Group responds; the Planning Commission will be considering the comments; and they will
also be considered in the staff report. He talked to Ted Labbe of the Tribe and Paula Mackrow
several times during the process.
On July 23, DCD sent emails or letters to the Brinnon Group, interested parties, and an additional list
of interested parties that Kirie Pederson supplied, to inform them that the draft plan was available.
Mark Rose asked Josh Peters if the Chair of the Brinnon Committee directed him, at one point, not to supply
documents to the public? Josh Peters responded that there was a point when the committee disagreed with
DCD regarding distribution of documents at public meetings. DCD supported complete openness with all
documents. The committee chose to work under the Jefferson County Records Access Policy which states
that "working drafts" are not accessible as public records. This is also a State law. The issue of not
distributing public documents at the Brinnon meetings came before the County Commissioners in April and
the Board directed that all drafts being discussed at the Brinnon meetings be made available to the public.
Mark Rose asked if Josh Peters studied the public process for any other sub-area plans? Josh Peters said that
he looked at sub-area planning processes from Kitsap County and Pierce County.
Josh Peters explained that DCD's recommendation is for the Board to consider Mark Rose's comments,
pursuant to their legislative discretion, regarding current and future sub-area planning public process and to
appropriate funding for public education and outreach. They also recommend that the Board hold a public
hearing before adopting the Brinnon Sub-area Plan.
#9 Non-Compliance with the "Blue Book":
Mark Rose elected to skip Grievance #9 and go on to Grievance #10.
# 10 Numerous, Blatant Violations of CTED/CDBG Grant:
Mark Rose referenced a letter he wrote to CTED dated October 3 regarding Contract F-99-64099-074 that
referred to Jefferson County's grant and the planning process. The basis for the grant was to benefit low and
moderate income individuals, and that criteria has been satisfied. There are rules in the grant about the
County's conduct during the planning process. In order to receive this grant funding, the County must
comply with all applicable State and Federal laws and requirements. He does not think this has been done in
the Brinnon planning process. He stated that there is no grievance procedure in place.
Commissioner Titterness reminded Mark Rose that on February 7, 2000, the County Commissioners
approved a specific grievance procedure for the Brinnon sub-area planning process.
Page 13
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2001
Mark Rose reported that he submitted dozens of grievances to DCD and he did not receive responses for the
majority of them. He was never informed that there was a grievance procedure. His written grievances to
DCD, the Planning Commission, and the County Commissioners include violations of the Open Public
Meetings Act, the Growth Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the CTED/CDBG Grant, the
Community Development Act, and agreements with State agencies.
He was told by Kaaren Roe, the CDBG Grant Project Manager, that there is an "opportunity problem
statement" that says, "In order to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act, Jefferson County
adopted a Comprehensive Plan in the fall, 1998. Additionally the Hood Canal region has received an
Endangered Species Act listing and a component of this plan will be to develop critical areas, shorelines, and
stormwater management goals and policies that comply with regulations that evolve from this listing."
Mark Rose stated that this was never done, and when habitat biologists attempted to get involved in that part
of the planning, they were denied.
The "opportunity problem statement" also states, "DSHS, Jefferson County Public Works, DOE, DNR,
National Marine Fisheries Service, WA Department offish and Wildlife, and DOT have committed to
providing staff input and expertise in the development of this plan." There are hours and hourly rates
allocated to those agencies for in kind services to fulfill the obligation to the plan. This was never done.
In Mark Rose's opinion, the County may have sent memos to these agencies, but there was no outreach and
they weren't involved in development of the plan. When they tried to get involved, they were denied.
The "opportunity problem statement" also states, "The project will be reviewed periodically by the Planning
Commission for the purpose of assuring compliance with the grant." Mark Rose recommended that the
Brinnon Group appear before the Planning Commission periodically to make sure that they were in
compliance. He reported that they never met with the Planning Commission.
The solution statement and workplan state, "Public meetings will occur at the document vision, the local
planning final draft, the Planning Commission and County Commissioners' implementation stages." Mark
Rose feels that the vision camel 8 months after the planning process was started and the committee didn't
really care about a vision. There is no documented vision statement at the beginning of the process. He
continued that there are 7 GMA indicators which Comprehensive Plan amendments must at least consider.
This was not done. A community education process wasn't developed. He explained that each element of the
draft plan should have been provided to the community stakeholders for comment. The Brinnon Group did
not involve the community.
Mark Rose stated that he feels the outcome statement didn't work because the process didn't work. It did
not follow the grant and is not in compliance with the grant. The funds should be resubmitted and reallocated
to a process that would be in compliance and would benefit low and moderate income individuals.
Page 14
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2001
Josh Peters responded as follows:
· OCD is currently investigating the County as a result of Mark Rose's request.
· The CDBG Grant Project Manager will be conducting a site visit to Brinnon.
· There has been no intentional violation of the contract by DCD.
· The State Auditor's Office is also conducting an investigation.
DCD's recommendation is that it is inappropriate for the Board to consider this grievance until the County
receives the findings from these agencies.
Josh Peters went on to explain that:
· The grant application spelled out a process, and the actual process that was used deviated from the
original course.
· This is not a contract violation and there is no reason the County should have to return the funding.
· The Brinnon Group expected to spend 650 hours on the planning process, and to date they have spent
2,500 hours.
· DCD has doubled their estimate of 401 hours and is no where near being finished with the project.
· Only $1,000 was budgeted for copies. Mark Rose's request that all private citizens that want a copy
should receive a copy would be cost prohibitive.
· DCD made the draft plan available on the website and made copies for the libraries, post office and
other establishments in the Brinnon area and the County.
· Mark Rose has generated almost 600 pages of comments that have been copied to the Planning
Commission members. The value of these copies is approximately $1,500.
· DCD and the County cannot control how the Brinnon Group may have interacted with the habitat
biologist's comments, but the Planning Commission, DCD staff and the County Commissioners will
be reviewing them.
· In terms of documenting the in kind services, this will be done as part of the grant closeout.
· DCD received a letter from OCD asking that they do all these things as part of their investigation.
· DCD is required to document all the grievances. He explained that it is difficult to tell what is a
grievance, what is a comment, what is an issue and what is a request.
Chairman Huntingford noted that it was time to close the hearing or decide whether to continue. He noted
that there are 2 grievances remaining. Mark Rose stated that he would bypass the presentation of the last 2
grievances. David Alvarez cautioned that Mark Rose needs to acknowledge that he has been given enough
time to present his issues. Mark Rose answered that he has.
Commissioner Titterness asked Mark Rose if he is willing to abide by the procedure as stated in the Brinnon
Sub-area Plan Grievance Procedure adopted by the County Commissioners in February, 2001. Mark Rose
stated that he doesn't think he has a choice and he realizes the County Commissioners' decision is final. He
added that he realizes he has other avenues of appeal.
David Alvarez asked if there were any other comments to be added to the record? Mark Rose replied that he
had no other comments.
Page 15
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2001
The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened on
Wednesday morning. All 3 Commissioners were present.
AGREEMENT re: Design Services for the H.J. Carroll Park Picnic Pavilion; Jefferson
County Public Works; Timbercraft Homes: (Item #3 on the Consent Agenda) Commissioner Wojt moved
to approve the agreement for design services with Timbercraft Homes. Commissioner Titterness seconded
the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
MEETING ADJOURNED
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Glen Htm~
Page 16
Monday, October 22, 2001
Rose Grievance Hearing
Opening Statement
Good afternoon. My name is Josh Peters.
I am an Associate Planner with the Department of
Community Development (or "DCD"). I have been the primary staff contact for the Brinnon
Planning Group and Mark Persomus, the consultant from EarthTech, Inc., for the Brmnon
Subarea Plan (SAP) project since the beginning of the year 2001. Before me, the primary staff
contact was Lauren Mark, who is no longer with the Department. The primary managerial
contact from our office when I was assigned ro this project was Warren Hart, who is also no
longer with the Deparrrnent.
I will be presenting brief responses to the 12 grievances submitted to you by Mr. Rose. As a
preface, we contend that the grievance process established for the Community Development
Block Grant (or "CDBG") ~s intended to settle grievances related to the six rights stated by
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez in his memo regarding this heating and essentially ro
resolve disputes surrounding the CDBG contract between the Count), and the Washington State
Office of Community Development (or "OCD," formerly know as CTED) and issues
surrounding how the grant funds were acquired and spent. In other words, did the County
follow the grant application process, were there any irregularfies in how the consultant was
selected or paid, and similar questions. Section 9, page 9-1, of the CDBG Handbook addresses
"Local Complaints and Grievances." The very first sentence reads, "CDBG grantees are
responsible for resolving local complaints," which is the reason behind this hearing today. The
first sentence of the second paragraph refers to a "procedure for handling complaints that deal
with local program administration, management, or operational procedures." Please keep this
apparently limiting statement in mind when exercising your authority as local jurisdiction
legislators in resolving the complainant's grievances under this project, which is partially funded
through the CDBG Program.
Another point to consider when addressing Mr. Rose's grievances is the relationship of the grant
application to the CDBG grievance procedure-not the process by which the grant was acquired,
which we see as relevant, but the process described by the words in the grant application itself.
In some of Mr. Rose's grievance statements, he cites the process described in the CDBG grant
application as if that process, word for word, is incorporated into the contract with OCD. In
fact, the grant application is not even referenced in the contract. The process to be followed is
outlined in Attachment I of the contract. If it is determined that grievances under the CDBG-
funded project may address issues beyond the six citizen rights listed by Mr. Alvarez, then we
would argue that they should be limited to the contract itself. In other words, variauon from the
process proposed in the grant application materials is not a violation of the contract. We
maintain that we have not violated the contract, certainly not intentionally, and that we've
complied with the grant application and fund expenditure rules presented to us. Currently, we're
awaiting the results of the OCD CDBG Program investigation underway as a result of Mr.
Rose's communications with them. For the sake of being cautious, thorough, and courteous,
and to promote dialogue on the issues presented by the complainant, we will now respond to
each of Mr. Rose's grievances as documented in his October 12, 2001 written communication to
County Administrator Saddler.
I also wish to make it known that DCD provided a response to Mr. Rose on each of these issues
in a timely manner. We are in the process of reconciling the complete record to date of the
Brinnon subarea planning process, including documentation of our response to "grievances."
The record is extensive, as evidenced by this nearly complete index of items. I am prepared
today to cite the written correspondence from Director Scalf to Mr. Rose that represented the
DCD response per the fzrst step m the grievance process, if that citauon is necessary.
Otherwise, the responses I give today represent the posiuon of DCD and the Director. Director
Scalfis present to address the Board on these issues, if asked. I would also like to note that
documentation of grievances has proved difficult in that it is not always clear what is a grievance
per the CDBG grant and what is not. Some of the grievances we discuss today may be more
appropriately be termed comments or may more appropriately be addressed in other venues,
such as the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board and the various levels of
State courts.
In terms of legal issues before you today, we espouse that throughout the planning process and
including Mr. Rose's more recent involvement, the County has advocated and complied with the
law. The issues before you are better characterized as differences in opinion or position. The
CDBG grievance process is not meant to be a political process and is intended as a mechanism
for the presentation and discussion of facts and law, not descriptions of personalities or
opinions.
Finally, I would like to briefly describe the purpose of the CDBG program, as we understand it,
and how this project meets the CDBG goals. As per the CDBG one-page description published
by OCD, the Washington State Small Cities CDBG Program is designed to fund local housing,
public and community facilities, economic development, and planning projects which principally
benefit low- and moderate-income households. All local projects must meet at least one of three
national objectives. The grant in question meets the fzrst: "principally benefit persons of low
income." The Planning-Only Grant Program in this state stipulates that eligible planning
projects principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons and meet one of four program
priorities. The project in question meets the second and fourth: "To respond to State and
Federal mandates" and "To complete a necessary step within a broader community
development strategy." If the project did not meet these objectives and priorities, assumedly it
would not have been funded by OCD. Attachment I of the contract between the County and
OCD, under Section A: Brief Descripuon, states that "The entire commumty of Brinnon, of
which 57 percent are low- and moderate-income, will benefit from this planning project." A
cursory read of Brmnon Subarea Plan draft recommended by the volunteer citizen Brinnon
Planning Group reveals that economic opportunity- is a focus. This focus is supported in the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan by LNP 4.8. While some may argue about the efficacy of
the measures proposed in the draft Subarea Plan, a key intention of the economic development
strategy is to help the citizens of Brmnon afford to live there.
Juelanne Daizell
JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Courthouse P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend. Washington 98368
Telephone (3601385-918(I FAX (360) 385-0073
Jill Landes. Deputy .Prosecutor
Michael Haas. Deputy Prosecutor
David Vv'. Alvarez. Deputy Prosecutor
Tracey L. Lassus. Deputy Prosecutor
October 8, 2001
Mark Rose
687 Pulali Point Road
Brinnon. WA 98320
Re: Rules applicable to Grievance Hearing
Dear Mr. Rose:
I enclose for your review a copy of the applicable procedural rules for the
Grievance Hearing that will occur at your request on the afternoon of Monday, October
22. 2001. This Grievance Hearing will occur as required by the rules of the Commumry
Block Development Grant for the Brinnon Sub Area Plan. as funded bv the federal
government and managed by the State Office of Community Development. Certmn
attachments to the procedural rules are also enclosed.
Send vour ~ievances (with relevant documents) to Charles Saddler and not to me.
Very. truly yours, r,
David Alvarez ~
Chief Civil DepuD, Prosecuting Attorney
cc:
County Commissioners (w./Enc.)
DCD (w./Enc.)
Juelanne Dalzell
JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Courthouse--P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Telephone (360) 385-9180 FAX (360) 385-0073
Jill Landes, Deputy Prosecutor
Michael Haas, Deputy Prosecutor
Th eodore M. Cropley, Deputy Prosecutor
David W. Alva fez, Deputy Prosecutor
TO:
Coun .ty Commissioners,
County Administrator Saddler
FROM:
David Alvarez, Chief Civil DPA
DATE:
Monday, October 08, 2001
Community Block Grant: Brinnon Sub Area Plan
Grievance procedure
Here are some Frequently Asked Questions, with answers relating to the grievance
procedure:
What statute or regulation creates this grievance procedure?
Begin with the federal regulations, specifically 24 C.F.R. 570.486(a)(7), which
states that the local government accepting block grant monies shall "[p]rovide
citizens the address, phone number, and times for submitting complaints and
grievances, and provide timely written answers to written complaints and
grievances, within 15 days where practicable."
The individual states then must create a process to insure that citizens have
opportunities to file grievances. Washington State. through the Dept. of
Community, Trade and Economic Development ("DCTED'), came up with the
grievance process described within Exhibit "1 .'
What is a grievance?
DCTED purposely did not define what is or is not a grievance. See letter dated
September 17, 2001 from Kaaren Roe. who serves as CDBG Project Manager for
OCD. Exhibit "2."
Here is the most reasonable analysis: The grievance procedure described at 24
C.F.R. 570.486(a)(7) presumably exists so that citizens can vindicate rights given
to them by § 570.486(a) in general. What then are the rights provided to a citizen
pursuant to § 570 486(a)9" They are six in number and they are as follows. They
are framed in terms of what the local government (Jefferson County) must do:
1. provide for an encourage local participation, particularly by low and
moderate income persons;
2. ensure that citizens will be given reasonable and timely access to local
meetings, information and records relating to how the County proposes to
use the CDBG funds;
3. furnish certain information to citizens, specifically a) the quantity of
CDBG funds expected to be available, b) the range of activities the CDBG
funds will be used for, c) the amount of CDBG funds that will be used to
benefit persons of low and moderate income and d) the CDBG-funded
activities that will result in displacement of low income persons and the
County's relocation plan;
4. provide technical assistance to any group of low income persons wishing
to make proposals to obtain or utilize CDBG monies
5. conduct two public hearings to obtain citizen's opinions and hear citizen
comments, said public heatings to be held in a convenient place at a
convenient time and these hearings must discuss "community development
and housing needs;"
6. provide citizens with reasonable notice so that they can comment on the
proposed activities listed in a CDBG application to the state or to
comment if there are "substantial changes" to the activities proposed in a
CDBG application that was granted and funded
These are the six rights are protected by the grievance procedure laid out in 24
C.F.R. 570.486(a)(7). See Exhibit "Y' for a coy of the relevant C.F.R. section.
The most basic question remains, what is a grievance?
The response would be that unless the allezed 'grievance' amounts to a claim that
one or more of the rights listed at #1 through #6 above have been violated,
ignored or abused by Jefferson County or its staff, then that alleged grievance is
not a grievance under the CDBG contract and the DCTED-imposed grievance
procedure that implements that C.F.R. section.
What if the citizen alleges a violation of state law?
Such a claim would not be a grievance as that term is defined by 24 CFR
570.486(a)(7). Why? Because a violation of state law is not listed there among
the six rights the citizen is permitted to 'grieve' in order to vindicate his rights
under the CDBG contract.
Grievance Hearing Memo
Alvarez. October 8. 2001
Page 2 of 4
Furthermore, the State DCTED has written that the County's Comprehensive
Plan. the GMA. the Planning Enabling Act and any other applicable laws and
regulations "remain in effect and take precedent over the process described
below," suggesting that for such claims other avenues are more appropriate.
Thus, if other remedies apply as allowed bv state law, the grievance procedure
does not apply because the person filing th~ grievance has other routes available
to him or her and any opinion of the BoCC regarding whether a state law has been
violated would be entirely advisory in nature since other agencies and bodies are
fully empowered to decide such questions and the BoCC is not.
What should be the procedure for the grievance hearing?
1. The Chair of the County Commissioners will start off by reading the
paragraph below.
2. All alleged grievances should be heard, whether or not they fit the
definition of a CDBG contract grievance as described above.
3. The person making the grievance should be all owed to make their
presentation without interruption. When the complaining parry is done,
there should be questions from the BoCC members and then from DCD.
4. The next event would be the DCD person making a presentation or
response again without interruption, with questions to follow, first from
the BoCC and then from the complaining party,.
5. The County Commissioners can choose to issue an oral decision on the
date the heating concludes, but must ALSO issue a written decision.
6. All written documents should be accepted from any parry.
7. Written minutes should be taken and preserved.
8. The audio tape of this hearing should be preserved until further notice.
What is the standard of proof?.
In the absence of any case law that would provide guidance and after discussing it
with other attorneys representing other counties, a decision was reached to
implement the least restrictive burden of proof, i.e., the "preponderance of the
evidence" rule. If one were to express the "preponderance of the evidence" rule
mathematically, one would say the party making the claim has to win 51% to
49%.
What about grievances that turn out to not be grievances in the CDBG-contract context?
Should such grievances be presented to the County Commissioners sitting as the
grievance hearing board, then the County Commissioners have authority, if they
so decide, to expressly not rule on such a grievance, i.e., to offer no opinion as to
whether the complaining party has met his or her burden of proof in that regard.
Grievance Hearing Memo
Alvarez, October 8, 2001
Page 3 of 4
What should be said by the Chair of the County
Commissioners to open the grievance hearing?
This is a grievance hearing. It has been requested by one or more
citizens as they are allowed to do under the terms of a Community
Development Block Grant funded by the federal government, managed
by the State of Washington and accepted by Jefferson County in order
to help move forward the Brinnon Sub Area Plan for Planning Area
#11. The County Commissioners are sitting today as the governing
body of Jefferson County to hear the grievance or grievances, as they
are permitted to do in the grievance process outlined by the State of
Washington and agreed to by this County. This hearing may conclude
todav or at a future date if the parties so agree upon another date.
When this hearing concludes, either today or in the future, the County
Commissioners then have 30 days to issue a written decision. The
decision of the County Commissioners is final, although the
complaining party may have other legal avenues that he or she can
pursue. The rules of evidence will not apply here although the County
Commissioners will and must give credibility and weight to evidence
as they see fit. The standard to be used by the County Commissioners
in making their decision with respect to any particular grievance is
whether the allegation of the complaining party has been supported by
evidence that makes the allegation "more likely true than not true."
Each party shall make its presentation without interruption and shall
have the opportunity to ask questions.
Grievance Hearing Me
Alvarez. October 8, 2001
Page 4 of 4
Grievance Procedure for Brinnon sub-area planning process
The process to be used t'or any compIaints/gr/evances that arise from the Jefferson County
Department of Communlrv Development IDCD~ Bnnnon suo-area planning process (fun~ed
partially through a CTED CDBG grant) is described below. ,All requirements of the
Jefferson County Comprehensive ~lan. the Washington Growth Management Act and
Planning Enabling Act. and any other applicable county, state, or federal rules, regulation.
and ordinances remain in effect and take precedent over the process described below. The
process described below is not intended to restrict the fights ofpetmoners or lessen thmr
ability to redress grievances through any of the mechanisms in the legislation described.
1. A petitioner must submit all complaints in writing to the designated official (Director,
Jefferson County Department of Communitv Development or a
designee) for resolunon. A record of comp'faints and action taken will be maintained.
A decision by the designated official will be rendered w~thin 15 working days.
If the complaint cannot be'resolved to the petitioner's satisfaction by the designated
official.
It will be forwarded to a committee appointed bv the governing body (Jefferson
County Board of County Commisaoners;. This committee's membership, irs
ground rules or procedures for hear/ng complaints and how the con-wmttee can be
contacted will be available to the public. The committee will be directed to hear
such complaints in an objective, public manner, and after adequate public notice.
A written decision will be made within 30 working days.
OR
The complaint will be heard bv the governing body and discussed at an open,
public meeting of the elected bbdy. A wnnen decision will be made ,,v/thin 30
working days. The decision of the governina body is final.
3. A record of action taken on each complaint will be maintained as a part of the records
or minutes at each ~eveI of the grievance process.
Adopted this
t3l=nature of Chief Aaministrativl Officer
~ -- ..Attest:
gOT 0 .~ 2~1
st/~t~ or W^S.:NCTON
OFFIC, E OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMF. J~-IJ£FF£RSON COUhlT':'
JEFFE~ SON COUN~
~. Josh Pbt~, Associ~c Plier DEPT. OF ~0MMUNI~ DEVELOPME~T
]effcrsan Co~w ~ ,'~
621 She~d~ S~eet
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
RE: Contract Number F-99-64099-074
Dear Mr. Peters:
This letter is in response to your inquiry regarding the Community Development Block Grant
grievance procedure requirement. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure the grant
recipient has a formal means of locally receiving and resolving grievances relatexi to the CDBG-
funded project. My research and recent conversauons with HUD confam*d that the role of the
sram in thc resolution of'local grievances is minimal, with the state's role largely to ensure an
acceptable, local grievarice proc,duse is in place and being followed.
The applicable federal regulations (24 CFR Part 570.486) and our CDBG Non-Construction
Management Handbook (Section 9) provide guidance that is purposefully non-restrictive
regarding the actual procedure to follow. The grant recipient may adopt a local grievance
procedure that follows our sample, and/or use an existing, more gmeral grievance process that
meets the minimm CDBG requirements. The regulations als~ do.not de~fne what is to be
considered a CDBG-rolamd grievance. While the CDBG Program may not support all tim
actions of the local government, its advisory groups or its citizens, it is not our role to manage
local affairs.
It appears the Brirmon Plazming Group and other interested parties were initially provided the
grievance procedure as part of the grant materials, but also that this procedure was hidden within
the paperwork and not clearly communicated. While this is regrettable, you have offered to
document how the county has made effort to respond to complaints during the planning process
in a manner that is generally consistent with the grievance procedure. The county must continue
to demonsuate its timely response to formal grievances.
Mr. Josh Peters
September 27, 2001
Page 2
In response to our discussion on the grievance issues, please send me the follow;rog:
· A summary of grievances received and addressed.
· Documentation of the county's process for establishing the Brinnon Planning Group,
including its efforts to invite any community member. Please also provide a list of the
Brinnon Plann/ng Group members.
· Documentation of the cash and' in-kind contributions for the Brinnon Subare~Plan, .,While'
the CDBG Program does not have a match requirement;' the CDBG application and grant
contract assume approximately $13,000 from the county and $12,000 from local
organizations and other participating agencies towards the planning process. These amounts
can include m-kind resources.
· A copy of the audkor's report regarding thc Brinnon Plarrning Group.
Please submit these documents by October 25, 2001. If you have any questions or concerns, feel
free to contact me at (360) 9~3-3690' or kaarenr(~cted, wa.~oY.
Sincerely,
CDBG Project Manager
5t~h~ Buxbaum
Mark Rose
PUBLIC HEARING HANDOUT
Federal Citizen Participation Requirements
for Local Government Applicants to the State CDBG Program
Federal Requladons 2~ CFR 570.486 ,~a/
(a) Citizen participation reou/rernen~s cia unit o? ge~era/ /oca/ goverr~ment. Each unit of general local
government snail meet the following requirements as recurred by the state at Sec. 91 115(e) of
this title. .
(1) Provide for and encourage citizen baXicipati0on..2articularty by Iow and moderate
income 2ersons who resice in slum or blighted areas and areas m which CDBG funds are
proposed to be used;
(2) Ensure that citizens will be given reasonable and timely access to local meetings,
mformador-, and records re~aung To the umt of local government's proposed and actual use
of CDBG funds;
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(3) Furnish citizens informatior,, including but not limited to:
The amount of CDBG runes expected To be made available for the current fiscal year
(including the grant and anticipated ~rogram income);
The range of ac*,ivities t~at may be undertaken wi~,'~ t~e CDBG funds;
The estimated amount of the CDBG funds 2roDosed to be used for activities that will meet
the national obiective of oenefit to low ano mooerate income persons; and
The proposed CDBG activities likely ~o result in displacement and the unit of general local
government's antidis~lacement and relocation plans required under Sec. 570.488.
(4) Provide technical assistance to groups representative of persons of low and moderate
moose that re~ues~ assistance in developing pro2osals in accordance with the procedures
developed by the state. Such assistance need not inctude .providing funds to such groups;
(5) Provide for a minimum of two public headncs, each at a different stage of the program,
for the puruose of obtainin~ citizens' views anC~res2onding to proposals and questions.
Together the hearings mus~ cover community develoomen~ and housing needs.
oevelo[:mem of pro3osec activities anoa review of program performance. The public
hearmgs to cover community develo.2ment ano nousain~ needs must be het~ before
submissior- of an application to the state. There must be reasonable notice of the
hearings and they must be hold at times and locations convert,em to potential or actual
beneficiaries, with accommodations for the hancicapped. Public hearings shall be
concucted 'n a manner to meet the neeos of non-English speaking residents where a
significant number of ~on-English s2eaking residents can reasonable pe expected to
participate;
(6) Provide citizens with reasonable advance notice of, and opI:ortunity to comment on,
oro2osed activities m an a~plication to the state and, for gran~s already made, activities
which are proposed to be adrien, deleted or substantially changed from the unit of general
local government's application to the state. Substantia/ly changed means changes made
in terms of purpose, scooe, location or beneficiaries as defineo by criteria established by
the state
(7) Provide citizens the address, phone number, and times for submitting complaints and
grievances, and :~rovide timely writte,n answers to written complaints and grievances,
within 15 working c:ays where practicable
1999-2000 Planning-Only Grant Application
November 1999
15
PUBLIC HEARING HANDOUT
Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program
Introduction:
Available'
Grants:
The Washington Si. ate Small Cities CDBG Program is designed to fund local
housing, public and community facilities, economic development, and planning
projects which princ~sally benefit iow- anc moderate-income households.
All local 'projects must meet at least one of three national objectives of this
federal-funded program (Title 1, Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, as amended), which are to:
Principally benefit persons of low-income
. Prevent or elimina[e slums or btight; or
· Meet urgent community, development needs which pose a serious and
immediate threat to pu:~lic health or safety.
EIigible aoplican~s for the Washington State Small Cities CDBG Program are
cities and towns with less than 50,000 in populations or counties with less than
200,000 in populations provided the cities, towns, and counties do not
particil~a~e as members of HUD Urnan County Consor'dums.
Indian tribes and special purpose organizations such as public housing
authorities, pot': districts, community action agencies, and economic
development councils, are not eligible To apply directly to the CDBG Program
for funding, However, eligible jurisdictions may choose To involve Indian tribes
withir~ the~'r jurisdiction or to involve other organizations in activities funded by a
grant.
$300,000
Planninc~ Only Grants.
The Planning-Only Grant Program's one of several CDBG programs that award
funds throughout the state. Eligible town, cities or counties can apply for up to
$24.000 for a single jurisdiction or $40,000 for a multiple jurisdiction planning project
that orincipally benefits iow- and moc:erate- income persons. Applications are
processed throughout the year on a funds available bas~s and must meet one of the
following program priorities:
· To address public health and safety issues
.._ . To respond to state and federal mandates
· To tmprove essential services to Iow- and moderate- income persons
· To complete a necessary step within a broader community
~ development strategy
For more information about ODBG Programs phone (360) 586-0869.
14
1999-2000 Planning-Only Grant Application
November 1999
Grievances to BOCCI Mark Rose/Better Bdnnon Coalition
Mark Rose. October 12, 2001
OCT 1 2 20nl
FrFERSON COUNTY
Grievances to be presented to Board of County Commissioner~0BOCff_J) t'0 :'~ ¢.~ l.q!:', ! r~.!-!r RS
Jefferson County, Washington, October 22, 2001, 2:30 PM - 5 pages, with 147 pages of
supporting documents
Presented to Charles Saddler, County Administrator, October 12, 2001
#1 Group membership
Lynette Antijunti. Lea Silsbee, Eleanor Sather, Richard Coone, Stan Johnston. Tom
McNerney are listed in the sub area plan as "members." They are not members and
should be eliminated from all documents as "members." See email of 7/30/01 to Josh
Peters. Also. the Brinnon sub-area group is alleging 17 members Yhe Blue Book says
that membership cannot exceed 15 The Brinnon group set rules for membership, and
then established different rules, without public nonce or discussion, to suit their needs.
Recommended Action: Set the official membership of the group at 11. Eliminate all of
the above mentioned names as "members."
#2 Violations of Open Public Meetiugs Act
On April 11, 2001, a meeting was held at the home of Kate Marsh. Brinnon group
recorder. The express purpose of the meeting was to discuss how to deflect opposition to
the Brinnon plan. and disrupt Democrats who wanted to be involved. The purpose of the
meeting was to control public process and disrupt dialogue. I can offer testimony from
Brinnon residents and email verification as to the date and intent of the meeting. Tom
McNernev has admitted to the meeting, but he says that there was no quorum I disagree
Group members present, I believe, were Tom McNerney, Jov Baisch, Linda Tudor,
Georze Sickel, Bud Schindler. Charles Springer. Chuck Finn/la. Kate Marsh. and perhaps
John and Dalila Dowd DCD has refused to investigate this secret meeting. I also
believe that the Brinnon group has met several other times, in violation of the Open
Public Meetings Act.
Also. there were meetings of the group when the public present in which action was
taken. DCD was present at those meetings I would like to get an opinion on those
meetings as well.
Recommended Action: Poll the Brinnon group, including "member" Tom McNerney, to
determine who called the April 11 meeting, why it was called, who was present, what
was discussed, and what was agreed on. Submit the results into the public record.
#3 Compliance with Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
Numerous times I have asked DCD and the Planning Commission if the Brinnon sub-area
Plan needs to be in compliance with the county's Comprehensive Plan.-'First DCD said
yes. Then, A1 Scalf said if it was not in compliance, then it need to state where it was not,
and the Comprehensive Plan needed to be amended accordingly Planning
Commissioners Thomas McNerney and Patrick Rogers insist that it does not have to be in
Grievances to BOCC/Mark Rose/Better Bfinnon Coalition
2
compliance. Then Thomas McNerney said that it has to be in compliance with the
Growth Management Act. but not the Comprehensive Plan.
Recommended Action: Clear ruling on whether or not the Brinnon sub-area plan needs
to comply with the county's Comprehensive Plan when it is adopted. If so. must
inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan go through the standard Comprehensive
Plan amendment process?
# 4 Inconsistencies with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
The Brinnon sub-area plan has been developed without regard to the county's
Comprehensive Plan, a "legal document" that ~s in compliance With the Growth
Management Act (State law). When the Comprehensive Plan was wmten it gave clear
justification for interim land use designations. Also. population projecnons are used as
an indicator of growth in both the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan.
Yet_ there has been no population growth in Bnnnon and little in the county over the last
five years There has been virtually no economic growth or development to justify
proposed dramatic growth. Population figures are not used in the Brinnon plan as a
justification for growth, as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. To date. only one
Master Planned Resort is allowed in the County, and LAMIRDs cannot be expanded
before the Tri-Area/Glen Cove study is complete. How can the Planning Commission or
BOCC possibly deliberate and make a recommendation on a plan that recommends a
Master Planned Resort and increased LAMIRDs in Brinnon when they are not allowed?
How can the Planning Commission or the BOCC recommend nearly 400 acres of mixed-
use zoning when there is no justification according to the six accepted growth
management indicators, the Comprehensive Plan or the Growth Management Act?
Recommended Action: Thoroughly review the Brinnon sub-area plan for inconsistencies
with the Comprehensive Plan, and mandate changes to insure compliance BEFORE
deliberations by the Planning Commission.
#5 Inability to Render Non-Biased Opiniom Thomas McNernev
Secret meetings, spreading rumors, biased opinions expressed at Planning Commission
and Brinnon sub-area group, misleading informanon, masquerading as a "member" of the
Brinnon sub-area group, inappropriately participating in a "consensus" at the Brinnon
sub-area group, participating in withholding documents, manipulating process,
inappropriate voting. Violations of Jefferson County Planning Commission By-Laws
(which he signed) and any minimal ethical standard of appearance of fairness. See
supporting documents. It appears as if Mr. McNerney has made pre-judged the Brinnon
plan. no matter what is in it.
Recommended Action: Recusal of Thomas McNerney from voting on Planning
Commission recommendation of the Brinnon sub-area plan.
Grievances to BOCC/Mark Rose/Better Bmmon Coalition 3
#6 Inability to Render Non-Biased Opinion, John Hynson
At the Planning Commission, Mr. Hynson has repeatedly made derogatory remarks about
"no-growthers," and how '~the people of Brinnon" need to be saved. Mr. Hynson has sent
incendiary, biased and divisive emails to the Commission and members of the
community His email of September 28. 2001, clearly shows an obvious bias toward
thwarting any real discussion on the Brinnon plan, a distaste for legitimate process, state
or federal law'. the county's own rules, and people who may have opinions in conflict his
own rhetoric. It appears as if Mr. Hynson has pre-judged the Brinnon Plan. no matter
what is in iL
Recommended Action': Recusal of John Hvnson from voting on Planning Commission
recommendation of the Brinnon sub-area plan.
#7 Inability to Render Non-Biased Opinion, Dan Titterness
In an April 11 email Mr. Titterness insists that any citizen in Brinnon should have access
to documents under discussion by the Brinnon group The Brinnon group failed to
comply. Mr. Titterness was notified of this several times: he refused to take action. In
May, 2001. Mr. Titterness told the Port Townsend Leader that he was recommending an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan so he could review the Brinnon Plan. Yet, at that
time the Brinnon Group refused to show the plan to anybody. How did Mr. Titterness get
a copy, and how could he possibly recommend an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
when the Brinnon Plan was barely 20% complete, the Brinnon group was refusing to
show it to anyone, and the community had not yet seen or commented on it? When I
appeared before the Commissioners on April 16 with grievances, the Commissioners
refused to acknowledge or address any grievances. Mr. Titterness instead recommended
that I read the Blue Book. I did. and then sent Mr Titterness a detailed analysis of the
Blue Book, with several recommendations. He refused to respond. He refused to
respond to a recommendation for the recusal of Thomas McNerney. January 20. 2001,
Eleanor Sather wrote a letter to the Brinnon group complaining about the political
dialogue of the group (open and vocal support for Mr Titterness). During his campaign,
Mr Titterness vowed to support the Brinnon Plan before it was even written It appears
as if Mr. Titterness has pre-judged the Brinnon Plan. no matter what is in it.
Recommended Action: Recu sal of Dan Titterness from voting on Board of County
Commissioners recommendation of the Brinnon sub-area plan.
#8 Lack of Public Process
Lack of public process during the Brinnon sub-area planning process violated the
CTED/CDBG grant, the Comprehensive Plan, Growth Management Act, the county's
"Blue Book," federal guidelines for public process, and any acceptable minimum
standards of public participation. Violations included, but were not limited to:
Consistent rudeness and antagonism toward the public, refusal to'-share documents that
were being discussed at meetings, refusal to share the Brinnon Plan with the public as it
was being developed, refusal to explain the plan to the public or allow sufficient time for
review, refusal to notify important interested parties, such as the Navy, Boy Scouts, Shell
Grievm~ces to BOCC/Mark Rose/Bctter Brinnon Coalition
Fish Lab. habitat biologists, local landowners. Tribes. refusal to allow habitat biologists
and others to participate in the planning process, refusal to respond to Inquiries from
residents, refusal to allow State or County agencies from being involved in the planning
process, conducting secret meetings, dismissing and deriding testimony from habitat
biologists who are extremely familiar with the Brinnon Planning area. These violations
were so egregious and continual that it is impossible to say that this was a fair and
equitable planning process, or that the plan is about, for or by the residents of Brinnon.
The BOCC was made aware of these violations as they occurred. They did not respond.
acknowledge or take action on ~ grievances concerning public process.
Recommended Action: Nullify existing Brinnon sub-area plan, establish fair guidelines
for community planning, enforce them, and undertake a Brinnon sub-area planning
process that is compliance with the law and is inclusive, rather than exclusive.
#9 Non-Compliance with the "Blue Book"
DCD insisted that the Brinnon Group was beholden to the "Jefferson County Guidelines
for Community Planning Committees. Revised 1994" - aka "The Blue Book." The
BOCC told me to "read the Blue Book" to know how-the community planning process
works. There are many obvious violations of the Blue Book The CTED/CDBG grant
also stipulates that the county must develop its plan according to the Blue Book Then. at
the end of the process. DCD said that the Blue Book was more of"a guide" rather than a
rule. Can the county decide when to impose the Blue Book, what to impose in it and
when? Can the county mislead citizens into thinking that they should follow the Blue
Book and then retract it when it so pleases them?
Recommended Action: Nullifv existing Brinnon sub-area plan, establish fair guidelines
for community planning, enforce them, and undertake a Brinnon sub-area planning
process that is compliance with the law and is inclusive, rather than exclusive
#10 Numerous. Blatant Violations of CTED/CDBG Grant
See letter to October 3 letter to Mr. Stephen H. Buxbaum. Managing Director of
Community Development Programs Unit. Washington State Office of Community
Development The letter was also copied to District Inspector General for Audit of HLrD,
State Auditor Brian Sonntag, and David Mann of Bricklin & Gendler (representing Better
Brinnon Coalition). Violations of this contract are so widespread and egregious that the
county is in danger of being cited for fraud and misuse of federal funds. Also, funds were
acquired to "predominately benefit low and moderate ~ncome individuals." I attended
approximately 15 Brinnon sub-area planning meetings, read every word of the plan,
studied supporting documentation, and I can assure you that is far from the truth.
Recommended Action' Surrender funds acquired for Contract F-99-64099-074. Nullify
existing Brinnon sub-area plan. Establish equitable and fair planning process. Re-direct
funds for planning process that is in compliance with federal, state and county law, and
stipulations of CTED/CDBG grant.
Grievances to BOCC/Mark Rose/Better Brinnon Coalition
#11 Obiectionable Statements In the Plan
One goal of the plan is: Ensure and protect property owner~' rights as they pertain to land
use, water, minerals, agriculture use. timber, beaches, and types of deeds.
This is a political statement and has no business in a community plan. If this remains in
the plan. I would like to suggest another goal: "To uphold the laws of the United States,
the State of Washington. Jefferson County, and to conduct all our affairs in an open. fair
and equitable manner."
In one section of the plan we are cautioned that "Indians can invade private property and
decimate our tidelands." Tribal members have found that this statement has serious racist
overtones.
Endangered species, we are told. "Don't hold any significance other than interesting
observations." The CTED/CDBG grant mandates a section devoted to protectin~
endangered species, the Endangered Species Act is federal law, our protected habitat is
one of our most precious resources. This is an objectionable statement.
I have objected to these statements to the Brinnon Planning Group, DCD, and the Earth
Tech'consultant. No response.
Suggested Action: Strike political, racist and anti-environmental statements from the
plan
# 12 Failure of BOCC to Adequately Establish & Oversee Procesg
The BOCC was informed dozens of times of violations as they occurred. They refused to
respond or take action. There was no grievance procedure through thc entire process.
Citizens had no recourse, and became discouraged and angry. Brinnon became polarized,
and faith in government was severely diminished. Two years of process, stafftime from
the DCD. approximately $50,000 paid to a consultant was wasted at taxpayers expense.
The end product is extremely flawed and subject to numerous legal challenges.
Recommended Action: Establish permanent Grievance Committee that can hear and
decide on citizen grievances on land use and planning issues. Follow prescribed
guidelines detailed in CTED/CDBG grant for grievances. Hold "Town Hall" on land use
and planning to explain purpose, intent and laws involving community planning. Resolve
to obey the laws and regulations invoMng community planning, and to encourage, not
discourage or manipulate, citizen participation.
Mark Rose
Sent: Monday, July 30. 2001 12:15 PM
To: Josh D. Peters ~'
Cc: Mark Rapozo
Subject: Brinnon: Submit into public record
July 30, 2001
Josh Peters:
I request thaE this email be submitted into the public record and be pare of any
environmental review in the Brinnon planning district. I have not received a response to
the emait below IJuly 13), and the lates5 draft of the Brinnon Sub-area plan (July 23,
2001), does not reflect any of the concerns addressed below.
Mark Rose
Brinnon
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:markrose~markrose.org]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 1:51 PM
To: George Sickel; Bud/Val Schindler; Kate Marsh
Cc: A1 Scalf; Mark Personius; Josh D. Peters
SubjecE: Membership in Brinnon Sub-area Group
I have questions about the membership of Brinnon Sub-area group and who will be included
in a consensus on the plan.
The current list of participating members, according Eo the June 14 and July 2 plan
drafts, has been altered from previous m~nunes, asEendance records, and drafts of the
plan.
In the current draft Group members are listed as: Linda Tudor, Chairperson, LynneEEe
Antijunti, Joy Baisch, Richard Coone, Dalila Dowd, John Dowd, Charles Finnila, Jean
Johnson, Stan Johnston, Cedric Lindsay, Kate Marsh, Recorder, Tom McNerney, Eleanor
Sather, Bud Schindler, George Sickel, Lea Silsbee, Charles Springer.
In facE:
LynetEe Antijunti: Has atEended one meeslng in the past year, May 22, 2001, and was listed
as "visitor" in the Minu5es.
Lea Silsbee: Officially resigned from the Group on April 17, 2000. Her resignation letter
is mn the counny files.
Eleanor Sather: Resigned from the group at least five monEhs ago. She has attended some
meetings this year as "visitor."
Richard Coone: Has noE attended a meeting since Feb. 13, 2001 (as far back as my
"Minutes~ records go).
Stan Johns5on: Has noE attended a meening since Feb. 13, 2001 (as far back as my
"Minutes" records go).
Then there is the case of Thomas McNerney. In the February 13, 2001, and February 27,
2001 Minutes he is listed as "Visitor." In the May 8 draft of the Plan he is listed as
"Advisor." In the April 10, April 24, and May 8 Minutes he is listed as a "Group Member."
In an April 24 email from a Group member he was referred to "as not a direct member of our
group."
I am requesting an accurate presentation of Group membership in the plan. Below find
excerpts from Minutes and Draft Plans for reference.
From the Brihnon Community Planning Group Minutes, May 22, 2001
Brinnon Committee Members Present: Dalila Dowd, John Dowd, Chuck Finnila, Cedric Lindsay,
Kate Marsh, Bud Schindler, George Sickel, Charles Springer, Linda Tudor
Absent Excused: 3oy Baisch, Jean Johnson, Mike Matthews, Tom
McNerney
Unexcused: Dick Coone, Stan Johnston
Jefferson County RepresenEatives: Josh Peters, Mark Personius
Visitors: Kathleen Emmerson, Rick Emmerson, Ken Nelsen, Jackie Nelsen Mark Rose,
Lynnette Antijunti. '
Brinnon Sub-area Plan Revlslon Date: March 9, 2001
Brinnon Area
Planning Group
Linda Tudor, Chairperson
Kate Marsh, Secretary
Other Members:
Joy Baisch Cedric Lindsay
Dick Coone Bud Schindler
John Dowd George Sickel
Dalila Dowd Charles ~pringer
Charles Finnila
Jean Johnson
Jefferson County Representatives
Warren Hare
Mark Personius
Josh Peters
A1 Scalf
Advisors
Pat Rogers
Thomas McNerney
Minutes from Brinnon Community Planning Group Meeting, April 24, 2001
Brinnon Committee Members Present: Joy Baisch, Dalila Dowd, John Dowd?, Chuck Finnila,
Jean Johnson, Cedric Lindsay, Tom McNerney, Mike Matthews, Bud Schindler, George Sickel
Linda Tudor '
Absent: Excused: Charles Springer, Kate Marsh
Unexcused: Dick Coone?, Stan Johnston?
Jefferson County Representatives: Josh Peters, Mark Personius
Visitors: Debbie Harper and Patrice Daylo from USDA, Pat Rogers, Mark Rose.
Recorders none: Others present not identified on tape. I did not have the sign-up sheet
when transcribing from Eapes.
MinuEes from Brinnon Community Planning Group Meeting, May 8, 2001
Brinnon Committee Members PresenE: Joy Baisch, Dalila Dowd, John Dowd?, Chuck Finnila,
Jean Johnson, Cedric Lindsay, Tom McNerney, Kate Marsh, Mike Matthews, Bud Schindler,
Geerge Sickel, Charles Springer, Linda Tudor
Absent Unexcused: Dick Coone, Stan Johnston
Jefferson County Representatives: Josh Peters, Mark Personius
Visitors: Pat Rogers, Janet Welch, Peter SieferE, Deborah SieferE, Kirie Pedersen,
Marilyn Pedersen, Loni Beringer, Dennis Kuklok
Minutes from Brinnon Community Planning Group, February 27, 2001
Brinnon Committee Members Present: Joy Baisch, Dalila Dowd, John Dowd,
Chuck Finnila, Jean Johnson, Stan Johnston, Cedric Lindsay, Kate Marsh, Mike Matthews,
Eleanor Sather, Bud Schindler, George Sickel, Charles Springer, Linda Tudor; Absent: Dick
Coone.
Jefferson County Representatives: Warren Hart and Josh Peters
Visitors: Tom McNerney Planning Commission', Mark Rose, John Pedersen, Walt Parks,
Marion Parks, Loni Beringer, Wayne Beringer, Kelly Beringer, Rebekah French, Judi Hyde,
Mike Hyde, Marilyn Pedersen, Deborah Siefern, Randy Johnson, Kirie Pedersen, Janet Welch,
Phillip Stevens.
Mark Rose
markrose~markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.brinnonplan.com
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
.To:
Cc:
Subject:
ud gnd Val Schindler [schindlerC. olympus.net]
uesday~ April 24, 20ql 11:43 AM .(
Mark Rose
George Sickel
Re: Responsibility Matrix
Hi Mark,
I appreciate your willingness to help and we very much so need it.
Perhaps I don't fully appreciate the advantages of being an active group
member. The first advanuage I see is that I can respond to an issue/remark
during a meeting. However, until recently, anyone could do the same. There
was a lot of camaraderie and respect between active members and those that
were not so active. It was only after some recent events that we felt we
had 5o 'change our ways and adhere 5o the public comment period. However, if
you team up with an active member and want to join in the discussion related
5o what you are responsible for, I'm sure you will be welcomed to do so.
This will, I'm sure, lead ~o your being recognized as a respondant in other
areas. Humbleness overcomes adversities.
Another advantage of being a member occurs at the end of our process when we
vote for approval of our product. We do this as a group. But we must have
consensus, that to a greater extent means that we must have a public
~ Several p%ople ~re no~ direct mer~bers of our group but do
)---C~ibute a lot of time and'~ne-~gy ~-~a~re trying to do (e. g. Tom
M., Pat R.)~_[ Some p~uple that once were members tor some reason
have. since decided to wmnhdraw there membership or Eo be withdrawn because
of lack of attendance. Even though this may have occurred, if they now
attend and have something ~o say, we listen.
Mark, I guess my recommendation zs that you help us to develop our product
and by doing so, you will overcome the difficulties of the past. As this
takes place and we gain confidence that you are sincere, and if you still
choose, I suggest that you request that you be considered as a member. If
you reques~ this at 5onight's meeting, I believe your requesE will be denied
because of the bylaws (rules for active membership) that have been approved
and followed. The reasons for these rules are that we have been meeting for
almost Ewo years now officially only a year and a half) and a lot has occur
red that would be difficult ~o be brought up to date on. However, as I said
earlier "so what"; you can still play an lramense role in the development of
our product and a major part of the follow-on activity-which has not yet
been defined. We as a group have only about 3 months left ~o finish our
product and then we are done. Other groups will be organized 5o carry on
the follow-on effort.
See ya tonighu.
Bud
..... Original Message
From: "Mark Rose" <markrose@markrose.org>
To: "Bud and Val Schindler" <schindler@olympus.net>
Cc: "Kirie Pedersen" <kiriep@jupitercity.com>; "George Sickel"
<GKPROFSVC@TSC~et.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 8:40 A~M
Subject: RE: Responsibility Matrix "
> Bud (cc:George,Kirie) :
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
George Sickel [GKPROFSVC@TSCNet.com]
Tuesday, June 05, 2001 4:39 PM
Mark Rose; Kate Marsh; BudNal Schindler
Re: Clarification of McNerney & Rogers role
Mark -
Tom and Pat were (the operative word is were not are) listed on the cover page of our May
8th Pre-Draft Sub-area Plan as advisors.
We were not sure how to list them so we put them on as advisors on the May 8th version.
While reviewing the Pre-Draft plan in preparation for tonight's meeting, we (Kate, Bud and
I ) decided to remove Pat from the page
since he was not a member and move Tom into the other members section. ~
I hope this answers your questions.
See you tonight.
George
Original Message
From: "Mark Rose" <markrose@markrose.org>
To: "Kate Marsh" <kmarsh@waypoint.com>; "George Sickel" <GKPROFSVC@TSCNet.com>; "Bud/Val
Schindler" <schindler@olympus.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 10:52 AM
Subject: FW: Clarification of McNerney & Rogers role
Bud, Kate, George:
Would any/either of you care to acknowledge or respond to this inquiry?
Thank you.
Mark
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [maitto:markrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 10:13 PM
To: Linda Tudor
Cc: Josh D. Peters; Randy Kline; A1 Scalf
Subject: FW: Clarification of McNerney & Rogers role
Linda Tudor:
Can you please tell me when I might expect a reply to this inquiry?
Thank you.-
Mark.Rose
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:markrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 11:43 PM
To: Linda Tudor
Cc: Josh D. Peters; Randy Kline; A1 Scalf
Subjecs: Clarification of McNerney & Rogers role
Linda Tudor:
I am-seeking a clarification of the role of Thomas McNerney and Pat Rogers
on the Brinnon sub-area Planning Group.
The first meetings I went to in February and March, Mr. McNerney was not
there. Then he attended two meetings as a group member. He was no~ present
au the last meeting.
In the latest draft /May 8) of the Brinnon sub-area plan, he is listed as
"Advisor."
seek clarification on three issues:
Is Mr. McNerney a member or "Advisor"?
If he is an Advisor, can you tell me how he was chosen and ~what his role is?
Pat Rogers is also listed as Advisor. Can you tell me how he was chosen and
wha5 his role is?
Thank you. I appreciate your assistance.
Best regards,
Mark Rose
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.brinnonplan.com
Mt. Jupiter Auto, Truck Repair and Tire Center
PO Box 382. Brinnon, WA 98320
April 17,2000
Brinnon Community Planning Group:
Dept. of Community Development:
Committee Chair Linda Tudor
JEFFERSONCOUN~
DEPtOFCOMMUNI~ DEVELOPMENT
To Whom It May Concern,
I have given a great deal of thought about how I feel being
involved in the Planning Group.
Forthe BrlnnonS°me reason Sub-AreaI can't Plan. explain I find I can't continue with
Nothing seems to happen, and what was suppose to take a year is
now being stretched to 14 months and more. The county is having
trouble finding a planner, and so it goes.
I have zero faith in the Permit Center, and less in the County
Commissioners.
I'm asking to have my name removed from the list of people on
the planning committee.
Sincerely,
Lea M. Silsbee
CCLT
CCAS
Don & Lea Sits~ee. Owners
-0
-?
Phone/Fax 360 796 4000
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Rose [eagle1 @eaglecottage.com]
Monday, July 30, 2001 12:02 PM
Josh D. Peters
Mark Rapozo
Brinnon: Insert into public record
July 30, 2001
Josh Peters:
I request that this emait be submitted into the public record and be part of any
environmental review in the Brinnon planning district.
On June 8, 2001, I asked A1 Scalf, Jefferson County Director of Community Development, to
investigate a secret meeting held by the Brinnon sub-area group (see below). Proof of the
meeting exists in 'email, public testimony of Thomas McNerney, and comments of Thomas
McNerney to a reliable member of the community.
A1 Scalf refused to investigate the meeting, or to discuss the meeting with Group members,
or to ask members (or a single member) of the Grpup if the meeting took place.
Mark Rose
Brinnon
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:markrose@markrose. Org]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 9:57 AM
To: A1 Scalf
Cc: Bud/Val Schindler; George Sickel; Mark Rapozo; Linda Tudor; David
Alvarez '
Subject: Official Request
On April 11, 2001, several members of the Brinnon Sub-area Group ("the Group") met at the
home of Kate Marsh, a member of the Group. This was a pre-planned meeting, outside of
regularly scheduled public meetings. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss public
testimony, pursue a political agenda on behalf of the group,, and explore ways to "box
out" community men, ers.
Thomas McNerney, a Group member, was present at the meeting. He has admitted to the
meeting in public testimony but claims that it was legal because there was not a "quorum."
I disagree with Mr. McNerney and his interpretation of The Open Meetings Act. This secret
meeting is particularly important since Mr. McNerney is Chairman of the Planning
Commission and he has voted on zoning issues that effect the people of Brinnon and the
sub-area plan.
I request: 1) a polling of the Brinnon Sub-area Planning Group to determine who was at
the meeting, 2) verification of what was discussed at the meeting,' 3) verification of what
action was taken as a result of the discussions at the meeting, 4) that the results of
this inquiry be placed in the public record.
Thank you.
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.brinnonplan.com
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Rose [eaglel@eaglecottage.com]
Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:47 PM
Kirie Pedersen
FW: Brinnon/Open Meetings Violations Continue
Importance: High
..... Original Message
From: Mark Rose [mailto:eaglel@eaglecottage.com]
Sent: Tuesday, Augusn 14, 2001 11:46 PM
To: Mark Rapozo
Sub]ecE: Brinnon/Open Meetings Violations Continue
Impornance: High
August 14, 2001
Mr. Rapozo:
The Brinnon sub-area group continues to flagrantly violate The Open Meetings Act.
On July 10, the Group meu at the regularly scheduled time at the Brinnon School. When the
public left the meeting we were told that the group would meet again on July 24. However,
the group continued ~o meet on its own and decided, without the public present, not uo
have another meeu&ng. Instead, they arranged an accelerated timeframe uo complete the
Plan, which allowed the public only one week to read the document before an open community
meeting to discuss the Plan. This is a 100 page, highly detailed document Ehat took a 15
person commmnuee, staff from Community Planning, and a paid consultant, nearly two years
to complete. Very few people au the long-awaited public meeting actually read the
document. Also, the group did not explain the plan to an audience of over 70 people. I
submit that this was done intentionally Eo circumvent and control public comment. Many
people complained about the accelerated timeframe. They were ignored.
Tonight, August 14, the Group met and once again, after the public left, continued to
meet. Also, an "advisor" to the group offered that the group meets regularly outside of
regularly scheduled times, without the public present or informed.
At tonight's meeting the Group was openly mocking of public comment, and dismissive of
testimony from expert habiuat biologlsEs who had valuable information and insight To
offer.
This behavior as outrageous and robs the people of Brinnon from having a real plan. The
counsy has been informed of this many times and refuses to Eake action, or To even discuss
it with the group. I have sent copies of the Open Meetings Act to every member of the
Group, I have discussed it in public testimony with the Board of County Commissioners, and
sent numeroud emails to Community Planning. No response. Don't we have regulations and
laws? Do.they exist for those who feel like complying, or for everybody? What is going
on here?
Thank you.
Mark'Rose
mark@JeffCoTech.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www. BrinnonInfo.com
www. JeffCoTech.org
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Monday, April 30, 2001 9:00 AM
Josh D. Peters
FW: Open Meetings Act
Josh:
Did David Alvarez discuss with you what constitutes a violation of The Act?
"quorum" necessary no violate the Act?
Mark
..... Original Message
From: David Alvarez [mailto:dalvarez@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 8:19 AM
To: 'Mark Rose'; David Alvarez
Cc: Glen Huntingford; Mark Rapozo
Subjecn: RE: Open Meetings Act
Is a
Mark Rose:
You misunderstood my answer. I did do the legal research. I
conveyed my legal conclusions no Josh Peters. He can tell you what my
general conclusion was. The policy is longstanding and permanent. It
arises from the state constitution, which says I can't "gift" a public assen
(my time) to any particular citizen.
David Alvarez.
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:markrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 3:00 PM
To: David Alvarez
Cc: Glen Huntingford; Mark Rapozo
Subject: RE: Open Meetings Act
Mr. Alvarez:
Mr. Alvarez:
At the BOCC meeting on April 16 you indicated that would check into this at
the behesu of the Chairman of the Board of Comraissioners, Glen Huntingford.
When did Mr. Huntincford change his mind? When was this policy adopted?
Thank you.
Mark Rose
..... Original Message .....
From: David Alvarez [mailto:dalvarez@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 8:53 AM
To: 'Mark Rose'
SubjecE: RE: Open Meetings Act
Mark-
It is the policy of this office not to answer legal questions posed
by the public. We have such a rule because we have limited resources and
cannot and choose not uo ~egin uo decide which members of the public deserve
or don~'t deserve legal advice.
I can tell you that Josh Peters and I have talked about this in some
detail. You can speak ~o him about your firsE question. I didn'E know
about your second question until today. I am going away to a professional
conference until nexu week. I will investigate your second'question and get
back Eo Josh Peters as soon as I can.
David Alvarez.
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:m~rkrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 11:33 PM
To: dalvarez@co.jefferson.wa.us
SubjecE: Open Meetings AcE
David,
On Monday, April 16, aE the BOCC meeting, you indicated that you would see
if the Brinnon sub area group was sub]ec~ %o the Open Meetings Act. Have
you checked that?
Also, I would like a clarification - how many members of the sub area group
can meet in "secret" and discuss commitsee business in order for it to be a
voilation of the Open M~etings Act?
Thank you.
Mark
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.brinnonplan.com
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Monday, June 11,2001 9:03 AM
Al Scalf
Kate Marsh; Bud/Val Schindler; George Sickel; Linda Tudor; Richard Wojt; Glen Huntingford;
Dan Titterness; Mark Rapozo; David Alvarez
Summary of Requests
A1:
I realize that you are busy and have limited resources. I have summarized my recent
requests so we can deal with these expeditiously. I currently have three requests:
1. What is the legal/regulatory justification or precedent for a group of citizens,
appointed by the county, selectively and arbitrarily suppressing information?
Addendum: In the May 22 copy of the Port Townsend Leader Mr. Titterness and Mr. Saddler
discuss the Brinnon Plan "as it is now written." This assumes that they have had access
to the Plan, while others have been denied. I am requesting all emails and correspondence
between Mr. Titterness and Mr. Saddler and members of the Sub-area Group pertaining to the
Sub-area Plan and drafts of the Brinnon Sub-area Plan in the posession of Mr. Titterness
and Mr. Saddler, between April 1, 2001 and the present.
2~.. -Mr. McNerney claims that the BSAP secret'meeting of April 11, 2001 was legal because
there was not a quorum. I disagree with Mr. McNerney and his interpretation of The Open
Meetings Act. As chronicled in a previous email, I am r~questing the facts of the meeting
to be submitted into the public record.
Addendum: This issue is particularly important since Mr. McNerney is responsible for
improperly authorizing a Planning Commission vote to rezone Black Point, and attempting to
suppress public dialogue a5 a subsequent Planning Commission meeting on Black Point.
3. On June 6, 2001, I sent a four page, detailed letter to the BOCC and Community
Planning. The letter recommends possible changes to "the Blue Book" based on my
observations of the Brinnon planning process. I will wait until June 27 for a reply
before seeking assistance from outside agencies.
I appreciate your attention to these matters. As ! mentioned, I will continue to seek
clarification on these issues from the State Auditor and other regulatory agencies.
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.brinnonplan.com
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Saturday, April 14, 2001 9:08 PM
Kate Marsh
Open Meetings Act
Kate:
Below is an excerpt from The Open Meetings Act. I referred to The Act in my statement on
April 10. The Brinnon sub-area Group must comply with The Act. I suggest that this might
be a good time to familiarize yourself with The Act, if you haven't already. The Act is
very clear in prohibiting "secret" meetings in which the public is noE invited or
informed.
See you soon
Regards,
Mark
The Open Meetings Act was passed by the Washington state Legislature in 1971.
The Act declares its purpose in a strongly worded sEaEemenE:
The legislature finds and declares that all public commzssions, boards, councils,
committees, subcommittees, deparsments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies
of this state and subdivzsions thereof exist to aid in the conduce of the people's
business. It is the intent of this chapEer that their actions be taken openly and that
their deliberations be conduuted cpenly.
The people of this staEe do not yield their soverelgnEy to the agencies which serve them.
The people, in deiegatin~ authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide
what is good for the people Eo know and what is not good for them Eo know. The people
insisE on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they
have created.
RCW 42.30.010.
1.2 What Entities Are Subject To The Act
no
Public Agencies
(c) Any subagency of a public agency which is creased by or pursuant to statute,
ordinance, or other legislative act, including but not limited to planning commissions,
library or park boards, commissions, and agencies;
B. Governing Body
Statutory provision: "Governing body" means the multimember board, commission, committee,
council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency, or any committee thereof
when the commlttee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes
testimony or public commenn. RCW 42.30.020(2).
The Act also applies no a "committee" of the governing body when it "acts on behalf of"
the governzng body. The Attorney General has opined than this occurs when the committee
exercises actual or de facto decision-making authority or when it conducts hearings, sakes
public testimony or comment.
1.3 What Is A "Meeting"
A. General
Statutory provision: "Meeting" means meetings at which action is taken. RCW 42.30.020(4).
Statutory provision: No governing body of a public agency shall adopt any
ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, or directive, except in a meeting open to
the public and then only at a meeting, the date of which is fixed by law or rule, or at a
meeting of which notice has been given according to the provisions of this chapter. Amy
action taken at meetings failing to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be
null and void. RCW 42.30.060(1).
A meeting occurs whenever the governing body of a pubi~c agency takes "action". ~f the
required notice has not been given, the action taken is null and void, that ms, as if it
had never occurred.
B. What Is "Action"
Statutory provision: "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public
agency by a governing body including but non limited to receipt of public nestlmony,
deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions.
"Final action" means a collective positive or negative decision, or an actual rose by a
majority of the members of a governing body when sitEing as a body or entity, upon a
mosion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance. RCW 42.30.020(3).
It is imporEan5 to realize that the Act decla'res that a meeting occurs whenever there is
action, including the discussion, deliberation or evaluation that may lead to a final
decision.
A meeting occurs if a majority of the members of the governlng body were to discuss or
consider, for instance, the budgeE, personnel, or land use issues no manner where that
discussion or consideration might occur. The Act does no5 allow for "study sessions",
"retreats", or simmlar efforts no discuss agency issues withou5 the required notice.
No[ice muss be given jusn as if a formally scheduled meeting was ~o be held.
D. Who May Attend Public Meetings
Statutory provision: All meesings of the governing body of a public agency shall be cpen
and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body
of a public agency, exceD5 as otherwise provided in this chapEer. RCW 42.30.040.
Mark Rose
Narkrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.brinnonplan.com
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Wednesday, July 11. 2001 10:01 PM
Josh Peters
RE: Next steps in Brinnon subarea planning process
You can't be serious. Who came up with this schedule?
..... Original Message .....
From: Josh Peters [mailto:jpeters@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 5:04 PM
To: Bud and Val Schindler ~E-mail]; Chuck Finnila (E-mail.; Dalila &
John Dowd E-mail); Eleanor Sather (E-mail); George Sickel (E-mail;;
Jean Johnson via Beringers (E-mail); Joy Baisch (E-mail); Kate Marsh
(E-mail); Linda Tudor (E-mail); Mike Matthews (E-mail); Stan Johnsnon
(E-mail); Tom McNerney (E-mail)
Cc: Mark Personius (E-mail); Mark Personius (E-mail); Randy Kline; Brian
Arthurs (E-mail); Janet Welch (E-mail); Kirie Pedersen (E-mail); Leon &
Marde Voetberg (E-mail); Lynnenne Antijunti (E-mail~; Mark Rose
(E-mail); Pat Rodgers ,E-mail/; Randy Johnson fE-mail~; Sue Perley
(E-mail); Wayne Schlaefli (E-mail}
Subjecn: Next seeps in Brinnon subarea planning process
Greetings Brinnon Subarea Plan Committee and interested parties:
[This memo will be senn by mail to Cedric Lindsay, Charles Springer, and
Jean Johnson.]
Here is a summary of the decisions made an the conclusion of last night's
meeting:
__~.-------.~
The Committee has reached a state of "general consensus" with the draft
Brinnon Subarea Plan as presented by Mark Personius (Mark P.) and verbally
amended during the meeting by the Committee, contingent upon additional
changes. Committee members will email or otherwise deliver recommended
changes and edits no Kate and Bud by this FRIDAY, JULY 13. They will
incorporate the changes and distribute the next working draft version to the
Committee, Mark P., and the Depn. of Community Development by MONDAY, JULY
16.
Mark P. will work on formatting and consistency edits and produce a
"Community Meeting Draft" by MONDAY, JULY 23, an the latest. For this no
happen, each Committee member should communmcane his or her general
consensus green light, meaning that although there may be lingering issues
and non everything is exactly as desired, the Subarea Plan as drafted is OK
5o pass along no the Brinnon community for commenn. At this point, a
Committee member could raise a red flag, indicating that general consensus
is not achieved. If this should happen, the Chair and the rest of the
Commintee will need Eo decide on a course of actmon. Committee members
should communlcate their green lights or red flags no the Chair by FRIDAY,
JULY 20 at the latest and preferably as soon as possible after Kate and Bud
distribute the nexn working draft version. Mark P. will essentially be
working on formatting and other cosmen~c issues for the Community Meen~ng
Draft. Thus, it is non necessary to wait for that verszon to make your
green light or red flag decision.
There will be NO MEETING on TUESDAY, JULY 24~
The goal is 5o release the Community Meeting Draft as soon as general
consensus is affirmed and the cosmetic changes are completed. If timelines
are pushed to the maximum stated above, this date would be TUESDAY, JULY 24,
one week before the community meeting, scheduled for TUESDAY, JULY 31,
6:00-8:00 PM, in the GYMNASIUM of the BRINNON SCHOOL. Ideally, the
Community Meeting Draft will be ready for release prior to July 24, but that
depends on general consensus being affirmed earlier than July 20 and the
cosmetic changes completed before July 23, which may be unrealistic. That's
why earlier release is a goal, but a July '24 release is more like a
deadline.
The July 31 community meeting will be noticed in the Leader next week and
the week after. Posters will be placed around Town. Please Ealk no your
neighbors about the meeting. This will provide two weeks plus of notice for
the meeting and a Subarea Plan draft available in town and on the inter,et
ar least a week before the meeting. In addition Eo oral and written
commenss being accepted an the community meeting, written commenss on the
Brlnnon Subarea Plan Community Meeting D~aft will be accepted for another
week following the communl5y meeting.
The Subarea Plan Committee will then hold another Committee meeting to
consider the commenns and make whatever changes and edits are decided by
consensus in order Eo produce a Brinnon Subarea Plan Final Draft for
presentation to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners. When
the BOCC sends the document ~o the Planning Commission, a public hearing
will be held ~o accepE public testImony. The BOCC would hold another public
hearing if it doesn'n accept the Planning Commission recommendation.
Here are the main "deadlines" and other milestones again. These dates are
"an the latest." Some of these things may happen sooner, ideally anyway:
Friday, July 13: submit suggested changes and edits to Kate and Bud
Monday, July 16: Kate and Bud distribute nexE version of working draft
(Mark begins to work on cosmetics. Committee members consider consensus.)
Wednesday, July 18: 1st notice of community meeting appears in Leader
Friday, July 20: deadline for Committee members zo acknowledge consensus
Monday, July 23: Mark P. ready with Community Meeting Draft
Tuesday, July 24: Community Meeting Draft released ~o public ~NO MEETING)
Wednesday, July 25: 2nd notice of community meeting appears in Leader
Tuesday, July 31: community meeEing in the school gym beginning an 6:00 PM
After that...wrisEen commenEs accepted, follow-up Committee meeting, Final
Draft.
Hope this covers it all for now. Please be in touch with questions.
Regards,
Josh
Josh D. Peters, Associate Planner
Jefferson County DeparEment of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368
Direct: (360) 379-4466, Main: (360) 379-4450, Fax: (360) 379-4473
http://www, co.jefferson.wa.us
3-5
IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MONI;ORING
THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK
How the Comprehensive Plan Works
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan provides a legally recognized framework for making decisions
about land use in thc unincorporated areas of Jefferson Countv. The Plan managcs growth by directing
more intensive development to appropriate areas while protecting and conserving environmentally
sensitive arcas and natural resource, rural, and open space lands. It is also intended to aid as both an
educational and a policy implementation tool for a broad range of public and private users, including
community groups, Jefferson County officials, and other government agencies. The Plan helps these
users in scvcral ways: ,-
· It guides the development of community plans and implementing regulations. This Plan is the
framework for other plans and regulations that govern the location and intensity of land uses
throughout unincorporated Jefferson County The Plan's policies provide the basis for
updating community plans (subarea. local, and functional'l, for evaluating proposed changes
planin zoning reviewing proposals development projects such as land divisions. It also
and
in
for
indicates to the public how Jefferson County' would likely review and approve changes in
s. zon~n_,g, or other regulations that apply' to an area or a specific parcel.
· It guides the provision of public facilities and services by integrating land use, infrastructure,
and delivery of human services. The Comprehensive Plan provides the framework for
decisions about public facilities and smwices (such as where facilities should be located to
support plam~ed growth). The Plan also directs public spending to areas where growfl] is
targeted.
It provides regional coordination and consistency with other jurisdictional planning efforts. It
~s ~ntended that other public agencies (local, regional, state, federal, and triball, in
cooperation with Jefferson County, use the Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with the
County-wide Planning Policy as regional pers pecfives or county-wide viewpoints when other
plans and growth policies are developed and when making project decisions.
It allows for citizen participation and involvement. Comprehensive plamfing is an evolving
process which allows for periodic review' and updates in response to changing community
goals and vision as articulated by' citizens, businesses, and interested organizations.
Components of the Corn prehensive Plan
The C~,..__..o_m._prehensive Plan is a legal document consisting of a map or series of maps and accompanying
text and goals,-policies and implern~n strategies that is adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners to guide public and private land use decisions. A comprehensive planning program (with
its conforming implementing regulations) must constantly weigh the commumty's financial ability to
support development against its minimum population obligations and need for environmental protection.
Comprehensive ptmming provides the public with opportunities to give direction to Jefferson County's
anticipated growth. The Comprehensive Plan provides for an efficient and effective land use pattern that
Jeffers. on County Comprehensive Plan 2-1 August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
LAND USE AND RURAL ELEMENT
PURPOSE: The propose of the Land Use and Rural Element is to identify specific uses. densities and
development regulations that protect rural character and are consistent with all other requirements of the
Growth Management Act.
INTRODUCTION
Jefferson County is a rural county. The City of Port Townsend. the County's only Urban Growth Area,
has a separate comprehensive plan and coordinates plamaing with the County through the Countywide
Planmng Policies t see Appendix B lbr a discussion of County-wide Plamfing Policies l. The integranon of
G1VLA requLrements to protect rural character and prevent low-density sprawl is accomplished by
integrating the Land Use and Rural elements, which were treated separately in the Draft Plan. An
exception to the County's rural designations is the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort, which is addressed
in separately in this element.
The final Comprehensive Plma includes a number of changes in land use designanons from the 1997 Draft
Plan. The revisions reflect not only changes in the Gro~vth Management Act through the 1997 alnendments.
but also reflect a lengthy public debate on lnterpretanon of the 1997 amendments and their application to
Jefferson County.
LAND USE AND RURAL STRATEGY GUIDELINES
Based on the requtrements of the Growth Management Act. County-wide Planning Policies. community
input, and Growth Mmmgement Hearings Board rulings (see Appendices), Jefferson County determined
that the County's land use and rural strategy must include the following key policy guidclines:
· The Cotmty must ensure that an adequate supply of rural residential land is available to accommodate
the projected rural residential population growth.
· The County must ensure that areas, which may have more platted lots than needed to address
population growth (and allow for market factors), are designated for low-density residential
development such as I residential unit per 5 acres (1:5), 1:10. and 1:20
· The County must ensure that rural areas of more intensive residential, commercial and industrial
development are contained m a manner that preserves rural character.
· The County must ensm'e that rural commercial development located outside designated Urban Growth
Areas is appropriately scaled to serve the needs of the local rural community and the traveling public,
and to protect and e~hance rural character. ~
· Commercial area boundaries countywide and the Glen Cove and the Port Townsend Paper Mill
industrial land use boundaries must be interim designations in order to preserce options until the results
of thc Tri-Area/Glcn Cove study are available to provide additional information and an analysis of
options, at wlfich time the designations shall be revisited.
In order to develop a land use and rural strategy that encompassed the policy guidelines, it was necessary
tO:
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3-] August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
· Identify rural population projections: ~--
· Allocate growth proportionately throughout the unincorporated areas of the County;
· Develop an inventory of existing residential and commercial development and platting patterns;
· Consider the effects of increased population in the rural areas on conmaercial, industrial, and residential
land use designations:
· Consider local circumstances as they affect land use decisions: and
· Recognize the deference given to local legislative bodies through ESB 6094 and identifv local
circumstances to be addressed.
Once this inventory and analysis was performed, the land use designations and the goals, policies, and
strategies were prepared to define a residential, commercial, and industrial land use strategy cons~stem with
the provisions and intent of the GMA.
The GMA and Growth Management Hearings Board decisions did not provide a definition of"rural" prior
to 1997. The following definition of rural charactcr was included in the 1997 amendments to the GNL&:
"...Rural character reJbrs to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the
rural element q/'its comprehensive plan:
(a) In which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built environment:
(b) That ,/'oster traditional rural lifestyles, t-ut'al-based economies, and opportunities to both live and
work in rural areas:
(c) That provide v&ual landscapes that are traditionally.found in rural areas and communities:
(d) That are compatible with the use q/'the land b~ wildl(/c andJbr fish and wildli/e habitat;
(e) Tha! reduce the inapproprtate conversion q/' undeveloped land into sprawlin& low-density
develop~nem:
(/) That generall3 do not require the extension of urban governmental services; and
(g) That are consistent with the protection o£ natural sutifiwe water flows and ground water and swiface
water recharge and dischw~e areas." RCW 36.70A030(14)
The land use designanons and the goals and policies of this element have been developed to meet these
criteria. Goals and policies of other elements of the Comprehensive Plan have been evaluated for
consistency with the protection of rural character as defined above, and by the other factors contributing to
local "rural character" as provided under the full text of the amendment.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
In January 1992. the state Office of Financial Management published countywide growth projections for
GMA planning purposes. This forecast provided a "fixed figure" projecnon for each county for the period
2010-2012, and provided key data at ten year intervals, but had the drawbacks of not distinguishing
between incorporated and unincorporated population and using an inaccurate population figure for its 1990
base year. In addition, the review revealed that the average annual growth projected by OFM for the 20-
yem' plmming period 1992-2012 was approximately half that being experienced at the time and was notably
lower than the ratc of growth experienced by the County in the latter part of the 1980s.
The County contracted a population study, the "Population Forecast for Jefferson County and the City of
Port Townsend" (Final Report, prepared by the Watterson West Group, Inc.. January, 1995), known as the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3-2 August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
20-Year Population Projection and Distribution~
: Jeffers°n County and City of P°vt Townsend I : Est. Populati°n [ Est.:Po~uiafion
':20-year Population Projection and Distribution [ 1996 [ 2016
Incorporated Areas:
Port Townsend I 8,366 I 13,876
Unincorporated Areas:
Quimper Peninsula (including Glen Cove) 2,927 4,076
Mmxowstone Island 839 1,015
Tri-Area (Kala Point, Irondale, Port Hadlock, and
Chimacum Crossroads) 4,324 5,489
Discovery Bay (including Gardiner) 1,085 1,470
S. Chimacum/h~land Valleys/Center 1,351 1,759
Port Ludlow Master Plam~cd Community 1,326 3,950
North Port Ludlow 659 950
Paradise Bay / Shine / Thomdyke 897 1,471
Tom, dos Permasula (including Coyle) 411 596
Quilcene (including Lake Leland Valley) 1,308 1,797
Brinnon 1,299 1,943
West End 962 1,005
Total 25,754 39.397
RURAL RESIDENTIAL LANDS: ALLOCATION OF GROWTH
Existing residential land use and ownership pattems are only one of several factors for determining future
development patterns m Jefferson County. The allocation of future population must be considered when
analyzing the overall need for the creation of additional residential lots and determining where those lots
should be located to accemmodate fi~ture growth, h~ ordcr to develop a rural residential lm~d use strategy
for this Plan. mn inventory was prepared in 1996 to assess existing pancms of land use, and to evaluate the
supply of developable rural residential properties.
During the review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan of February 26, t997 (Draft Plan) an inventory of
existing buildable residential lots In rural Jefferson County conducted in 1995 by Berryman and Henigar2
was also reviewed. The 1995 study results and included in the Draft Plan differ from those derived in the
1996 inventory. Both the 1996 inventory performed by the Plarming staff and the 1995 Berrvman and
Henigar inventorv are discussed in the following section.
Inventory. and Analysis of Rural Development Patterns
Population projections and allocation figures were derived from the Population ForecastJor deJJk~:ton County
and Port Townsend: Final Re?or~. December. 1994. and Addendum #1 to the Final Report. February, 1995.
prepared by the Watterson West Group, Inc.
- "Land Use Capacity," Draft Existing Conditions Report:'Ahernatives. Berryman and Henigar. March. 1995.
pages 120-131.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3-4 August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
:" .... :'"' Location : FUture202 Exi~tliig i Balance':: ':: ' Vacant
~:: Year Lot Supply of · . (Excess Oversupply
"~ ~: . i: :' : · . Demand Vacant ~uildable, Perc'en~age
: ~ i Buildable ~ acant Lots :..
": : ::~:. .: :::.!:::::: :i. i :i: ' Lots of, of Record) : ' :~.:
i i ' Record ta) Lot Surplus
Port Toxvnsend (b) 2690 8600 5910 220%
Unincorporated Areas:
Quimpcr Peninsula (including Glen 500 1735 1235 247%
Cove)
Marrowstone Island 77 458 3~ 1 495%
Th-Area (Kala Point, Irondale, Port 507 2619 2112 417%
Hadlock, and Chimacum Crossroads)
Discovery Bay (including Gardiner) 167 1394 1227 734%
S. Chimacmn/Inland Valleys/Center 177 785 608 344%
Port Ludlow Planned Community' 114 l 1354 2 l 3 18%
North Port Ludlow 127 367 240 188%
Paradise Bay / Shine / Thorndyke 250 730 480 192%
Toandos Penhasula (including Coyle) 80 1116 1036 1295%
Quilcene (including Lake Leland 213 1068 855 401%
Valley)
Brinnon 280 1189 909 325%
West End 19 307 288 1515%
1996 Staff inventory 3538 13,122 9584 271
Reduced by rccalculation at a mini-
mum lot size of 12,500 sct. ft 3538 8280 4742 134%
Reduced by 752 timber and
agricultural resourcc lands parcels 3538' 7528 3990 113%
Reduced by 25% market factor 3538 5646 2993 84%
Total buildable lots for the
unincorporated area:
· 1996 staff inventory 5646 2993 84%
· 1995 consultant inventory 4679- 2025- 43%
5944 3290 to 93%
Note: (a) Data compiled as of June 1. 1996 (includes "vested" lots).
(b) The City of Port Townsend has addressed the a~'commodation of future population growth in its Comprehensive
Plan The figures above are provided for informational pta'poses only. The City's lot inventory was calculatect at a
10,000-sq. lt. lot s~ze mmh:qtan, with some consolidation.
The conclusion from the data represented in Table 3-2 is that Jefferson County has no shortage of existing,
developable lots and parcels. The supply of buildable lots exceeds the demand for lots based upon the 20-
year population growth projections. A amber of these lots and parcels were created between 1990 and
~.1996, as shown in Table 3-3. In response to the potential impact of allowing lots to be created m a manner
inconsistent with the anticipated lm~d use pattern, the Board of County Commissioners enacted a
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3-7 August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
Early iterations of the plan contained elements of a planning approach that continue to guide this Plan.
These elements are: recognizing the importance of ex/sting historic development patterns found in rural
areas: providing for the economic vitality of the rural commercial base at appropriate levels of commercial
services, and preserving the character of the county's rural lands.
In the February 24. 1997 Draft Comprehensive Plan ("Draft Plan"), rUral commercial levels of service
were defmed based on the provision of basic goods and services to service areas defined by drive times of
10 mad 20 minutes. The Draft Plan did not recognize the existing variety of uses in corm~nemial areas or thc
level of service that exists to meet the needs of the large number of visitors and commuters traveling
through areas of Jefferson County. The 1997 GMA amendments allowed the County to recognize existing
areas and uses of more intensive commercial development, and to provide for limited infill within
boundaries that contain commercial activities
As a result of the final review process, commercial land in rural Jefferson County has been designated in
this Comprehensive Plan by:
Identifying existing areas and uses of more intensive commercial development;
Designating rural commercial areas and land use classifications guided by existing levels of service;
Establishing logical boundaries for existing rural commercial areas and uses based predominm~tly on
the pre-July 1, 1990 built environment: and
Designating commercial areas as interim until they are revisited following completion of the Glen
Cove/Tri-Area Special Study.
Designation and Classification of Rural Commercial Lands
The commercial areas proposed in the 1997 Drat~ Plan included Rural Village Centers at Port Hadlock,
Po~ Ludlow. Quilccne. and Brinnon. The Draft Plan proposed Rural Crossroads at Chimacum. Discovery
Bay~ Four Corners. Nordland, Mats Mats. Beaver Valley, and Wawa Point. In thc final Plan. Jefferson
County applicd 1997 GMA amendment language to recognize existing commercial areas and uses at Ness'
Corner, Irondale Comer. Gardiner. and State Route 19/20 h~tersection, m addition to the crossroads
originally proposed in fl~e 1997 Draft Plan. The designation for the commercial area of Port Ludlow was
changed from Rural Village Center to Village Commercial Center within a Master Planned Resort.
A discussion of Jefferson County's criteria for designation and classification of commercial areas follows,
while a discussion of criteria for ch'awing logical boundaries for those areas begins on page 3-15.
The criteria used to designate rural commercial areas are:
· The commercial area existed as an area or use of more intensive commercial development on July l,
1990;
-,~ The area or use presently has a commercial zoning designation: and
· The area provides basic necessities or multiple commercial services to the local community.
Classification of rural commercial areas was based on a Rural Commercial Level of Services (RCLOS)
analysis2. The study included an inventory of cormnercial development and an analysis of the nature of the
service area for existing rural corm~nercial areas. The study recognized four rural commercial levels of
service:
Jefferson County Rural Commercial Zones. Madrona Planning and Development Services. September} 1996,
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3-10 August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAl
'Because circumstances vary from couno~ to county, in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses,
a county may consider local circumstances, but shall develop a written record explaining how the rural
element harmonizes the planning goals in RCW 36. 70,,I. 020 and meets the requirements of this chapter."
(RCW 36. 70A. 070fa)
Jefferson County recognizes distinct circumstances ~nd conditions in certain areas of the county that have
been considered in thc designation of commercial areas and policies to address these circmnstances.
The D'i-Area/Glen Cove Study Area
The Tri-Area of eastern Jefferson County includes the communities of Irondale. Chimacum, and Port
Hadlock and surrounding areas of higher population and commercial development than other areas of the
Count)'. It is an area characterized by a dense development pattern that borders on urban densities in some
areas. Commercial development along State Route 19 at Ness' Comer and Irondale Corner. as well as in
nearby Four Comers, the State Route 19/20 Intersection. and Chimacum provide commercial levels of
service that include some regional uses and multiple community uses. The Tri-Area and an area of existing
light industrial and associated commercial development at Glen Cove have been identified as potential
urban growth areas, but more information is required before a final determination can be made The
County, in partnership with the City of Port Townsend. has mmated the Glen Cove/Tri-Area Special Study
to collect and analyze detailed information regarding existing land uses. future commercial and industrial
land needs, and the cost and feasibility of infi'astmcture necessary to serve urban uses and densities in the
study area. The study will develop options for land use designations in Glen Cove and the Tri-Area. The
boundary of the study area ~s shown on the Lm~d Usc Map.
The options developed within the Special Study will be based on a countywide inventory of con~nercial
lands. For this reason, commercial boundm-ies countywide are designated on an inter'un basis, in order to
preserve options until the results of thc study are available and the boundaries are revisited in a public
process (see LNP 1.41. Bom~dmses for these commercial areas and for the Glen Cove industrial area have
been drawn to contain existing commercial development during the interim
The economy of Jefferson County is experiencing a significant "retail leakage" to Urban Growth Areas in
Kitsap and Clallmn Counties. as well as Seattle metropolitan areas (see Economic Developmen~ Element).
Retail leakage ~s an economic signal that regional commercial levels of service are not being mci for
County residents, and suggests that commercial development is inadequate to meet the needs of recent
growth. During the 20-year planning period, the County population (including the City of Port Townsend)
has been projected to grow by approximately 53%. Identifying commercial land to meet regional needs is a
goal of the Tri-AreaJGlen Cove study, which will provide various land use options, will identify the impacts
of each. and will develop cost estimates for the public and private investment required to support the
growth.
The South County
The southem region of eastem Jefferson County, known as the South County, includes the communities of
Quilcene and Brinnon and the surrounding areas. This region has not experienced the high rate of growth
that has occurred in the Tri-Area and Port Townsend but experiences a large influx of people during the
summer tourist season. Unemployment in this area is high as a result of the regional decline in forestry and
fish/ng, and thc economy of thc area is best typified as distressed Oppormmties exist for economic
activities related-to tourism and recreation, as both Brflmon and Quilcene are on U.S. Highway 101 at the
"gateway" to O13qnpic National Park. Adjacent Hood Canal offers a number of recreanonal activmes for
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-13
Augus! 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
visitors. The County recogmzes the need to develop a more diversified cconomy through businesses that
se~we the traveling public while providing jobs for local residents. Regional growth in the Puget Sound
area and an increase in wsitors from national and international areas are likely to support such efforts to
diversify South County economic activities.
In addition, an existing industrial park in Quilcene may provide additional employment oppmxunit~es for
South County residents. Local employlnent for area residents may help to alleviate increasing commuter
traffic on Highway 101 and State Routes 19 and 20. where seasonal visitor traffic can be heavy.
Quilcene and Bmmon community plans and public cormnent from residents identified as a community
priority the need for local senior assisted livinj~ facilities, so that elderly residents are not required to move
30-40 ~niles to facilities in Port Townsend. The need to allow for assisted living facilities and local
emp"ffi~y~ent opportunities in a distressed economic area. the distance between the South County and the
Urbm~ Growth Lad'ea. and the concern that higher traffic volumes will reqmre extensive road improvements
are local circumstances used in designating Rural Village Centers in the South County.
The West End
The isolated western portion of Jefferson County has no existing commercial lands, and therefore no
commercial land for that area was designated in this Plan. The West End is not projected to experience
significant grows during the 20-year planning period, with a total 20-year population projection of 43
additional people. Convenience services are available at the Kalaloch Lodge store on National Park land
and m a Quinault Nation convenience store at Queers. The regional decline of forestry and fishing has
resulted in distressed economic conditions in this area. Thc decline of natural resource-based indusrnes
reqmres that new employment opportunities in available economic sectors areas be developed for a
transition to a more diversified economy.
Although the population of the West End is limited, a significant number of people visit the tourist and
recreation attractions of the area year-round. During the tourist season, the area experiences a large influx
of visitors. Situated on U.S Highway 101 between the mountair~/rainforest and thc ocean beach portions
of Olympic National Park. the West End receives visitors from Puget Sound regional metropolitan areas, as
well as national and international visitors. The Hoh and Quinault Indian Reservation coxmnunities are
concentrated population centers that both contribute to and rely upon the West End economy.
In order to encourage employment opportumties in this economically distressed area. policies in this Plan
allow commercial activines serving tourist-related uses to carry a broader range of goods and services to
meet the needs of the local population ~see LNP 7.1.8). In addition, policies for home businesses and
cottage industries allmv for greater flexibility under criteria specific to the West End (see LNP 6.1.13 and
LNP 6.2.16).
Logical Boundaries of Rural Commercial Areas
Criteria Jbr Determining Commercial Land Boundaries
The boundaries for rural commercial areas were determined according to criteria from the Growth
Management Act. including the 1997 amendments contained in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). Factors related to
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-14 August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAl
local ctrcumstances as well as guidance from local community plans and public comment were also
considered in defining the boundaries of these areas.
The process, for determining colmnercial boundaries included an internal County review to ensure
consistency with GMA criteria and Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Proposed boundaries for
commereial areas were submitted to the Jefferson Countv Departments of Enviroranental Health,
Development Review. and Public Works for reviews of limitations on future development imposed by water
supply, septic constraints, critical areas, storm water, transportation, and capital facilities. County
departments with regulatory or mm~agement authority over these areas provided recommendations
regarding appropriate boundaries and issues of concern.
Final Comprehensive Plan boundaries for rural commercial areas resulted in a substantial reduction in the
amount of commercial land available for development in rural Jefferson County from 1994 zoning. This
reduction in commercial land was accomplished through the application of GMLA criteria for rural lands,
including those established in 199'7 lcgislative amenchnents. Boundaries were drawn based predominm~tly
on the pre-July 1. 1990 built enviromnent. Logical boundaries were drawn around existing commercial
uses in order to contain and limit development to existing areas of more tntensive development. The criteria
used. including both GMA criteria and local considerations, were as follows:
1. Criteria from RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c): · Contain or control rural development;
· Assure visual compatibility with surromiding rural area:
· Rcducc the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development:
· Protect critical areas and surface and ground water resources;
· Protect against conflicts with the use of designated natural resource lands.
Criteria from RCW 36.70A. D70(5)(d), the 1997 GMA amendments:
Logical outer boundaO, of an area or use emsting in July, 1990: t
· Prevent new low-density sprawl; /
· Clearly identifiable and contained area of more intensive development:
· Delineated predominantly by the built environment;
· Mayinclude undeveloped lands if limited: ,.
· Preserve character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities:
· Use physical boundaries ~bodies of water, streets, topography); ~
· Prevent abnormally irregular boundaries;
· Provide public facilities and public services so as to avoid low-density sprawl;
· Emstmg industrial areas are not required to principally serve exasting and projected rural
population.
3. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070(5~1 aL the boundaries were also evaluated based on the following local
considerations that could affect boundaries or require the application of special conditions:
· Regional transportation concerns, traffic volumes, access, and safety.
· Proxhmry to incompatible uses.
· Partial designation of large parcels that are not fully developed for existing uses, to prevent sprawl.
· Home businesses/cottage indus~ies should not be used to determine boundaries.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-15
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
have gradually extended along the highway, have been contained by the logical boundary, with limited
areas where infill will be allowed.
· Irondale Comer
Irondale Comer is located north of Ness' Corner on State Route 19 and includes uses similar in level of
servme to those at Ness' Corner. Under 1994 commercial zoning, these two areas were joined. This -
Plan divides the prcwous commercial zone based on a strict application of the criteria for recogmzing
and containing existmg development. Residential development divides the Ness' Comer from the
Irondale Comer General Commercial Crossroads for approxanately 1200 feet on the east side of the
hig~hway. On the west sid6 of the highway, an undeveloped area near the City of Port Townsend's
public water supply well for the Tri-Area service area separates the two designated commercial areas
for about 1200 feet.
· State Route 19/20 Intersection
Under the criteria for commercial crossroads boundaries, this area has been downsized considerably
from 1994 zoning designations Exi sting development on one side of State Route 19 was recognized
and contained, consisting of a nursery/garden supply store, an auto dealership trader a Binding
Commercial Site Plan. and a vacant parcel with a vested building pelqnit application. Commercial uses
excluded from thc crossroad include an auto repah' business adjacent to residennal uses. and a disve-in
movie theater. These uses have been excluded to Ih'nit traffic access at an intersection with high traffic
volumes and a relatively high incidence of accidents. Auto retail will be allowed in this crossroad only,
in order to limit this regional commercial use from occurring in other crossroads.
Rural ~llage Centers
Rural Village Centers are established, historically settled areas with commercial uses that address most of
the essential needs of the rural population, supply a large vanet3r of goods and day-to-day services, and
provide a broad range of professional and social services. The thrce designated Rural Village Centers
contain mixed residential and cmmnercial uses. and are designated for residential as well as commercial
uses according to historic patterns of mixed development.
1. Brinnon
The historic community of Brinnon is located on U.S. Highway 101 at the mouth of the Dosewallips
River. The traditional commumty boundaries are the river on the south, the steep valley wall to the
north, and Hood Canal on the east. The designated core area consists of mixed commercial and
residential uses. The 1h'aft Plan boundary has been revised to limit development in the frequently
flooded area near the river. Existing uses farther from the fiver, such as a nursery and a mixed
commercial/residential short plat with an CYdStmg mlmstorage and a vested application for a new post
office, have been recogmzed m the Fmal Plan.
The boundaW allows for areas of infill in Brinnon based on the distressed economy of the area as a
result of decreased employment hq logging and fishing. The seasonal increase in the visitor population
is expected to increase in the future as a result of ongoing regional growth in Puget Sound. Limited
areas of infill in thc Bmmon Rural Village Center wdl provide em_~_9.~ment opportunities for local
~~'~e tr}Tmsition to a more diversified economy as Brinnon attempts tO promote sm~
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-19
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
t,~ourist and recreation-orient~ed busin_~esses based on a location on Highway 101 adjacent to the Olympic
National Park.
I 2~;~s of lhnited infill are-also provided in support of the community goal of an extended care or
assisted living facility. A high priority for the community is a facility that allows elderly residents to
stay in the cowanunity rather than moving 40 miles away from family and friends to facilities in Port
Townsend. _
2. Quilcene
The historic community of Quilcene. similar to Brirmon. is distinct from the Port Hadlock and Port
Ludlow communities because of a location at a distance from the Port Townsend UGA and a distressed
economy due to thc recent decline in forestry and fishing employment. Quilcene. located on Hood
Canal and Highway 101 m the gateway to Olympic National Park. has an opportunity to serve visitors
and seasonal residents to build a more diversified economic base.
Areas of commercial infill are intended to provide employment opportunities in a distressed and
changing economy. Cmmnercial development can take advantage of a high volume of visitors based on
a location on both Highway i01 and (_'enter Valley Road. The colmnunity is currently considering a
public water system with the assistance of the County Health Department and the Jefferson County
P.U.D. The amount of commercial infill development will depend on the availability of a water system.
A Local Utility District election plmmed for late 1998 will allow the community to determine the future
of the water system. The County will revisit the Quilcene water supply issuc following the election to
assess the results in light of Comprehensive Plan ~ssues.
Community concerns m Quilcene. as m Brinnon. indicate a priority need for areas of infill in the
commercial core area that might allow an assisted living or extended care facility for elderly residents
of the commumtv. Althougln such facilities will be permitted conditionally in residential areas, both
commumties prefer that they be located in the Rural Village Centers. While recognition of the existing
commereial development pattern in Quilcene results in somewhat irregular boundaries, several
commercial uses southeast and southwest of the boundary have been excluded in order to avoid
creating a large area of infill that would promote sprawl.
3. Port Hadlock
The Port Hadlock Rural Village Center serves a large population base in the Tri-Area. The interim
boundary is limited to a core area rather than fully utilizing the 1997 GMA amendments to recognize
additional cotnmerciat development in the Hadlock area. Because of the relatively high density of
residential uses in the adjacent area. including multi-familv housing units, the County elected to wait
for the completion of the Glen Cove/Tri-Area Special Study and to revisit the boundary in light of
study results regarding infrastructure needs and costs, potential designation as an urban growth area.
and cormnercial land needs.
Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center - Final Boundary
The Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow has a large residential community that is served by a Village
Connnercial Center. The designated commercial area ~s consistent with the 1993 Environmental Impact
Statement. and has been agreed to by community plmming groups. Land use activities and performance
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-20
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
Table 3-4
Reduction in Commercially Zoned Acreage from 1994 Zoning
': # ::~: :::::;~:~:?::::'.' 'i~C:OMMER:C-i?.L ':::: ;::::" COMMERCIAL ':: ~2OMMERC~L ::
:: :~: ' :::::::::::::::::::::: ,n~ :::::~:~:?:~:. ~ : A~A .:
======= === ===========
RU~L CROSSROADS AREAS:
I FOUR CO~NERS 39.15 acres 26.41 acres 33%
2 WAWA PO~T 27.25 acres 4.20 acres 85%
3 MATS MATS 5.94 acres 5.94 acres No ch~e
4 S.R. 19/20 ~TERSECTION 54.83 acres 27.26 acres 50%
5 GA~iNER 24.69 acres 4.47 acres 82%
6 CHIMACUM 68.11 acres 36.53 acres 46%
7 T~-AREA HIGHWAY 99.45 acres 53.83 acres 46%
[rondale - 18.80 acres
g BEAVER VALLEY 2.97 acres 2.97 acres No change
9 BLACK PO~T 12.85 acres -- 100%
10 CENTER 0.39 acres -- 100%
11 MARROWSTONE 1.00 acres 1.00 acres No change
ISLAND
12 DISCOVERY BAY 97.37 acres 9.11 acres 91%
RURAL VILLAGE CENTERS Residential and Commercial Land
13 QUILCENE 177.44 acres 48.41 acres 73%
14 B~ON 67.16 acres 34.05 acres 49%
15 PORT ~DLOCK 248.36 acres 75.35 acres 70%
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER Master Planned Resort
['TOTAL COMMERC~L ] I
'Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3-22 August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAl,
IACREAGE [ 966.68 acres I 367.87 acres [ 620/0
Limiting Land Available for infilt Develapment
Rural Crossroads
The following table provides figures for infill areas in rural crossroads, first presentin~ the acreage of land
in undeveloped parcels. In addition, the table presents the estimated acreage of total undeveloped land that
also includcs undeveloped portions of developed parcels. The total undeveloped la2~d is estimated from art
photos, and may include land currently removed from development due to critical area requirements or
because ii is ~n use for sepnc systems, and in some cases, wells. This land is not available for infill
development, and therefore the figures shmvn below in Table 3-5 are a maxtmum The acreage for each is
followed by the percent that the total undeveloped land comprises of total land for that crossroad·
Table 3-5
Undeveloped Acreage for Rural Crossroads
Rural Crossroad Total Commercial Land Land in Undeveloped Estimated Total
Parcels~ Undeveloped Land
Acres/% Acres / %
0.5 acres
Nordland I acre 0 50 %
2.0 acres
Beaver Valley 2.97 acres 0 67 %
2.2 acres
Wawa Point 4.20 acres 0 52 %
0.5 acres 2.21 acres
Discovery Bay 9.11 acres 5 % 24 %
· 15 acres 2.8 acres
Gardiner 4.47 acres 3.4 % 62 %
1.4 acres
Mats Mats 5.94 acres 0 23 %
10.64 acres 8.4 acres
Chimacum 36.53 acres 29.1% 23 %
9.98 acres 16.8 acres
State Route 19/20 27.26 acres 36.6 %*** 62 %
1.53 acres 7.1 acres
Four Comers 26.41 acres 5.7 % 27 %
5.01 acres 4.2 acres
Ness' Comer 31.83 acres 15.7 % 13 %
4.76 acres 8.2 acres
Irondale Comer 22.0 acres 21.6 % 37 %
* Undeveloped parcels are defined as parcels that have a land use code of 9100 {undeveloped and unused land areal in the
Jefferson County Assessor's database.
** Total acreage available Ibr infitl based on estimated lot coverage using air photos.
*** Vested project parcel
The total designated crossroads acreage of 171.22 acres contains 32.57 acres in undeveloped parcels
available for infill. This is equal to approximately 19% of the total The number of uses that may develop
m these infill areas varies with the size and lot coverage of the use. as well as the requirement for septic
systems, critical areas protection, buffering, access roads, and wells or water supply lines.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-23 August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
Of the above crossroads, several are limited in infill opportunity. The convenience/general stores at
Nordland. Beaver Valley, and Wawa Point can expand the existing business trader the criteria for a
Convenience Crossroads. but cannot subdivide for another commercial use. Four Comers and Chimacum
boundaries allow for expm]sion of existing uses. but currently lack water availability to allow for new
commercial development.
For the remaining crossroads, the total estimated undeveloped land based on air photo analysis is a total of
35.~1 acres, for an estimated 21% infill acreage of those crossroads. Septic system, water supply, and
critical areas issues will limit development by ma additional amount which is likely to be 30-50% of the
land required for a project. Should new water hookups become available for Four Comers and Chimacum.
an additional 15.5 acres of infill may be developed These figures demonstrate that the land available for
infill developmcn~ m rural crossroads has been limited by the designated boundaries.
Rural Village Centers
Rural Village Centers are intended to provide for a mixture of commercial, residential, and
community/public scrviccs uses. The infill allowed takes into account affordable housing goals through
limited multi-fmnily (duplexes, triplexes) and assisted living/special needs housing, as well as by preserving
the existing housing supply (see Housing Element). h~ addition to residential and commercial uses, land for
communitv clubs, churches, public facilities, and social services is needed to meet projected population
growth and to preserve commumty identity. The table below provides figures for infill/hr all of these uses
based on data similar to that in Table 3-5.
Table 3-6
lnfill Acreage for Rural Village Centers
Rural Village Center Total Land within Land in Undeveloped Total Estimated
RVC Boundary Parcels Undeveloped Land
Acres / % Acres / %
19.04 acres 18.0 acres
Port Hadlock 75.35 acres 25.3 % 24 %
5.26 acres 11.2 acres
Bmmon 34.05 acres 15.4% 33 %
13.16 acres 11.5 acres
Quitcene 53.30 acres 24.7 % 22 %
The projected 20-year population growth rates for these areas are: Port Hadlock 34%, Brinnon 50%. and
Quilcene 37°~. Additional m~alysis was revie~ved to evaluate both the adequacy and the justification for
areas of infill, the commercial area boundahes were determined based on a recognition of the
predominantly pre-July, 1990 built environmem pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d).
Additional economic growth will be accommodated by fc~cused commercial development in the Urban
Growth Area. by employment opportunities in home-based businesses, cottage industries, tourist-recreation
uses. resource-based industries, and in the South County by limited infill in the Quilcene industrial area.
Additional residential growlh will be accommodated by allowing duplexes and triplexes in Rural Village
Centers and by the surplus of lots in surrounding rural residential areas.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-24
August 28, 1998
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Saturday, May 26.2001 10:19 AM
Kirie Pedersen
FW: Brinnon plan
FYI
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:markrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 10:18 AM
To: Personius, Mark
SubjecE: RE: Brinnon plan
Mark:
I don't want to pester you, so let me know if I am asking too many questions. I don;t get
to have a give and take an these Brinnon meetings.
Re: Building permits. What if those permits are for vacation homes? Is that an accurate
barometer of population growth? Do other counties use building permits as a measure of
poulation growth, or do they rely on census figures?
Thanks.
Mark
..... Original Message .....
From: Personius, Mark [mailto:MPERSONIUS@earthtech.com]
SenE: Thursday, May 24, 2001 4:03 PM
To: 'Mark Rose'
Subjecn: RE: Brinnon plan
Mark,
The 1996-2001 projected growth figures for Brinnon are based on the
Jefferson County Comp Plan population pro3ections in the Land Use Element.
The "estimated" actual 5 year growth is based on building permits issued by
the Counny during the same Elme period and then conversed Eo estimated
population, including a discoun5 factor 15~; no account for units never
built or occupied or otherwise vacant. I have the raw building permit files
from the County but the summary of the total number of residential permins
issued for the last five years is shown on the back pages of the overheads
handoun I gave out at the last meeting (i.e., 59 single family residential,
54 mobile homes, and 2 manufactured homes).
As to population, according to the US Census, the County grew in population
from 20,406 in 1990 Eo 25,953 in 2000. During the intercensal years, the
State Office of Financial ManagemenE (OFMt prepares annual population
estimates and prepares population growth projections (in iow, medium and
high series or ranges) that are used by counties for their GMA planning.
Based on the 2000 census estimate, it appears that the OFM was
overestimating the counEy's population growth during the 1~990's, or put
another way, the County grew at a slower fane than forecast (in the low
range) by the OFM.
There are other "surrogate" measures for population (e.g., electrical
hookups, postal patrons, etc.) but generally the US Census is the official
number used by the OFM and recognized for GMA planning purposes.
I'll be glad to discuss any ideas than the neighborhood comes up with.
Mark
..... Original Message .....
From: -Mark Rose [mailEo:markrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 3:25 PM
To: Personius, Mark
Cc: Randy Kline
Subject: RE: Brinnon plan
Thanks, Mark. Let's try email first. It's the modern method.
Where did you get figures for real growth vs projected growth? I was under
the impression tham Jetferson County has actually decreased in population in
the last couple of years. Is there more than one measure for population, or
other growth barometers?
Also, do you have a file with figures on those overheads you had a~ the last
Brinnon meeting?
Also, I wane to let you know what I am writing a "request for participation"
for people in the WaWa, Hjelvick, Pulali, Shellfish Lab area and we're
(LynenEe, me, others) will be talking Eo relevanu parties.
I would like to come back ~o you when we get a measurable amounn of feedback
to ask abou~ viability, regs, etc. of some of their suggestions. We would
like to come up with something that is doable and the community wants.
I appreciate any help and/or guidance. Thanks To Randy for connecting us.
Mark
..... Original Message .....
From: Personius, Mark [mailto:MPERSONIUS@earthtech.com]
Senn: Thursday, May 24, 2001 3:09 PM
To: 'markrose@markrose.org-'
Subjec%:
Mark,
E-mail me any questions or you can call me
Mark Personius
at 425-455-9494.
BY-LAWS
of the Jefferson County Planning Commission
SECTION 1 - AUTHORITY: These by-laws are promulgated in compliance with
Chapter 36.70 of the Revised Code of Washington, the Washington Planning
Enabling Act, and Jefferson County Resolution No. 54-97 which recognized the
Jefferson County Planning Department and reconstituted a new Planning Commission
SECTION 2 - MEMBERSHIP: The Planning Commission shall be comprised of nine
members from Jefferson County, and Members of the Planning Commission shall be
appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. and each commissioner district shall
be equally represented on the Planning Commission. The char of the Jefferson County
Board of Commissioners shall appoint members to the commission with approval of a
majority of the board's members. An appointment of a member shall be made from a list
of applicants who sba I subm t a "Letter of Intent" to the Board of County
Commissioners stating their qualifications for serving on the Planning Commission.
Vacancy(s) shall be advertised at least twice in the local r~ewspaper encouraging
individuals residing in the specific commissioner district in which the vacancy occurs to
apply.
To assure staggered terms of office for members of said Planning Commission
as set forth in RCW 36.70.070..080..090 and .100. of the nine persons appointed to
the Planning Commission. initially two (2) shal be appointed for a term of one (1) year;
two (2) shal be appointed for a term of two (2) years; two (2) shall be appointed for a
term of three (3) years; and three (3) shall be appointed for a term of four (4) years.
Thereafter each member appointed to the Planning Commiss,on shall be (except when
appointed to fill a vacancy) for a term of four (4) years.
The initial appointments to the Plann ng Commission shall be made effective the
18th day of March, 1997. Thereafter each four-year term shal commence on the 18th
day of March of the year when the term created here~n shall expire and the four-year
anniversary thereof.
Vacancies resulting from t~e expiration of terms of office shall be filled by
appointments for a term of four (4) years. Vacancies occurring for any reason other
than the expiration of a term of office shall be by appointment for the unexpired term of
the office being filled
In the event a Planning Commission member changes residence during their
term which moves them into a different commissioner district, they will remain in office
unti their term expires. After the term expires, the vacant position in the appropriate
district will then be filled.
After a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners, a member of the
Planning Commission_may be removed by the chair of the Board of County
Commissioners. with approval of all board members, for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or
malfeasance. Two (2) absences in a row from regularly scheduled meetings,
unexcused by the chair of the Planning Commission. shall be grounds for the Planning
Commission to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the individual
be removed from the Planning Commission.
All filled positions shall constitute the current membership. A member granted
an excused leave of absence by the chair of the Planning Commission shall constitute
an unfilled position. ~ ·
SECTION 3 - MEMBER'S RESPONSiBiLITIES AND DUTIE~ - Upon request the
Planning Commission shall assist the Jefferson County Planning Department and
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners in carrying out the county's planning
program and those duties prescribed by the Washington State Planning Enabling
Act and T~he Growth Man;:,~e.m..-nt Act. Upon request the Planning Commission shall
assist and advise in the development of and any revisions to the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Management Master Program and official
controls and/or amendments thereto, and carrying out those duties prescribed therein.
The Planning Commission shall act as policy advisors in matters concerning general
land use and shoreline use within the county. The Plannin~mmission shall
recommend planning and shoreline policies to make certain they are consistent with
th'-~' goals and polici~of the community as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan and
amendments thereto and the Shoreline Management Master Program and
amendments thereto. The Planning Commission from time to time may also make
inquiries or develop reports or recommendations.
The Planning Commission shal report in all matters referred to it within forty (40)
days or within such time as specified by trte Board of County Commissioners. The
report of the Planning Commission shall be advisory only.
~S-"ECTION 4 - OFFICERS: Officers of the Planning Commission shall be chair and
v~ce-chair. The chair and vice-chair shall be elec[ed annually at the first September
regular meeting from among its members (See Section 10 of the Resolution -
Organization) A member shall serve no more than three (3) consecutive years as chair
or vice-chair. In the absence of both the chair and vice-chair at a meeting or workshop,
members present may elect, for that sess on. a temporary chair to perform those duties
described by Section 5 of these by-laws
SECTION 5 - OFFICERS' RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES: The chair of the
Planning Commission shall: preside at al meetings and execute the agenda of such
meetings in an orderly manner as prescribed under Section 9 of these by-laws; when
appropnate and necessary, establish committees and appoint members thereto; and
officially represent the commission before other organizations or groups. The vice-chair
shall officiate as chair in the chair's absence.
SECTION 6 - SECRETARY: The secretary shall be provided by the Planning
Department No member of the Planning Commission shall be appointed secretary.
SECTION 7 - SECRETARY'S RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES: The secretary shall
record the proceedings of all Planning Commission meetings
SECTION 8 - STAFF: The Jefferson County Planning Department shall provide staff to
the Planning Commission.
SECTION 9 - STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES. The designated county planning staff shall
prepare, with the chair of the Planning Commission, and distribute agendas for
meetings and workshops; prepare the Planning Commission budget; account for and
process expenditures; notify members by telephone of meetings and workshops; act in
any other manner deemed necessary by the Planning Commission, where sufficient
staff resources exist, including developing plans, studies, or reports in response to
Planning Commission requests, and provide technical advice for commission members.
SECTION 10 - MEETINGS AND WORKSHOP.~: Regular public meetings of the
Planning Commission shall be held the first and third Wednesdays of every month at
7:00 PM at the county courthouse in Port Townsend or where otherwise designated.
Notification to the public of all meetings including regular meetings, special meeting~,
public hearings, and workshops shall be made through advertising in a newspaper of
county-wide circulation. Notification will appear at least ten (10) days prior to a public
hearing. Workshops can be held on matters of discussion by approval of the Planning
Commission with notice to the public. No official action shall be taken at workshops.
SECTION 11 -CONDUCT: Meetings of the Planning Commission, including public
hearings, shall be guided by "Robert's Rules of Order."
SECTION. 12 - QUORUM'. ..... Five members of the planning commission, shall, constitute"~
.~q~um. Any action of the planning commission, other than a vote on poricy as defined
in Section 13 below, Shall be determined by a majority vote at a meeting where a
quorum is present.
SECTION 13 - VOTING: All members are entitled to one vote. A vote shall be by either
favoring or opposing the matter being acted upon, or a member may abstain from
voting. Al matters acted on shall be recorded as written motions.
Al matters establishing policies shall be decided by an affirmative vote of not
less than a majority of the Planning Commission's total authorized membership. Such
a vote shall include the chair's. Matters establishing policies shall include but not be
limited to an amendment of these by-laws and the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan and/or the Shoreline Master Management Program and official controls thereto.
On all matters establishing or amending policies. Findings of Fact shall be established
and recorded.
Some matters before the Planning Commission (e.g., election of officers,
approva of the Planning Commission's minutes, setting dates and times for special
meetings, etc.) are neither policy nor non-policy (quasi-judicial)in nature, but are more
administrative in nature. Such administrative matters shall be decided by a majority
vote of the quorum as established under Section 12 of the by-laws. The Chair may
vote on all administrative matters.
SECTION 14 - BUDGET: (see Section 5 n the Resolution - Financing - Planning
Commission) A preliminary budget for the Planning Commission, including itemizing
estimated expenditures for the ensuing calendar year shall be prepared by the
Jefferson County Planning Department. The budget shall be reviewed by members at
the first August regular meeting, at which time its adequacy shall be determined and it
shal be accepted as printed or with changes. The budget will become final in
December without further review by the Planning Commiss'on, unless there is a
substantia change The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall finalize the
preliminary budget as presented or with changes. The budget and any amendments
thereof shall be prepared in accordance with requirements established by the Jefferson
County Auditor.
SECTION 15 -CLAIMS FOR EXPENDITURES: All claims for expenditures for
operating the Planning Commiss'on shal be made by the Jefferson County Planning
Department in accordance with requirements established by the Jefferson County
Auditor. All claims shall be issued by the director of the department and approved by
the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. Any requests to claim expenses for
attending a conference seminar, or similar session shall be approved by the Board of
County Commissioners prior to registration or attendance
SECTION 16 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Members of the Planning Commission
having personal or professional interest in a specific topic that may be deemed
conflicting or infringe upon the appearance of fairness shall make a public disclosure
and shall excuse themselves from the meeting area during the discuss on of. or voting
on, that topic Personal interest shall be defined broadly to include any actual or
potential benefits or advantages that they, a spouse, family member or person living n
their household might directly of indirectly obtain from a planning decision. Professional
interest shal include prior participation in planning ~ssues being addressed by the
Planning Commission where they have previously served as an advisor, decision
maker or employee with the intent of personal (primarily financial) gain and that
involvement is deemed to be a conflict with their current role as a Planning
Commissioner.
This rule shall apply to the Planning Commission when considering specific
issues including hearings on parcels or areas that individual members have a personal
interest in. or discussion of. or voting on. the adoption of ordinances which individual
members may have a personal interest in or benefit from. This rule shall not apply
specifically to matters establishing general policies which shall include but not be
limited to an amendment of these by-laws and the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan and/or the Shoreline Management Master Pro~lram.
'---" In consideration of all policy and non-~olicy matters members of the Planning
Commission shall exercise fair. honest and independent judgment in their roles as
decision makers and advisors. Members shall not m~srepresent facts or distort
information for the purpose of achieving a desired outcome. Additionally, in all actions
members of the Planning Commission shall respect the rights of all persons and in no
way discriminate against others based on characteristics which are protected under
federal, state and local civil rights laws.
SECTION 17 - REPORTS: Reports of official Planning Commission reviews or official
recommendations shall include only that which has been approved by a majority of the
commission.
Drafts of reports of official Planning Commission reviews or official
recommendations shall be reviewed corrected as necessary, and adopted by a vote of
the Planning Commission. Under exceptional circumstances, where time is of the
essence, this rule may be suspended by a two-thirds majority of the Planning
Commissioners in attendance Should this rule be suspended the drafters of the
subject report shall make a sincere effort to have the subject draft report reviewed by
as many Planning Commissioners as feasible Under such circumstances, such
4
reports will be sent to the Planning Commissioners immediately upon completion.
Further. this means of adoption shall be noted on the facing page of such report.
In addition, an official Minority Report may be included as part of the Planning
Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners Such a report
may be prepared when two or more commissioners in attendance at the meeting, agree
to one or more findings and recommendations in common and initiate a forma motion
to include a Minority Report as part of the Planning Commission's report to the Board of
County Commissioners. If all members of the minority membership agree on a common
position to report and a simple majority of all the Planning Commissioners in
attendance agree that the report does represent an integrated minority opinion, rather
than a collection of diverging agreements, the Minority Report will be accepted and
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners as part of the Planning Commission
report
SECTION 18 - AMENDMENTS: These by-laws may be amended at any regular
meeting of the Planning Commission provided that the proposed amendment has been
submitted in writing no later than the previous regular meeting. The proposed
amendment must be included in the agenda of the meeting at which the vote is taken.
SECTION 19 - REPEALER: All previous by-laws of the Jefferson County Planning
Commission are hereby repealed.
SECTION 20 ~ ADOPTION: These by-laws, as amended, are hereby adopted this 16th
day of May 2001.
Jefferson County Planning Commission
om McNerney, Chair
Cheryl Halvorson, Secretary
Original adoption date 7/23/97
Amended Section 17 on 11/17/99 and 12/1/99
Amended Section 4 on 6/21/00
Amended Section 13 on 7/19/00
Amended Sections 12 & 13 on 5/16/01
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Rose [eaglel@eaglecottage.com]
Monday, July 30 2001 12:15 PM
Josh D, Peters
Mark RaPozo
Brinnon: Submit into public record
_f
July 30, 2001
Josh Peners:
I reques5 that this email be submitted into the public record and be part of any
envlronmensal review in the Brinnon planning district. I have not received a response to
the email below (July 13;, and the lates~ draft of the Brinnon Sub-area plan (July 23,
2001), does not reflect any of the concerns addressed below.
Mark Rose
Brinnon
.... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:markrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 1:51 PM
To: George Sickel; Bud/Val Schindler; Kate Marsh
Cc: A1 Scalf; Mark Person±us; Josh D. Peters
Sub,ecs: Membership in Brinnon Sub-area Group
I have questions about the membership of Brinnon Sub-area group and who will be included
in a consensus on the plan.
The current list of participating members, according to the June 14 and July 2 plan
drafts, has been altered from previous minutes, attendance records and drafts of the
plan. '
In the curren~ draft Group members are listed as: Linda Tudor, Chairperson, Lynnette
Antijunti, Joy Baisch, Richard Coone, Dalila Dowd, John Dowd, Charles Finnila, Jean
Johnson, Stan John$5on, Cedric Lindsay, Kate Marsh, Recorder, Tom McNerney, Eleanor
Sather, Bud Schindler, George Sickel Lea Silsbee, Charles Springer
In fact:
Lynette Antijunti: Has attended one meeting in the past year, May 22, 2001 and was listed
as "visitor" in the Minutes. '
Lea Silsbee: Officially resigned from the Group on April 17, 2000. Her resignation letter
is in the county files.
Eleanor Sather: Resigned from the group at least five months ago. She has attended some
meetings this year as "visitor."
Richard Coone: Has not attended a meeting since Feb. 13, 2001 (as far back as my
"Minutes" records go).
Stan Johnston: Has not attended a meeting since Feb. 13, 2001 (as far back as my
"Minutes" records go)
Then there is the case of Thomas McNerney. In the February 13, 2001, and February 27,
2001 Minutes he is listed as "Visitor." In the May 8 draft of the Plan he is listed as
"Advisor." In the April 10, April 24, and May 8 Minutes he is listed as a "Group Member."
In an ~pril 24 email from a Group member he. was referred to"as not a direct' member of our !
group.
---"~am r~uesting an accurate presentation of Group membership in the plan. Below find
excerpts from Minutes and Draft Plans for reference.
From the Brinnon.Community Planning Group Minutes, May 22, 2001
I
Brinnon Committee Members Present: Dalila Dowd, John Dowd, Chuck Finnila, Cedric Lindsay,
Kate Marsh, Bud Schindler, George Sickel, Charles Springer, Linda Tudor
Absent Excused: Joy Baisch, Jean Johnson, Mike Matthews, Tom
McNerney
Unexcused: Dick Coone, Stan Johnston
Jefferson County Represensatives: Josh Peters, Mark Personius
Visitors: Kathleen Emmerson, Rick Emmerson, Ken Nelsen, Jackie Nelsen, Mark Rose,
Lynne~se A~ti~unti.
Brinnon Sub-area Plan Revision Date: March 9, 2001
Brinnon Area
Planning Group
Linda Tudor, Chairperson
Kate Marsh, Secretary
Other Members:
Joy Baisch Cedric Lindsay
Dick Coone Bud Schindler
John Dowd George Sickel
Dalila Dowd Charles Springer
Charles Finnila
Jean Johnson
Jefferson County Representatives
Warren Hart
Mark Personius
Josh.Peters
A1 Scalf
Advisors
Pat Rogers
Thomas McNerney
Minutes from Brinnon Community Planning Group Meeting, April 24, 2001
Brinnon Committee Members Present: Joy Baisch, Dalila Dowd, John Dowd?, Chuck Finnila,
Jean Johnson, Cedric Lindsay, Tom McNerney, Mike Matthews, Bud Schindler, George Sickel,
Linda Tudor
Absent: Excused: Charles Springer, Kate Marsh
Unexcused: Dick Coone?, Stan Johnston?
Jefferson County Representatives: Josh Peters, Mark Personlus
Visitors: Debbie Harper and Patrice Daylo from USDA, Pat Rogers, Mark Rose.
(Recorders note: Others presen5 not identified on 5ape. I did no5 have the sLgn-up sheet
when transcribing from 5apes. I
Minutes from Brinnon Community Planning Group Meeting, May 8, 2001
Brinnon Committee Members Present: Joy Baisch, Dalila Dowd, John Dowd?, Chuck Finnila,
Jean Johnson, Cedric Lindsay, Tom McNerney, Kate Marsh, Mike Matthews, Bud Schindler,
George S~ckel, Charles Springer, Linda Tudor
Absent Unexcused: Dick Coone, Stan Johnsuon
Jefferson County Represensa~ives: Josh Peters, Mark Personius
Visitors: Pat Rogers, Janet Welch, Peter Siefert, Deborah Siefert, Kirie Pedersen,
Marilyn Pedersen, Loni Beringer, Dennis Kuklok
Minutes from Brinnon Community Planning Group, February 27, 2001
Brinnon Committee Members Present: Joy Baisch, Dalila Dowd, John Dowd,
Chuck Finnila, Jean Johnson, Stan Johnston, Cedric Lindsay, Kate Marsh, Mike Matthews,
Eleanor Sather, Bud Schindler, George Sickel, Charles Springer, Linda Tudor; Absent: Dick
Coone.
Jefferson County Representatives~ Warren Hart and Josh Peters
Visitors: Tom McNerney (Planning Commission), Mark Rose, John Pedersen, Walt Parks,
Marion Parks, Lcni Beringer, Wayne Beringer, Kelly Beringer, Rebekah French, Judi Hyde,
Mike Hyde, Marilyn Pedersen, Deborah Siefert, Randy Johnson, Kirie Pedersen, Janet Welch,
Phillip Stevens.
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.brinnonplan.com
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@marKrose.org]
Thursday, April 05, 2001 9:48 AM
Kirie Pedersen
FW: Last nights Commissioners meeting
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:markrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 9:46 AM
To: Tom McNerney
Cc: Richard Woj5
Subject: Last nights Commissioners meeting
Mr. McNerney:
The actions of the Commission last night were shameful and an insult 5o the democratic
process. With no clear quorum, ignoring its own rules of a majority, ignoring pleas to
involve the Brinnon community in its decision, the Commission rammed through the Black
Point re-designation. Your actions last night managed no disenfranchise a large segment
of the Brannon-area community and prove what I said at the March 21 meeting you were not
interested in public opinion and your mind was made up before going into this process. I
didn't think that the Commisszon would stoop to this, however - misleading the public and
manipulating a vote when one 'Commissioner was absent. This will not go unchallenged.
ww~.brinnonplan.com
Mark Rose
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Wednesday, July 11,2001 10:01 PM
Josh Peters
RE: Next steps in Brinnon subarea planning process
You can't be serious.
..... Original Message .....
From: Josh Peters [mailto:jpe5ers@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 5:04 PM
To: Bud and Val Schindler (E-mail); Chuck Pinnila (E-mail); Datila &
John Dowd ,E-mail); Eleanor Sather /E-mail); George Sickel (E-mail);
Jean Johnson via Beringers (E-mail); Joy Baisch (E-mail); Kate Marsh
Who came up with this schedule? ~~ ~
(E-mail); Linda Tudor (E-mail); Mike Matthews (E-mail); Stan Johnston
(E-mail); Tom McNerney (E-mail)
Cc: Mark Personlus (E-mail); Mark Personlus (E-mail); Randy Kline; Brian
Arthurs (E-mail); Janet Welch (E-mail); Kirie Pedersen (E-mail); Leon &
Marde Voetberg (E-mail); Lynnec~e Antijun~l .E-mail); Mark Rose
(E-mail); Pat Rodgers (E-mail); Randy Johnson (E-mail); Sue Perley
(E-mail); Wayne Schlaefli (E-mail)
Subject:~ Next steps in Brinnon subarea planning process
Greetings Brinnon Subarea Plan Committee and interested parties:
[This memo will be sent by mail to Cedric Lindsay, Charles Springer, and
Jean Johnson.]
Here is a summary of the decisions made a5 the conclusion of last night's
meeting:
The Committee has reached a sna5e of "general consensus" with the draft
Brinnon Subarea Plan as presented by Mark Personius (Mark P.) and verbally
amended during the meeting by the Committee, contingen5 upon additional
changes. Committee members will email or otherwise deliver recommended
changes and edits ~o Kate and Bud by this FRIDAY, JULY 13. They will
incorporane Ehe changes and distribute the nex5 working draft version to the
Committee, Mark P., and the Dept. of Community DevelopmenE by MONDAY, JULY
16.
Mark P. will work on formatting and consistency edits and produce a
"Community Meeting Draft" by MONDAY, JULY 23, at the latest. For this to
happen, each Committee member should communicate his or her general
consensus green light, meaning that although there may be lingering issues
and hOE everything is exactly as desired, the Subarea Plan as drafted is OK
%o pass along ~o the Brinnon communz~y for comment. At this point, a
Committee member could raise a red flag, indicating that general consensus
is not achieved. If this should happen, the Chair and the res~ of the
Commituee will need ~o decide on a course of action. Committee me, ers
shculd communicate their green lights or red flags to the Chair by FRIDAY,
JULY 20 at the latest and preferably as soon as possible after Kate and Bud
distribute the next working draft version. Mark P. will essentially be
working on formaEEing and other ccsmeuic ~ssues for the Community Meeting
Draft. Thus, it is not necessary to wait for thaE version to make your
green light or red flag decision.
There will be NO MEETING on TUESDAY, JULY 24
The goal is to release the Community Meeting Draft as soon as general
consensus is affirmed and the cosmetic changes are completed. If timelines
are pushed to the maximum stated above, this date would be TUESDAY, JULY 24,
one week before the community meeting, scheduled for TUESDAY, JULY 31,
6:00-8:00 PM, in the GYMNASIUM of the BRINNON SCHOOL. Ideally, the
Community Meeting Draft will be ready for release prior to July 24, but that
depends on general consensus being affirmed earlier than July 20 and the
cosmetic changes completed before July 23, which may be unrealistic. That's
why earlier release ms a goal, but a July 24 release ms more like a
deadline.
The July 31 community meeting will be noticed in the Leader next week and
the week after. Posters will be placed around town. Please talk to your
neighbors about the meeting. This will provide two weeks plus of notice for
the meeting and a Subarea Plan draft available in nown and on the internet
at least a week before the meeting. In addition to oral and written
comments being accepted at the communlny meeting, written commenns on the
Brinnon Subarea Plan Community Meeting Draft will be accepted for another
week following the community meeting.
The Subarea Plan Committee will then hold another Committee meeting to
consider the comraents and make whatever changes and edits are decided by
consensus in order to produce a Brinnon Subarea Plan Final Draft for
presentation to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners. When
the BOCC sends the document 5o the Planning Commission, a public hearing
will be held to accept public testimony. The BOCC would hold another public
hearing if it doesn't accept the Planning Commission recommendation.
Here are the main "deadlines" and other milestones again. These dates are
"at the lasesE." Some of these things may happen sooner, ideally anyway:
Friday, July 13: submit suggested changes and edits to Kate and Bud
Monday, July 16: Kate and Bud distribune nex5 version of working draft
(Mark begins ~o work on cosmeEics. Committee merabers consider consensus.)
Wednesday, July 18: 1st noEice of coramunity meeting appears in Leader
Friday, July 20: deadline for Committee members ~o acknowledge consensus
Monday, July 23: Mark P. ready with Community Meeting Draft
Tuesday, July 24: Community Meeting Draft released to public (NO MEETING)
Wednesday, July 25: 2nd notice of community meeting appears in Leader
Tuesday, July 31: community meeting in the school gym beginning aE 6:00 PM
After that...written commen~s accepted, follow-up Committee meeting, Final
Draft.
Hope this covers it all for now. Please be in touch with questions.
Regards,
Josh
Josh D. Peters, Associate Planner
Jefferson County DeparEment of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368
Direc5: (360) 379-4466, Main: (360) 379-4450, Fax: (360) 379-4473
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.orgl
Monday, June 11 2001 11:26 PM
Al Scalf
Josh Peters; Charles Saddler; David Alvarez
RE: Summary of Requests
A1:
Responses 1 & 2 do not address the issues I brought up.
redress.
Mark
..... Original Message .....
From: A1 Scalf [mailto:ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:51 PM
To: 'Mark Rose'
Cc: Josh Peters; Charles Saddler; David Alvarez
Subject: RE: Summary of Requests
I will pursue other means of
Mark
Responding to your requests:
1. a. In sevice to the public, we always advocate open meetings and
freedom of information to everyone. Often, it is a balancing act, staff
needs time no think and write, the public requires the knowledge of what is
being thought and written. We do this most sucessfully by example and
through training.
b. I don't know of any draft plan which have been sent to Comm.
Titterness or the Co Adm Saddler. As far as I know, they wait for the plan
to be forwarded to them from the planning group after the group holds a
public meeting to receive commenns on the draft plan. Be careful about
using the Leader as your basis of understanding on issues. If you wish to
request pubic records of the BOCC, you will need to contac~ them and fill
out the required forms.
We have staffed this planning group with a Associate Planner and a
consultant. There role has been to provide technical planning theory and
guidance within the GMA, they do not control how the planning group thinks
or behaves.
2. See eMail from Kate. I cannot assign limited planning staff to conduct
such a investigation as requested.
3. Thank you for your comments regarding the blue book. We have been
discussing amending the blue book over the last month and will be pursuing
this during the summer. We will consider your comments at that time.
A1 Scalf
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [SMTP:markrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 9:03 AM
To: A1 Scalf
Cc: Kate Marsh; Bud/Val Schindler; George Sickel; Linda Tudor; Richard
Wojt; Glen Huntingford; Dan Titterness; Mark Rapozo; David Alvarez
Subject: Summary of Requests
Al:
I realize that you are busy and have limited resources. I have summarized
my recent requests so we can deal with these expeditiously. I currently
have three requests:
1. What is the legal/regulatory justification Or precedent for a group
citizens, appointed by the county, selectively and arbitrarily suppressinq~
information?
Addendum: In the May 22 copy of the Port Townsend Leader Mr. Titterness
and
Mr. Saddler discuss the Brinnon Plan "as it is now w~itten." This assumes
that they have had access to the Plan, while others have been denied. I
am
requesting all emails and correspondence between Mr. Titterness and Mr.
Saddler and members of the Sub-area Group pertaining to the Sub-area Plan
and d~afts of the Brinnon Sub-area Plan in the posession of Mr. Titterness
and Mr. Saddler, between April 1, 2001 and the present.
· . McNerney claims that the BSAP secret meeting of April 11, 20._ .,_.
legal because there was not a quorum. I disagree with Mr. McNerney andI
his
interpretation of The Open Meetings Act. As chronicled in a previous
email,
I am requesting the facts of the meeting to be submitted into the public
record. ~
Addendum: This issue is particularly important since Mr. McNerney is ~
responsible for improperly authorizing a Planning Commission vote to
rezone
Black Point, and attempting to suppress public dialogue at a subsequent
Planning Commission meeting on Black Point. ~
~ On June 6, 2001, I sent a four page, detailed letter to the BOCC an~
Community Planning. The letter recommends possible changes to "the Blue
Book" based on my observations of the Brinnon planning process. I will
wait ~
until June 27 for a reply before seeking assistance from outside agencies. %
>
> I appreciate your attention to these matters. As I mentioned, I will
> continue to seek clarification on these issues from the Ssase Auditor and
> other regulatory agencies.
>
> Mark Rose
> markrose@markrose.org
> PHONE: 360-796-3300
> www.bfinnonplan.com
Eight (8) pages total
August 17,2001
Via email and certified postal service
Mr. Glen Huntinzford
Mr. Richard Wqjt
Mr. Dan Titterness
Jefferson Countv Board of County Commissioners
Commissioner's Office
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend. WA 98368
Commissioners:
I request that Thomas McNerney, Chairman of the Jefferson County
Planning Commission, be excused from voting on adoption of the Brinnon
sub-area plan. Mr. McNemev has served simultaneonslv on both the
Brinnon sub-area Group and the Planning Comlnission. His behavior in
both positions, as chronicled below, clearlv violates ethical and regulatory
standards and should disqualify him from voting on the adoption of the
Brinnon sub-area plan by the Planning Commission.
Further, I request that Mr. McNernev's vote on the land-use re-designation
of Black Point by the Planning Commission on April l 8 be rescinded, and
he be barred fi'om voting on the upcoming consideration by the Planning
Commission to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow for more Master
Planned Resorts in the county. These issues are directlv related to the
Brinnon sub-area Plan, and are subject to manipulation by Mr. McNerney
(discussed below).
While serving as Chairman of the Jefferson County Planning Commission,
Mr McNerney also played a role on the Brinnon sub-area Planning Group.
What role he played is uncertain. In the February 13, 2001, and Februao'
27, 2001 Minutes he is listed as "visitor." In the May 8 draft of the Plan he
is listed as "Advisor." In the April 10, April 24, and May 8 Minutes he is
listed as a :'Group Member." In an April 24 emait from a Group member he
was referred to "as not a direct member of our group." ..
Page 2
I have requested clarification from the Brinnon sub-area Planning Group and
Department of Communitv Development several times concerning these
confilsing and seemingly arbitrary positions for Mr. McNerney. They have
offered no explanation.
As a "member" of the Brinnon sub-area Planning Group, Mr. McNerney was
in position to stifle commumty involvement, plot against opponents of the
Plan, while manipulating Planning Commission process concerning the Plan
and ~ssues that effect the proposal for a Master Planned Resort at Black
Point, the most important component of the Plan.
As a voting "member" and active pamcipant in Brinnon sub-area Planning
Group meetings, Mr. McNernev was also aware of adopted elements of the
Plan, and condoned the Group's behavior, activities, and policies.
Mr McNerney is aware of political, racist, and anti-environmental
statements in the Plan {he voted to approve the Plan). One of six goals in the
Plan is to protect property rights (Mr. McNemev is a property rights
proponent), we are catttioned that Indians can invade private property and
decimate our tidelands, and endangered species don't %old any s~gnificance
other than interesting observations." I submitted a recommendation that the
Group strike these statements. They refi~sed.
Mr. McNerney, as a "member" and active participant at Brinnon sub-area
Group meetings, is also aware of, and condoned, the Group's policy
selectively and arbitrarilv releasing documents to people they chose, while
denying access to others ~n the community. Mr. McNerney, as a "member"
of the Group, actively participated in meetings when the Group refused to
share documents it was discussing with the public, and treated community
members with disdain, often speaking in "code," shuffling papers or talking
to one another while commumty members gave testimony.
Page 3
I have good reason to believe fhat Mr. McNerney has violated the Open
Meetings Act with the Brinnon sub-area Group, in an attempt to develop
strategy to box out opponents of the Brinnon sub-area Plan. I have brought
this to the attention of the County Commissioners. Department of
Community Development, and the Jefferson County Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney. All three departments have refused to investigate.
Perhaps the most egregious public violations by 1Vh'. McNerney occurred on
the evening of August 14, when the Brinnon sub-area Group met to
%onsider" written public testimony about the Brinnon sub-area Plan.
With mocking comments about habitat biologists and local Brinnon
residents, the Brinnon sub-area Group again displayed disdain for public
opinion that was shocking even by their standards.
"Irrelevant" "We don't need to discuss that" "They obviously don't
understand our area" were consistent refrains, as any comments that
disagreed with the tenets of the Brinnon sub-area Plan were one-bv-one
dismissed. DesNte pleas from several area residents, the Group refused to
extend the public comment period. The contemptuous and dismissive
attitude toward the public shocked several people who came to participate
in the "public process."
Written comments by Martv Ereth, habitat biologist for the Skokomish
Tribe, were dismissed. Ereth expressed concern about the "serious racist
overtones" in the Plan's discussion about Tribal fishing rights. Comments
by Ted Labbe, habitat biologist tbr Port Gamble S'klallam Tribe were
dismissed because "we can't control what happens on the rivers," and the
Dosewallips and Duckabush are "part of a larger issue." Comments by
Paula Mackrow of North Olympic Sahnon Coalition were dismissed
because "she obviously has never been here," said Mr McNernev.
Page 4
Strategies by the Hood Canal Coordinating Council were dismissed
because "they are a private organization and have no authority."
Comments by Brinnon resident Olivia Alfano were dismissed because
they supposedly did not address specifics in the Plan. A detailed report on
errors in demographics stated in the Plan that claim to substantiate the
need for increased zoning tbr development was pushed aside without
discussion as "having nothing to do with the Plan," bv the chair Linda
Tudor.
A letter from Jefferson County Public Works Department was dismissed
because Joy Baisch, a membe~ of the Group, said "I took care of that. It's
just a misunderstanding."
Joy Baisch does not have the authoritv to settle issues with a government
agency, and besides her comment was far from the truth. Public Works is
very concerned about proposals fbr development in the Plan that would
put a strata on their department. They are especially concerned because
the Brinnon sub-area Group never consulted them on the Capital Facilities
element of the Plan, and now the Plan is on its way toward adoption as an
amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
Most likely what Jov Baisch did not want to discuss was the critique of the
Brinnon sub-area Plan by the Department of Public Works. In a memo
dated August 9, 2001, Frank Giffbrd, Director of Jefferson County Public
Works, wrote to A1 Scalf, Director, Department of Community
Development, detailing several concerns. The Plan commits Public Works
to substantial projects with no fimding source identified. Giftbrd states
that these issues "should be discussed with the Public Works Department
prior to inclusion in the Plan." Excerpted from the melno:
Page 5
Capital Facilities Element '~
The Growth Management Act requires that the Capital Facilities Element
(CFE) include a plan to fund proposed capital facilities. The CFE
commits Jefferson County to establish a park and ride facility, community
center, county park, solid waste transfer station, and visitor station. With
the exception of a reference to tourism funds to finance a visitor center.
there is no discussion of revenue sources to fund these facilities. This
issue should be addressed in the Plan.
In fact, despite clear stipulations in the Growth Management Act, the
Brinnon sub-area Group did not consult environmental groups, Tribes,
appropriate government agencies, or other interested parties who could
have helped fashion a credible Plan - mttch less make the Plan available to
the public.
Ted Labbe, habitat biologist for the Port Gamble S'klallam Tribe. and
Paula Mackrow, Executive Director of North Olympic Sahnon Coalition,
both asked the chair, Linda Tudor, if thev could get actively involved in
drafting the Plan. Linda Tudor refi~sed.
Further, Ted Labbe's written comments were dismissed as "irrelevant" at
the August 14 meeting in which Mr. McNerney participated in as a
"member." What Mr. McNerney should know is that Ted Labbe has spent
the last few months conducting an intensive study of the Dosewallips
River to develop a salmon recoverv strategy. The Dosewallips River is the
foremost river system in the Brinnon Planning area.
The actions of Mr. McNemey, and other members of the Brinnon sub-area
Group are contributing to the county's mounting legal bills. Because of their
actions on August 14, and the refusal of the Group to allow participation by
professional habitat biologists, the Port Gamble S'klallam Tribe has decided
to join in a lawsuit against the county.
After the August 14 meeting the Brinnon sub-area Group again, met with a
representative of Community Development and the consultant without
informing or inviting the public.
Page 6
As he s~r~Ted as a "member" of the Brinnon sub-area Planning Group, Mr.
McNemev also served as Chairman of the Planning Commission. In that
capacity, he has made numerous remarks that reveal his obvious bias toward
adoption of the Brinnon sub-area Plan. On July 14, as Chairman of the
Planning Commission, Mr. McNemey stated (from the MinutesI that there
was a "small minority in Brinnon who were talking about exclusivity. He
thought the best way to find out ~vas through the Brinuon public meeting."
His comment was rebuttal to my testimony that the Brinnon sub-area Group
was improperly shutting the public out of the planning process.
Mr. McNerney was referring to the July 31 public meeting where many
Brinnon residents spoke against the Plan, and there was far from consensus.
The genesis of the Jnly 31 meeting is very curious.
July 10, Mr. McNemey attended the Brinnon sub-area Planning meeting as a
"member." The public was ~n attendance until approximately 8:00PM.
When we left that night we were told that there would be another meeting on
July 24, so we could offer more co~nment. However. when the public left.
the Brinnon Group met for another 90 ~ninutes with one member of
Community Development. and the consultant hired to assist the Group. The
public ',','as not in attendance, nor were we informed of this meeting.
The next day we xvere told that it was decided that there would be no
meeting on July 24th. Instead the Plan would be completed by the 24t~', and
there would then be a public hearing on the 31 ~
This schedule gave the public one week to absorb and comment on a highly
detailed document that took a 15 member group, staff ~nembers from
Community Development, and a professional consultant nearly two vears to
complete.
Page 7
As a consequence, few people who attended the public meeting had read the
Plan. Nor was the Plan explained to them. Instead, the chair, Linda Tudor,
discussed the history of community plans for the past 22 years, and the
consnltant showed a map of proposed land use changes Mr. McNemey and
the rest of the Brinnon sub-area Planning Group sat among the audience, and
then came up and gave testimonv.
Notably, a petition ~n support of development at Black Point was
snrreptitiously passed among the Brinnon Group and their friends. The
Brinnon Group did not stand before the attdience and explain the Plan they
had been working on for two years. Instead, they infiltrated the attdience
and secretively passed around a petition.
On August 15, Mr. McNemey was wearing his Planning Commission hat.
Toward the end of the Planning Commission meeting he revealed to the
Department of Community Development that "the,,"' had decided that the
Brinnon sub-area Group would come to the Planning Commission and
infbrlnallv present the Plan.
I thought this was very strange. The Brinnon Group had not even presented
the Plan to the community in Brinnon, yet they would come before Mr.
McNemey and present to him and the others?
I asked Mr. McNerney how he could be impartial, and if he intended to
recuse himself from vonng on the Brinnon Plan. He indicated that he
absolutely would not.
At that point Mr. McNerney had the opportumty to do the honorable thing.
He chose not to. So I decided to write this letter.
Also, you should consider Mr. McNemey's involvement in the vote to re-
zone the Black Point property. As you are aware, Black Point is the area in
the Brinnon Planning District where the proposed resort development would
be located. On April 11, despite heated protests, Mr. McNemey authorized.
the Plannin~ Commission to vote on the Black Point re-zone. I ~vas upset
because the public was under the impression that the vote would not occur
until the next meeting, therefore they did not come to partictpate.
Page 8
Undeterred, Mr. McNernev voted along with three others to re-zone Black
Point 1:10, instead of the 1:20 recommended bv Com~nunitv Development
staff'. However, the vote was discounted because there was not a five person
quorum required of the Planning Commission. In any case, the rezoning of
Black Point is being contested because the county did not follow the
guidelines of its own Comprehensive Plan.
Jefferson County currently allows only one Master Planned Resort. Soon,
the Planning Commission will vote on a proposal from the county to allow
for other Master Planned Resorts, thus paving the way for the resort in
development in Brinnon to proceed. Given his history, I suggest that Mr.
McNerney cannot possibly be impartial on that vote.
Commissioners, once I again I implore you to live up to vour responsibility
to the citizens of Jefferson County and take action to stop these flagrant,
continual violations of law, regulations and ethics. I suggest that a positive
first step would be to recttse Mr. McNerney from voting on the Brinnon sub-
area Plan when it is presented to the Planning Commission
It is my understanding that I am entitled to a response to this letter xvithin
five days.
Sincerely yours,
Mark Rose
Brinnon
Cc~
Mark Rapozo, Audit Manager
David Alvarez, Assistant Deputy Prosecutor
A1 Scalf, Director, Department of Community Development
Members of the Jefferson County Planning Commission: Patrick Rogers,
John Hynson, Stacey Thompson, David Whipple, Tom McNerney, Michelle
Sandoval. Todd McGuire
Mark Rose
Subject:
FW: Brinnon/McNerney recusat
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:eaglel@eaglecottage.com]
Sent: Monday, Augusn 20, 2001 7:26 PM
To: A1 Scalf
Subject: RE: Brinnon/McNerney recusal
Sorry, Al. The Brinnon Group has resorted to threats, intimidation, lies and harassment.
There are obvious conflicts of interesg, ~anipulations, violations of laws, regulations
and ethics, disregard for the environment, the community or any interested parties. This
"Plan" will never go anywhere. Brinnon has been robbed of an opportunity go have a real
plan by the laissez faire attitude of the county. We, the taxpayers, will pay for this
debacle. I don't think that's how you build community.
..... Original Message .....
From: A1 Scalf [mailto:ascalf~co.jefferson.wa.us]
Senu: Monday, Augusn 20, 2001 5:02 PM
To: 'Mark Rose'
Cc: Josh Peters
Subjecs: RE: Brinnon/McNerney recusal
Mark
Both emails this afternoon go into the project file
although, not for environmental review /See SEPA manual..
all your issues con£1nue 5o be examined by DCD
I brought up more than kids and dog fights
I bring up community, and mo this end can we agree to that?
Regards
A1
> ..... Original Message .....
> From: Mark Rose [SMTP:eaglel@eaglecottage.com]
> Sent: Monday, Augusu 20, 2001 4:13 PM
> To: A1 Scalf
> Cc: Randy Kline
> Subjecn: RE: Brinnon/McNerney recusal
>
> Please enner this email into the public record, to be part of any legal or
> environmental review of the Brinnon sub-area Plan, or the actions of the
> Brinnon Planning Group, or any governmen5 agency.
>
> Let it be noted that, once again, you (Al Scalf) refuse to address any of
> the issues I have brought up, and instead talk to me about how children
> and adults gee along, and how we have go let go of the past and God given
> State rights. At least you didn't tell me to go down to the beach and dig for
> oysters and relax. I find these sort of responses insulting.
>
> Mark Rose.'
> Brinnon
> Augusu 20, 2001
>
> ..... Original Message .....
> From: A1 Scalf [mailEo:ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us]
> Sent: Monday, Augus5 20, 2001 10:18 AM
> To: 'eaglel@eaglecottage.cOm'cc: Josh Peters
SubjecE: FW: Brinnon/McNerney recusal
Mark
As I smaEed at the Planning Comm meeting last week, I do not see the need
to have Chairman McNerney recused from the PC in regards to making a
recommendation To the BOCC on the Brinnon Plan.
We continue to accep5 all of your input and we review all your ~equests
and the planning department has provided responses to all your requests per
public records. Our deparnmenu has given you more atsenEion and public
service than any one person concerned with this planning effort.
I do thank you for your tireless effort to bring planning to the community
level. Although, I professionally do not agree with you ~n all your
issues or your take of the law or the community, I do encourage your
participation and involvement and seek to learn what I can from your perspectives and
opinions.
Within the laws of our state for procedural due process, everyone to the
last person "standing" has a key role. For many this may be very
frustrating mn view of the amount of time it takes to gen through a issue,
but within the consensus model it appears more that decisions ultimately
become more of a unanimous position. This becomes even more apparen5 when
we appear before the Hearings Board, with given due process rights to
continue the challenge To Superior Court and ultimately to the the Supreme
Court. These are our God gmven State rights, the value in acceptance of
our
diversity.
As you can see, controlling others becomes more problematic and confusing
than even laws of the State. For all of the t~mes you wish ~o control
another person, that person equally seeks 5o control the one who is
complaining and ge5 control of the other, when they really only have
control of themselves. This zs most apparent in razslng children, who pit Mom
agains5 Dad and vice versus. In fact you can see all of us in the roles
and relationships of Parent, Child and Adult.
Expand this to all our planning groups or our communities. Have you
experienced the West End, Gardiner or Discovery Bay? Ail different. Ail
the same?
I can see why the Mayor of PT in the Proclamation of Augusu 2001 resolves:
"all citizens zo refrain from letting past issues and confrontations
impede curren5 dialogue and thereby To encourage spirited yet civil conversation
and debate."
Have a good day
A1
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Friday, June 08, 2001 9:57 AM
Al Scalf
Bud/Val Schindler; George Sickel; Mark Rapozo; Linda Tudor; David Atvarez
Official Request
On April 11, 2001, several members of the Brinnon Sub-area Group ("the Group") met at the
home of Kate Marsh, a member of the Group. This was a pre-planned meeting, outside of
regularly scheduled public meetings. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss public
testimony, pursue a political agenda on behalf of the group, and explore ways to "box
out" community members.
Thomas McNerney, a Group member, was present at the meeting. He has admitted to the
meeting in public testimony but claims that it was legal because there was not a "quorum."
I disagree with Mr. McNerney and his interpretation of The Open Meetings Act. This secret
meeting is particularly Important since Mr. McNerney is Chairman of the Planning
Commission and he has voEed on zoning issues that effect the people of Brinnon and the
sub-area plan.
I request: 1) a polling of the Brinnon Sub-area Planning Group to determine who was at
the meeting, 2) verification of what was discussed at the meeting, 3) verification of what
action was taken as a result of the discussions at the meeting, 4) that the results of
this inquiry be placed in the public record.
Thank you.
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.brinnonplan.com
land use districts and a discrete nu~er of commercial and industrial
acreages that would be assigned to each UGA. Mr. Kline explained how staff
envisioned recruiting me~ers for the sub-area planning groups. Mr. McGuire
commented that because Glen Cove could have such an impact on Port To,send,
it seemed logical to him that there should be some city representation on
that planning group. Mr. Kl~ne commented tha~ it was a possibility. Mr.
Kline stated that the intent was to have the city government involved as much
as possible.
Tom McNerney commented that Task 5 could be completed before'the sub-area
planning groups were even formed. Mr. McNerney pointed ouc that completion
of Task 5 could allow other issues to go forward, including the Brinnon plan,
while the other sub-area plans were being worked on.
Todd McGuire asked how many people would be on each planning group. Randy
Kline replied that the Blue Book called for a group of at least eight but not
to exceed fifteen for each planning area. The commissioners requested copies
of the Blue Book.
C. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mark Rose had questions abouE the Brinnon process. He asked if the'growth
indicators as applied co the Comp Plan also applied to the sub-area plans; if
the same growth indicators applied to a sub-area plan. Randy Kline replied
that it was a good question but he could not answer it at this time.
Michelle Sandoval stated that she would be interested in the answer as well.
Mr~ Kline stated that any commercial area expansion to be done in the county
would be done in the context of considering the growth management indicators.
Todd McGuire asked if the Blue Book talked about growth management
indicators. Randy Kline replied that it did not.
Mark Rose stated that he had submitted proposed revisions to the Blue Book in
the recent past. He suggested that if the Planning Commission was going to
receive copies of the Blue Book that his proposed revisions be provided as
well. Randy Kline agreed that it was a good suggestion.
Mark Rose stated that his understanding of the GMA was that the process was
the same for sub-area planning as that for the Comp Plan. Mr. Rose stated
that the RCW said that a schedule would be developed so that the public would
know when it could get involved. Mr. Rose stated that it also said that
interested parties [ecologists, land ow/~ers, tribes, etc.] would be invited
into the process. Tom McNerney stated that there was no detail on how sub-
area planning should be conducted in the GMA. Mr. Rose stated that he was
assuming that the same criteria applied to sub-area planning as applied to
the Comp plan planning. Mr. McNerney stated that it was not an assumption
that any others had made. A1 Scalf agreed, stating that MPRs or sub-area
plans were different from the Comp Plan.
Mark Rose referred to the interested parties criterion, stating that there
were studies being conducted that could be impacted by what could happen in
Brinnon. He asked if they should be involved in the planning process or at
least be given the opportunity to comment on what,was being proposed by the
community. Mr. Rose noted that when those interested parties had tried to
become involved, the community had said "No". Mr. Rose stated that the draft
plan would be out on July 24 with a public meeting on July 31. He stated
that provided only one week for people to review the draft in order to make
· ~ omments. Mr. Rose stated that he would like to see a more inclusive, open
process. He stated that the planning group had been working for 18 months,
and the community would only have one week to decide. Tom McNerney replied
that the proper place to ask that question would be at the Brinnon planning
group meeting. Mr. McNerney noted that Mr. Rose generally attended those
meetings and made extensive comments, many of which were not agreeable to
many people. Mr. McNerney stated that to come to the Planning Commission and-
ask him as Planning Commission Chair to get into some of the process in
Brinnon was not appropriate~ Randy Kline stated that Mr. Rose was making
public comment and there was no need to respond to his comments. Mr. Rose
stated that the reason for his comment was that the sub-area plan would come
before the Planning Commission and Mr. McNerney was a member of the sub-area
planning group. Mr. Rose suggested that the county could learn from the
Brinnon process. His concern was exclusivity versus inclusiveness and how to
deal with that the next time a sub-area planning process was started.
Michelle Sandoval stated that, on that note, she questioned why only the
property owners would be invited to a planning group as opposed to inviting
anyone who lived in an area to participate. She thought there were a lot of
people living in the Tri Area who were not property owners. Randy Kline
stated that staff would try to notify everyone living in a planning area.
Practically speaking, the county's database was tied to property ownership.
Mr. Kline stated that a mailing was only one method the county would use to
get the word out to the public. He listed some other possible methods. Mr.
Kline stated that the county had learned some things from the Brlnnon sub-
area plan and would try to address the concerns with the next plan.
/~To McGuire stated that if people in Brinnon were feeling left out of the~
process, the county should address it now. Mr. Kline pointed out tha5 the
public still had the right to comment to both the BOCC and the Planning
Commission. Mr. McGuire stated that it went back to the question of who had
the power to make revisions. Mr. Kline stated that the Plannin~ Commission
had that power; it had the power to make recommended changes 5o the BOCC.
Tom McNerney offered the opinion that there was a small minority in Brinnon
who were talking about exclusivity. He thought the best way to find out was
through the Brannon public meeting. If there was broad resentment in the
local community about the process, it should show up and it should require
more work on the plan. Mr. McNerney offered the opinion that there should b~
more than one public meeting in Brinnon. If extensive revisions were made t¢
the plan as a result of the first meeting, then another meeting should be
held to review those changes. Randy Kline stated that the Planning
LCommission public hearing would probably be held in Brinnon as well. j
Phil Flynn statedtha~ when the Tri Area sub-area planning took place, he
wondered whether Marrowstone Island residents, who ~raded in ~he Tri Area,
would be able to have input. The issue spoke to the same issue Mr. Rose
raised concerning interested parties. Michelle Sandoval stated that none of
our communities were isolated from the others, each community impacted the
others, so she thought ~hat certainly we should welcome comments by all of
the communities.
D. COMP PLAN AMENDMENT BROCESS
The Planning Commission began by reviewing the DCD memo of July 12 related to
UDC Section 9.5.4(b) concerning growth management indicators. Randy Kline
stated that he had tried ~o decide how 5o tackle the Comp Plan amendment
9
The commissioners and staff discussed a date for the public hearing. Todd McGuire asked about
the process. Randy Kline explained that the commission could hold the public hearing, close the
public heating, hold discussion, and make its recommendation all at the same meeting.
Pat Rodgers amended the motion to hold the public hearing on September 5. The amended
mot/on canted unanimously.
Todd McGuire moved that the rVhaz [Secord] public heating be held on September 5 as well.
Derek Thompson seconded the motion which carfled unanimously.
E. ADJOURNMENT
Tom McNemey invited public comment.
Mark Rose referred to the Tri Area sub-area planning process. He urged the Planning
Commission and staff both to develop guidelines for citizen committees in sub-m'ea planning.
He thought we should consider that we were asking citizens who had never been through such a
process, who possibly did not know about that kind of planning, and who had no guidelines to do
the planning. He wanted documentation about the process that would answer questions when
people raised them. Examples were when people other than committee members asked for
documents and when questions were raised about what the planning group could or could not do.
He thought it put a planning gn-oup at a disadvantage to not have clear guidelines. Mr. Rose
stated that. also, to come to a plan that was acceptable to the ~m'oup, the community, the Planning
Commission, and that had a good chance of being enacted and was in compliance really needed
some kind of guidelines. Mr. Rose suggested that the Jefferson 2000 survey contained a very
good section on planning which might act as a basis for such guidelines. He suggested that it
might be appropriate to come to an agn'eement on the vision first and then to delegate
responsibility for the different elements of the plan. He suggested that a cost benefit analysis
may be appropriate. He thought it would be good that at some break point the sub-area group
appear before the Planning Commission to provide a checkpoint on how the process was going.
He thought there should be some hard and fast rules addressing such things as attendance. If
there was a conflict of interest, such as on a land use issue, it should be stated. Mr. Rose
encouraged the staffand the commission to develop guidelines. He thought it would result in a
better plan, the commumty would find it very helpful, and they would understand government
better. Also, he thought a plan would have a better chance of being in compliance.
Todd McGuire asked whether staff could put a piece in the Scope of Services to address the
suggested guidelines. Tom McNemey commented that what had been suggested was probably
what had been done in most cases, lie thought we should be careful about what we added to the
Scope of Services.. Randy [dine stated that he had some ideas, suggesting that perhaps the
county could develop some sort of by-laws for sub-area planning groups to provide a slructure.
Mr. K_line stated that the Btinnon process was good. but it could be used to improve the process
for the other sub-area plans.
Michelle Seandoval stated that was part of why she suggested a Short Course on Planning include
the sub-area planning ~oups. She referred to handouts about the process fi.om Tim McMahan
and David Alvarez received during the last Comp Plan amendment process. Tom McNemey
suggested that Ms. Sandoval provide those documents to staff for distribution to the Planning
Commission. Randy Kline stated that the difference now was that we had the UDC which laid
out a specific process. From his point of view. Mr. Kline thought there was more guidance than
was available during the last amendment cycle in tm'ms of the specific findings the Planning
Commission must make and what the commission needed to base its decisions on. Mr. Kline
stated that the last amendment cvcle was based on broad Comp Plan policy language which
made the process difficult. Ms. Sandoval agreed that there was a process laid out in the UDC.
However, at the same nme. it did not talk about specific corox cases. Mr. Kline stated that the
county would sponsor a Short Course on Planning when the plmming groups were formed.
Mark Rose asked that the sub-area plans have the same status as the Comp Plan and be required
to follow the same guidelines. Tom McNerney pointed out that a sub-area plan would be an
amendment to the Comp Plan. Mr. McNerney pointed out that a sub-area plan must be in
compliance with the GMA but not necessarily with the Comp Plan. Randy Kline offered the
opirfion ttmt generally the B~Snnon sub-area plan was consistent with the Comp Plan. Michelle
Sandoval stated that it depended upon at what point the BOCC took from the "land bank".
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
These minutes have not been approved before posting to this web site. They are scheduled to be
approved at an August meeting of the Planning Commission. The Jefferson County Department
of Community Development can provide more information on the status of these minutes.
Thomas McNemey, Chair
Che~Tl Halvot~on. Secretary
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Rose [eaglel@eaglecottage.coml
Monday, August 06, 2001 9:29 PM
Kirie Pedersen
FW: rumors
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:eaglel@eaglecontage.com]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 9:25 PM
To: Tom McNerney
SubjecT: rumors
August 6, 2001
Tom:
I heard about the threats, intimidation, harassment and other underhanded tactics
employed by some in Brinnon against those who don't agree with them. Now I see it. A few
weeks ago George Sickel tried to discredit Kirie by leaving a message on A1 Scalf's
machine saying that she was running a B & B (not true Now I hear that you are spreading
rumors that I am a paid outside agitator. I haven'T heard that kind of McCarthy-like
tactic since the days of Nixon. If I didn't know how serious you were, I'd say that you
were'joking.
A little backgroundi I first came to the Pacific Northwest when I was 18. I worked
for the U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, for seven years, au The Mt. Baker
and Okanogan National Forests. For five years I was on an interregional, initial attack
"Hotshot" fores~ fighting crew. For Ewo years I was on a helicopter attack ~Helitack
crew an the smokejumper base in Twisp. Every year without fail, we came to the Olympic
Peninsula no fight fires, t can remember being dispaEched oum of the Quilcene Ranger
Station. Perhaps I helped stop a fire that could have threatened your land.
I developed strong and abiding friendships in the Northwest and returned here o~ten.
When I met Kirie I convinced her to move to California temporarily ~o help me run my
business. We returned to Pulali Point every slx weeks and snayed for a week or two a~ a
time, working from here. Finally, Feb. 1, we made the leap and moved here full time. As
you know, Kirie was born and raised here, and her parenns are modern day Brinnon pioneers
and educators in local schools.
I'm glad to be here. I love it here. My only disappointment is the ugly rumors,
the imperiousness of those who think they speak for everybody, and the marglnalization of
anybody with differenn ideas. I guess I expected more decorum and better judgement from
the Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Nothing personal, Tom, but there is no way you can render an impartial decision on
the Brinnon sub-area plan when it comes before the Planning Coramission. I am going no
submit that you be recused from that decision. And, please, no more rumors. They speak
more ill of you than of me.
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.brinnonplan.com
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
_Bud and Val Schindler rschindler~olympus.net]
Tues.da¥, April 24, 2001 11:43 AM !
Mark Rose
George Sickel
Re: Responsibility Matdx
Hi Mark,
I appreciate your willingness to help and we very much so need it.
Perhaps I don't fully appreciate the advantages of being an active group
member. The first advantage I see is that I can respond Eo an issue/remark
during a meeting. However, until recennly, anyone could do the same. There
was a lot of camaraderie and respect between acEive members and those that
were not so active. It was only after some recent evenEs that we felt we
had 5o change our ways and adhere to the public comment period. However, if
you team up with an active member and wane to join in the discussion related
to what you are responsible for, I'm sure you will be welcomed Eo do so.
This will, I'm sure, lead no your being recognized as a respondant in other
areas. Humbleness overcomes adversities.
A/lother advantage of being a member occurs at the end of our process when we
vote for approval of our product. We do this as a group. But we muse have
consensus, that. Eo a greater ex~enn means that we muse have a public
consensus.% Several people are no~ direct members of our group bun do
I~a lot of time and-~ner---~y to w----~at we a-----re trying to do (e. g. Tom } ~
M., Pat R.)~~opie ~a5 onc~ were members tot some reason or anoth~£
have since decided Eo withdraw there membership or no be withdrawn besause
of lack ef attendance. Even though this may have occurred, if they now
attend and have semething ~o say, we listen.
Mark, I guess my recommendation is that you help us to develop our product
and by doing so, you will overcome the difficulties of the past. As this
takes place and we gain confidence that you are sincere, and if you still
choose, I suggest that you request that you be considered as a member. If
you request this aE tonight's meeting, I believe your request will be denied
because of the bylaws (rules for acE~ve membership) that have been approved
and followed. The reasons for these rules are that we have been meeting for
almosE two years now ,officially only a year and a half. and a lot has occur
red that would be difficult ~o be brought up to date on. However, as I said
earlier "so what"; you can still play an immense role in the developmenE of
our product and a ma]or pare of the follow-on acEivity which has not yet
been defined. We as a group have only about 3 months left to finish our
product and then we are done. Other groups will be organized no carry on
the follow-on effort.
.See ya tonight.
Bud
Original Message
From: "Mark Rose" <markrose@markrose.org>
To: "Bud and Val Schindler" <schindler@olympus.net>
Cc: "Kirie Pedersen" <kiriep@jupltercity.com>; "George Sickel"
<GKPROFSVC@TSCNet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 8:40 ~%M
SubjecE: RE: Responsibility Matrix
> Bud (cc:George, Kirie):
> Here's my position: I can help with the plan. I've had a lot of
experience
> with putting these sorss of things together. However, I need to be part
of
> the ~roup, get the same emails everybody gets, with an open process. As I
> told George, whateve~ I have to say I will now keep within the community.
> The objecs, I believe, is noE just to meet a deadline, but 5o come up with
a
> plan that has integrity and will withstand scruniny. I realize there will
be
> reslsnance - I've come to expect that. I'm doing my part not to exacerbate
> that resistance.
>
> If you look at the Blue Book - the first draft of the guidelines (later
> amended) talks about members of the group being given "elemenss" of the
plan
> that they are responsible for. Then they are expected 5o get broad
> community feedback on each element before including it in the final plan
> that then is presented to the community as a whole. That section of the
> Blue Book, I believe, was later revised and eliminated. It would have
been
> wise 5o keep it in.
>
> The object now, I believe, is to get a plan together ASAP, get feeback and
> "buy in" {or understand objections), from as broad a constituency as
> possible BEFORE public hearings. Otherwise, the way it's going now,
> considering the process mo date, and the curren5 consent, you will face
> serious challenges ~o what you present and there is a real danger of all
> this work to'date being for naught.
>
> These are my thoughts open 5o discussion.
>
> Mark
>
> ..... Original Message .....
> From: Bud and Val Schindler [mailto:schindler@olympus.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 8:34 AM
> To: markrose~markrose.org
> Cc: George Sickel
> Subjecs: Re: Responsibility Matrix
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> The Responsibility Matrix will be discussed at the meeting on Tuesday
n~ght.
>
> George and I have been talking about your invol%ement in some of the work
> and I'm for it. However, we should be prepared for some resistance. Our
> rebuttal would be that a5 least one active member of the group must also
be
> involved in any assigned task. If you see something that you'd like to
> volunteer (e. g. Brinnon RVC~ then do it. Lets watch and see what
happens,
>
> See ya there.
>
> Bud
>
>
->
>
> Original Message
> From: <markrose@markrose.org>
2
Mark Rose
Sent: Tuesday, June 05. 2001 4:39 PM
To: Mark Rose: Kate Marsh: Bud/Val Schindler
Subject: Re: Clarification of McNerney & Rogers role
Mark -
Tom and Pat were (the operative word is were not are)-listed on the cover page of our May
8th Pre-Draft Sub-area Plan as advisors.
We were not sure how to list them so we put them on as advisors on the May 8th version.
Whi~e reviewing the Pre-Draft plan in preparation for tonight's meeting, we (Kate, Bud and
I ) decided To remove Pat from the page
since he was not a member and move Tom into the other members section. ~ ~
I hope this answers your questions.
See you Eonight.
George
Original Message
From: "Mark Rose" <markrose~markrose.org>
To: "Kate Marsh" <kmarsh@waypoint.com>; "George Sickel" <GKPROFSVC@TSCNet.com>; "Bud/Val
Schindler" <schindler@olympus.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 10:52 AM
Subjecs: FW: Clarification of McNerney & Rogers role
Bud, Kate, George:
Would any/either of you care to acknowledge or respond to this inquiry?
Thank you.
Mark
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:markrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 10:13 PM
To: Linda Tudor
Cc: Josh D. Peters; Randy Kline; A1 Scalf
Subject: FW: Clarification of McNerney & Rogers role
Linda Tudor:
Can you please tell me when I might expect a reply to this inquiry?
Thank you.
Mark Rose
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:markrose@markr6se.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 11:43 PM
To: Linda Tudor
Cc: Josh D. Peters; Randy Kline; A1 Scalf
Subjecs: Clarification of McNerney & Rogers role
Linda Tudor:
I am seeking a clarificasion of the role of Thomas McNerney and Pat Rogers
on the Br±nnon sub-area Planning Group.
The firsn meenings I went to in February and March, Mr. McNerney was non
there. Then he aEEended 5wo meenings as a group member. He was not present
at the last meeting.
In the latest draft (May 8) of the Brinnon sub-area plan, he is listed as
"Advisor."
I seek clarification on three issues:
Is Mr. McNerney a member or "Advisor"?
If he is an Advisor, ran you tell me how he was chosen and whaE his role
Pat Rogers is also listed as Advisor. Can you tell me how he was chosen and
what his role is?
Thank you. I appreciate your assistance.
Best regards,
Mark Rose
Mark Rose
markrose~markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.brinnonplan.com
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
John Hynson [jrhynson@yahoo.com]
Friday, September 28. 2001 12:07 PM
Josh Peters; Bud and Val Schindler (E-mail); Chuck Finnila (E-mail); Dalila & John Dowd (E-
mail); Eleanor Sather (E-mail); George Sickel (E-mail); Jean Johnson via Beringers (E-mail);
Joy Baisch (E-mail); Kate Marsh (E-mail); Linda Tudor (E-mail); Mike Matthews (E-mail);
Start Johnston (E-mail)
Mark Personius (E-mail); Al Scalf; Shelly Testerman (E-mail); Philip Watness (E-mail);
Charles Saddler: Richard ~Vojt; Glen Huntingford; Dan Titterness; Brian Arthurs (E-mail);
Janet Welch (E-mail); Kirie Pedersen (E-mail); Leon & Marde Voetberg (E-mail); Lynnette
Antijunti (E-mail); Mark Rose (E-mail); Pat Rodgers (E-mail); Randy Johnson (E-mail); Sue
Perley (E-mail); Wayne Schlaefli (E-mail); Cheryl Halvorson: Randy Kline
My Thougts for the People in Brinnon
NO RESPONSE IS REQUESTED. DO NOT RESPOND!!!!!!!!
THIS IS SUBMITTED FOR
YOUR INFORMATION ONLY.
THIS IS SIMPLY MY IDEAS ABOUT THE BRINNON PLAN.
I WILL not RESPOND TO ANYONE
As you know by now I will be in Oklahoma for a few
weeks. Look for a flurry of activity by those members
that favor no growth in my absence. They will try to
stop slow and reasonable growth that benefits
Jefferson County using the following techniques:
(1) TIE UP THINGS WITH PROCESS MINUTIAE.
attention is placed on "process" then the product can
be ignored. Product is getting the Brinnon Plan before
the county commissioners in a timely manner This is a
veiled form of filibuster.
lfenough
(2) ASKING ENDLESS QUESTIONS. Another form of
filibuster mixed with misdirection of attention. Those
that favor no-growth wil use their approach of
thinly-veiled filibuster of asking questions about sub
paragraph, x. part y(2), sub part 2. last line,
shouldn't it read, "goat instead of chicken".
(3) "YOU SHOULDN'T ACT UNLESS YOU KNOW TO A
CERTAINTY" The only certain thing is death and taxes.
The underlying essence of these arguments is :that
unless you have perfect predictability don't do
anything at all". Another underlying and unspoken
assumption those that favor no growth use is to "why
bother" with the poor.
(4) RELY ON THE UDC They will say "the UDC is the
will of the people". Maybe of the pseudo-democrats,
but not any of the "people" that I have talked to.
(5) TRY TO GUT THE EXISTING BRINNON PLAN: f the
first four techniques fail they will try to try to
turn the Brinnon plan into a new UDC. This attempt
will take the following tack:
1
A.Removal of provisions that favor growth
B Addition of requirements that make growth difficult.
C. Placing fortune telling requirements before action
can take place
D. Adding very detailed/expensive requirements
GOOD JOB! I want to congratulate the people in Brinnon
for one of the best jobs I have ever seen technically
and legally. It is superb I STRONGLY encourage the
people in Brinnon to attend all meetings to watch this
process of attack take place and call them on it.
READ THE MINUTES CAREFULLY: Minutes have a softer and
more gentle slant to the non-controversial that is
reflected at the meeting. Specifically, getting a
straight answer out of Alvarez and the mess that
Harpole left us by rushing the UDC through as he drove
out of town. The comments and snickers of McGuire and
Sandoval about engineering and decommissioning and my
comments to them are also omitted.
P.s. Have a good time while I am gone. For Halloween,
should all dress up as democrats?
I ASKED ALVAREZ FOR A STRAIGHT ANSWER
ON WHAT SHOULD GO OUT AND HE IGNORED ME.
HE BASICALLY STATED TO FOLLOW THE BYLAWS.
SO FOR SAFETY DO NOT RESPOND
TO THIS BECAUSE I WILL IGNORE YOU.
.... do not forward to planning commission members ....
they have been ommitted from this list
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN HYNSON
E-Maih jrhynson@yahoo.com
Mail: P.O. Box 247. Port Townsend WA 98368
Office: 718 Washington Street Suite F, Port Townsend
Pager: (360) 379-7382 Office: (360) 385-5136
*REMEMBER E-MAIL IS FOR NON-SECURE TRANSMISSIONS ONLY*
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
15-/
Comments to the Board of County Commissioners. Jefferson County courthouse, ~'-'~
Monday, April 16, 2001, by Mark Rose
I first got involved in the Brinnon Sub-area planning process because of possible
plans for Camp Parsons that would include small and large-scale development. Camp
Parsons surrounds our property, which we live on full-time. My wife and in-laws have
been on this land for nearly 50 years and know it innmately. Any acnon on the Camp
Parsons land. as we have experienced in the past, affects us personally.
The first meetings of the Brinnon planning group that we attended in February,
were, frankly, shocking. There was no question and answer period, no documents were
presented to the public, chairs were not supplied for the public. Not only was the public
not involved in the meeting, we were barely acknowledged and got the impression that
we were a nuisance and not welcome.
Apparently, many other people in the community were also upset about this
situation. E-mails to Community Planning about our concerns were forwarded to the
Chair of the Sub-area group without our consent or knowledge. Yet, when we asked to
see emails from the group, we were denied.
We asked to see drafts of the sub-area plan and we were denied. It was stated by
the Chair of the group that thev did not want "misunderstandings" with the community,
so they would work on the plan themselves and then have public comment '-'-"'-'-I
Both County Commissioners Dan Titterness Glen Huntingford, acknowledged
that as a government organization, the sub-area group needed to show us the documents
they were working on. We were assured that they would talk to the Chairperson Linda
Tudor, about this. Again, on March 28 we sat there for two hours while the group ,I
discussed a plan that it refused to share with the public ~
Finally, a member of the committee sent me a copy of the plan. The plan was
spare in most parts but paid detailed attention to a Master Plan Resort (MPR) that they
pro pose be built at Black Point, near land owned by Linda Tudor, and Chuck Finilla, the
proposed developer and joint owner with Tudor of several pieces of property.
Hotels. restaurant, lounge/bar, pharmacy and drug store, business offices, bus
station, townhouses/condominiums, multi-family dwellings, conference center, medical
and dental clinics, are all "envisioned" near the current location of Settler's Real Estate,
the business of Linda Tudor.
In February, 1997, Linda Tudor lobbied Representative Norm Dicks to construct
a new post office and move the town of Brinnon to her land. approximately 2.2 miles
from its current location.
In November. 1999, the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team commented on
proposed amendments to the Comp Plan from rural residential to Neighborhood/Visitor
Commercial Crossroad near Linda Tudor's land. The agency stated that this action:
"may have adverse impacts on surrounding critical areas, including fish and wildlife
habitat, steep slopes, and water quality." It declared that these were "fragile ecosystems.
The increase in impervious surfaces, higher density, and run-offgenerated by commercial
parking areas could have impacts on aquanc species. Site-by-site evaluation may not
suffice to address the cumulative impacts ora new area."
Both Chuck Finnilla and Linda Tudor are familiar with this report, yet it does not
appear in the sub-area plan. for that would endanger their plan for a marina, hotel,
seaplane dock and golf course at Black Point.
The Navy is very concerned about the proposed Black Point development, for
obvious national security reasons. PUD is concerned, for the salt water seepage into
wells and to 700,000 gallons of water a day it takes to maintain a golf course Several
other organizations and property owners are very concerned - yet they were not informed
or consulted in the planning process.
On April 10 the 10 people who showed up were again denied documents at the
Brinnon meeting. At that meeting, I read a statement into the record addressing my
concerns and asking Linda Tudor and Chuck Finnilla to resign for clear and obvious
conflicts of interest. I sent a copy of the statement to the County Commissioners. One
Commissioner, Dan Titterness, responsed.
Mr. Titterness dismissed these assertions as being "irrational and foolish,"
"obstructionism and detrimental to the health and welfare of the environment the sense of
community and the economy." I have a great respect for the office of County
Commissioner and I would urge Mr. Titterness to take care in the language he uses to
address his constituents. ~"=_'.~ .. ' . · a .... , , , _~_--:..,__ ~>
Two days after the il 1 eetl , I have reason to believe that the Brinnon
sub-area group ~ violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a secret meeting
to address public testimony. This is consistent with a pattern of non-compliance, and an
attitude of public-be-damned, eo~,~,-r}
Based on previou, Is~o not have confidence that the County Commissioners will
take responsibility for the debacle in Brinnon. As I mentioned to Mr. Titterness I will
now rely on other sources to make sure that the people of Brinnon are not robbed of
ethical, responsible planning that adheres to the law-. the desires of the community, and
respects our natural resources. ##
Mark Rose
Subject:
FW: Statement to Brinnon Planning Group
..... Original Message .....
From: Dan Titterness [mailto:dtitterness@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 9:50 AM
To: 'Mark Rose'
Cc: A1 Scalf; David Alvarez; Glen Huntingford; Josh Peters; Richard
WojE; Randy Kline
Subjecu: RE: Statemenu Eo Brinnon Planning Group
Mark,
For Clarification: The decision to review the Sub-area planning
process would not be a specific assessment of the activities of the Brinnon
Sub-area plannning group, but a review of the process we have previously
defined for any such group. This review would not begin until there was an
action by the BOCC and that review and would likely be done by the
prosecuting aEEorney's office.
Thanks,
Dan Tlt~erness
-Original Message .....
Prom: Mark Rose [mailto:markrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 3:52 PM
To: Dan Titterness
Cc: Wayne G. King; Walt Parks; Tom McNerney; Todd McGuire; Shelly
TesEerman; Pete/Debbie Siefert; Mike Matthews; Hurl Winjum; Michelle
Sandoval; Kate Marsh; John Lockwood; Janet Welch; Freida Fenn; George
Sickel; Josh Peters; Randy Kline; Richard Wojn; Glen Huntingford; A1
Scalf
Subject: RE: Statement ~o Brinnon Planning Group
Dan,
Thank you for your response. In reference to your email: when will you
undertake a review of the Brinnon sub-area planning process and what form
will that review take? I would be glad to assist any way I can. I am sure
that many people in the community would appreciate that initiative. I
suggest that you and perhaps the other Commissioners come to Brinnon and
have a Town Hall sorz of meesing and encourage people Eo participaze openly
and freely. This way you can get a first hand feel for how the process is
actually going. We can promoEe this through flyers and word-of-mouth and on
the web. I am sure that we would have a good 5urnouE and it would be a
positive move in the right direction. I am encouraged by your response.
Best regards,
Mark
..... Original Message .....
From: Dan Titterness [mailto:dtitterness~co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 2:29 PM . ~.
To: 'Mark Rose'
Cc: A1 Scalf; Glen Huntingford; Richard Wojt; Randy Kline; Josh Peters
Subjecs: RE: Statement uo Brtnnon Planning Group
Mark,
To "excuse" people of t'he community who have been leaders in the
planning process from participating in that process and then ask that the
process be inclusive is a contradictory statement. SurelY you or anyone who
i.s~.a member of the Brinnon commu~t~y should have access ~o documents
currently under discussion and we the {BOCC) may review the sub-area
~l'~N~%ng process, b-~Z~an attack on a process which has been public
from the gi't-go is obstructionism and detrimental to the health and welfare
of the environment the sense of community and the economy. Documents that
are brought up for discussion should be available in their current form.
References to other documents that have been previously issued in another
form are merely a part of the discussion like any_other reference to data
whether available in printed form or not. NotiCe has been given for all
interested parties from the beginning and to suggest otherwise is both
irrational and foolish. It is always valuable for members of the coramunity
to join the process and assist in the formulation of community plans; to be
unwilling to understand and accept the work of those who preceded you is
extremely detrimental. This would be a parallel to the county commissioners
throwing out the comprehensive plan and starting over. Something that I
would not support unless there was left no other alternative; though I have
watched previous commissions do exactly that. Suffice it to say that I don't
support throwing away the work of the hardworking-dedicated people of
Brinnon on short notice and without agreement of the existing sub area,
planning group.
Please work with your community,
Dan Titteness
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:markrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 11:19 PM
To: Jerry Gorsline; A1 Scalf; Bud/Val Schindler; Carla Schuck; Dan
Titterness; Freida Fenn; George Sickel; Gigi Glen; Glen Huntingford;
Janet Welch; John Lockwood; Kirie Pedersen; Michelle Sandoval; Murl
Winjum; Randy Kline; Richard Wojt; Shelly Testerman; Ted Labbe; Todd
McGuire; Wayne G. King
Subject: Statement ~o Brinnon Planning Group
Mark Rose public commen~ to Brinnon Community Planning Group, Tuesday, April
10, 2001, Brinnon School
The Growth Management Act clearly articulates the process for creating a
county-wide comprehensive plan and local sub-area plans. Tribes, government
agencies, businesses, proper5y owners and other affected and interested
individuals muse be notified and included.
To my knowledge, S'Klallam Tribal Council, which has jurisdiction mn this
area, District 3 PUD, Hood Canal Coordinating Council, U.S. Navy, Department
of Ecology and several directly affected property owners had no idea of the
plans or process of this group before we personally informed them in the
lash few weeks.
Several members of the original Brinnon Community Planning Group have
ssopped participating since they feel that their voices are not being heard.
The last meeting I saE here for uwo hours while this group discussed a draft
of a sub area plan that it refused no share with us. This ms non what I
call community participa5zon. To quote the Open Meetings Act:
"The people, in delegatin~ authority, do no~ give their public servants the
right 5o decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for
them to kncw. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may
retain control over the instruments they have created."
The Comprehensive Plan also states that the planning process begins with a
v~s~on. In the'curren5 draft of the sub-area plan we see that vis~on.
Condominiums, a business park, drug snore and~many other services are
envisioned around Settler's Real Estate, owned by Linda Tudor, ~he
chairperson of this committee.
Survey after survey of residents has shown that we want' to retain the rural
naEure of the area and we don't want big, high-impacE development. Yet, the
vision of the chairperson persists; along with the vision' of the potential
resort developer, Chuck Finilla, who, ironically, is responsible for putting
together the area's economic plan.
The comp plan also specifies identification of critical areas of geography
and habitat, and 5o account for these important natural resources in the
planning process. Obviously, this has no5 been done in any detail. I
suspecE that doing that would interfere with a yacht club, seaplane dock,
Increased use of a helipad and conference center at Black Point. PUD, if
they were consulted, would have real questions about the million gallons of
waner a day it takes to maintain a golf course and potential for saltwater
seepage into waner systems.
Brlnnon deserves a real plan - one that involves the community, respects our
nanural resources, creanes jobs that help our youth acquire the skills
necessary to compete in today's job market, and strikes a balance between
our natural rural character and appropriate growth. After coming to several
of these meetings, I seriously doubt whether this group, in its curren5
surucnure, can develop such a plan.
Therefore, I recommend the following:
Linda Tudor should be excused from this committee. She has a clear and
obvious conflict of interes5, and that is reflected in the plan.
Chuck Finilla should be excused from this commi5nee. He has all the rights
of a naxpayer and property owner and he should be encouraged to advocate for
his plan. However, to allow him no draft the plan for the economic
developmenE of Brinnon is, frankly, ludicrous. He has a clear and obvious
conflict of interest.
The counny should step in to rescue this process. Immediate and intensive
outreach should include groups that have been shut out. A facilitator
should be brought in Eo conducn meetings that are "inclusive" rather than
"exclusive." If decisive action is taken now, together we can develop a
plan for Brinnon that truly reflects the desires of the community and is in
compliance with the Growth Management Act and the 3efferson County
Comprehensive Plan.
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
Janua~ 20 2000
-- = = = I-
JAN
Dudng our 3"~ Bnnnon Ccmmunity Planning Meeting, several planning members decided to
bring up their own ~oliticai issues pnor to adjournment, and once adjourned ~hey continued to
~rum up additional support.
The folloV~ng morning, I contacted several ortner community planning members, and they too
disliked that unfortunate situation.
! would, therefore like to propose one very basic and essential ground rule. That no personal
or 13otit~c__~l issues be ~dc~re$$c:~J before, during o¢ after the Brinnon Community Planning
Mooings The ~cugt~t of any impropriety or the appearances thereof, only undefTnines I~e
task at hand. Anyone who breaks ~is rule from this data on W~ll resign his or her committee
memDershlip.
I hope for your support in ~s matter. Thank you.
~,,~qth ~ast regards.
Sincerely,
Eleanor J. ,SaWer · Brinnon Community Planning Committee Member · Phone 3~0.796.4411
(Fax) 360.79~ 3556 · E.mail: nfck~_ whil~e¥~ardens.ccm · Web site under cons-'a-uction
P.S. was very pleased to see this meeting attended by 8-new community residence.
Hopefully Weir interest witi ~nldnue.
Letter: Not so thst on Brinnon, commissioners
Page 1 of 2
Wednesday May 23, 2001
Vol. 112 No. 21
Letter: Not so fast on Brinnon,
commissioners
Editor. Leader:
Comments by Commissioner Dan Tittemess and County Administrator Charles Saddler in last
week's Leader are cynically presumptuous and insulting to the people of Brinnon By amending
the county comprehensive plan_ Titterness and Saddler aim to eliminate any obstacles to more
intensive rural development and the building of a big resort at Black Point. before the community
decides what it wants.
The Brinnon sub-area plan as it now stands is barely 20 percent complete Critical elements -
vision, implementation and monitoring, land use. natural resources, environment, public and
capital facilities - have hardly been addressed. The broad community has yet to see the plan or
have significant input.
Two weeks ago, fish habitat biologists and water use specialists came to Brinnon to discuss
salmon recovery and other issues concerning Hood Canal and our rivers. They are not aware of
development plans nor have they had input into potential environmental i~npact of large-scale
development.
Titterness and Saddler are maneuvering to circumvent the Growth Management Act (GMA)
while mocking the community planning process. This may' fulfill a campaign promise to special
interests, but it also feeds the resentment and isolationism alreadv prevalent in Bfinnon.
One of the few cheering these moves is undoubtedly the proposed developer He has plans for 21
one-acre homesites on Black Point and has reportedly sold memberships to a golf course he
"anticipates opening in 2001," according to his website He is also planning a 290-room hotel
with three locations, conference center, health club tennis courts and in a brilliant
meteorological i~at. fictitious weather that is "mild throughout the 5'ear. Highs in the 80s and
lows in the 40s."
Two months ago I wrote to the Leader and challenged the commissioners to come to Brinnon to
hear firsthand the desires and concerns of the community. Now I know why they never accepted
the challenge. Thev have already decided what is best for the south county.
MARK ROSE
ht,tp://www.ptleader, corn/opinion; 0105231etternotsofaston271 .htm 9/19/01
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Frank G~ffo(r3di~)u~:~ ~6or~s Director
TO:
MEMORANDL~I
Al Scal£, Director
Department of Community Development
Frank Gilford, Director
August 9, 2001
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
Brinnon Sub-Area Plan
tn the process of conducting the Non-Motorized Plan and the update of the Parks & Recreation Plan. the
Department reviewed elements of the Draft Brinnon Sub-Area Plan to look for consistency betweeh the
various plans.
In reviewing the Draft Brinnon Sub-Area Plan for consistency., we noted several other areas of the
Brinnon Sub-Area Plan that are or'concern as outlined in the attachment. The attachment ~s not intended
to be a thorough and comprehensive review, as other concerns may arise during subsequent reviexvs as
appropriate.
Public Works is not aware of the schedule or process as to when government agencies (including the
County, Washington State Department of Transportauon. and others l will be included in the process as
the Plan moves tbr-,,vard to adoption bv the Board oFCounty Commissioners. The Department conducted
th~s review specifically, for the purpose of cons~stencv with the N. on-Motorized' and Parks & Recreation
Plans.
Please let me know of any Public Vv'orks involvement that you tbresee in the Bnnnon Sub-Area Plan
process that your Department is managing.
Attac hmen t
Cc: TPI491
~O0°/o =~ec'~c:ec =acer
Brinnon Community Plan Comments
Transportation Element
Goal 5.0 Park and ride facility
The Plan commits the Public Works Department to coordinanng the development ora
ipark and nde facility in Brinnon. Constructing a park and ride facility should be
considered in relation to other County transportation system priorities. No funding
sources for this facility are identified ~n the Transportation Element or in the Capital
Facilities Element, This issue should be discussed with the Public Works Department
prior to inclusion in the Plan.
Goal 6.0 SR 101 emergency by-pass
The Plan commits the Public Works Department to coordinating the development of a
by-pass road. This project should be considered in relation to other County transportation
system priorities. The potential for a closure ofSR 101 and expenses related to the by-
pass should be considered prior to making a commitment to this project, No funding
sources for this facility are identified in the Transportation Element or in the Capital
Facilities Element. This issue should be discussed with stakeholders including the
Brinnon community. Jefferson County Public Works. WSDOT. U.S Forest Service. and
Mt. Jupiter Road landowr~ers.
Utilities Element
Solid Waste Utilities
The Plan should include a statement that garbage pickup is available fi.om Murray's
Olympic Disposal.
Future Objective
The transfer station in Brirmon ~vas eliminated due to cost considerations. This issue
should be discussed xvith the Public Works Department prior to inclusion in the Plan.
Capital Facilities Element
The Growth Management Act requires that the Capital Facilities Element (CFE) include a
plan to fund proposed capital facilities. The CFE commits Jefferson County to establish a
park and ride facility, commumtv center, county park. solid xvaste transfer station, and
visitor center. With the exception of a reference to tourism funds to finance a visitor
center, there is no discussion of revenue sources to fund these facilities. This issue should
be addressed in the Plan.
Mark Rose
~5' ~' Page 1 of 1
From: Paula Mackrow [wildwood@olympus.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 9:30 AM
To: linda@cbsettlers.com
Cc: hs'calf@co.jefferson.wa.us: jpeters@co.jefferson.wa.us: Mark Rose
Subject: Request to review the Brinnon Sub-area Plan
Linda,
I understand that a formal request to you is necessary to acquire a copy of the current version of the
Brinnon Sub-area Plan. This plan has been discussed without reference to specific substance by local
officials and in the local media. As a salmon recovery professional working on the Hood Canal Lead
Entity advisory committee I hope I can offer substantive comment through a thorough review of the
working document
The salmon recovery strategy for Hood Canal Lead Entity is based largely on the regional significance
of the rivers and shorelines of the Brinnon area including the Dosewallips and Duckabush rivers, their
floodplains and estuaries, in addition to the adjacent marine shoreline Many of us active in the salmon
recovery process are therefore interested in the development of the Brinnon Sub-Area Plan and would
like to participate in the planning eflbrt Our efforts to provide assessment and project funding for
habitat restoration m this area will benefit from a review of the plan at this nme.
Thank vou.
Paula Mackrow, Executive Director
North Olympic Salmon Coalition
P.O. Box 699
Port Townsend WA 98368
360 379-8051
9/19/01
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ted Labbe [tlabbe@pgst.nsn.us]
Wednesday, June 13. 2001 9:39 PM
linda@cbsettlers.com
Marry Ereth; Mark Rose
request to review the Brinnon Sub-area Plan
Linda:
My name ~s Ted Labbe and I work as a habitat biologist with the Port
Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. As the Brinnon area supports truly significant
fish. wildlife, and shellfish populations that local Indian Tribes
depend on. and given that the deleterious effects of development can and
does compromise such populations. I am formally requesting a review of
the Brinnon Sub-area Plan for our Tribe.
Hood Canal is home to two federally-recognized Indian Tribes the
Skokomish and Port Gamble S'Klallam tribes. Both Tribes have ~)een
involved in Ioca Growth Management Act planning efforts. Given the
regional significance of the rivers and shorelines of the Brinnon area
(Dosewallips and Duckabush rivers and their floodplains and estuaries,
in addition to the adjacent marine shoreline) both are interested in the
outcome of the Brinnon Sub-Area Planning effort. We would appreciate
having a thorough review of the Plan.
-Ted Labbe
Ted Labbe
Habitat Biologist
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
31912 Little Boston Road
Kingston. WA 98346
PH: 360-297-6289
FAX:360-297-4791
He looked lovingly into the flowing water, into the transparent green,
into the crystal lines of its wonderful design He saw bright pearls
rise from the depths, bubbles swimming on the mirror, sky blue reflected
~n them. The river looked at him with a thousand eyes - green, white.
crystal, sky blue. How me loved this river, how it enchanted him. how
grateful he was to it! In his heart he heard the newly awakened voice
speak, and it said to him: "Love this river, stay by it. learn from it."
...It seemed to him that whoever understood this river and its secrets,
would understand much more. many secrets, all secrets.
Hermann Hesse
"Siddhartha"
Josh Peters
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Josh Peters
Thursday, March 01,2001 5:56 PM
Bud and Val Schindler (E-mail); Chuck Finnila (E-mail); Dalila Dowd (E-mail); Eleanor Sather
(E-mail); George Sickel (E-mail); Joe and Joy Baisch (E-mail); Kate Marsh (E-mail); Linda
Tudor (E-mail); Pat Rodgers (E-mail); Ralph Anderson (E-mail); Tom McNerney (E-mail);
Wayne Schlaefli (E-mail)
Al Scalf; Randy Kline; Warren Hart
feedback from the Feb. 27 meeting
Greetings BPG members:
Since the meeting on Tuesday, we have been getting phone calls, emails, and visits from folks who feel that their voices
are being discounted in the current sub-area planning process. I imagine that many of you are already aware of the nature
of these other perspectives, but I thought it would De useful to share with you some excerpts from communication we've
received:
"What we found was that public comment was not only not encouraged, but was actively
discouraged."
"The meeting was conducted in a manner so as to discourage those community members who
attended.'
"[We] consider it the most poorly conducted meeting we have ever attended and I am really
ticked that so many people took the time to be there and were basically told that they
were not welcome."
"Encouragement to get involved' with the process [is] of little value: the 'process'
belongs to those who own land on Black Point."
"This is public process?"
"The citizens of Brinnon are like Third World citizens to be colonized by new immigrants
with money and land. They can be used for cheap labor, but best if they leave (this was a
comment someone made after the meeting--that Brinnon was like a South Seas island where
the 'missionaries' pose as locals to convert, then get rid of the 'welfare trash' that
live there.)"
Referringtothe Brinnon Planning Group: "Their response was that Brinnon people don't want to
work, don't know how to work, just want to live inexpensively, are taking up good space
along the waterfront in 'cheap' housing (but that can be taken care of with this re-
designation, we learned--just get the taxes raised and stick 'em in before they know
what's happened.)"
"When asked what they (the developers of the M?R) intend to return to the community, they
ex~ressed shock and surprise. Just by being there they improve the communityl"
"As for protection of aquaculture and shoreline, this was, of course, the fault of the
Indians. Huge developments along the waterfront, a new marina, and golf courses are the
only option for rural development now that 'the Indians' have ruined the shellfish
industry.·
"MPRs such as those envisioned by this committee, with seeming approval from
the County representative present, Mr. Hart, would ensure that Brinnon
becomes a desert in perpetuity, the exact opposite of the original intent2on
of the Growth Management Act."
."I hope that the so-called public hearing...will be held in a location where citizens can
actually sit down comfortably, be listened to, and participate."
· Both the MPR at Black Point and the future MPR az the present Camp Parsons
were presented as 'our' goals for Brinnon--when no one from Brinnon has
ever been heard nor was welcome to contribute."
"...the tone of the committee about those who already live in Brinnon was that they (we)
can be, basically, annexed into these MPRs. Then, if we can't afford the taxes or to pay
for the infrastructure for their developments, we can just leave. One gentleman on the
committee referred to tkis as 'Phase Two.'"
"I know many people in Brinnon, going way back. Yes, many live poorly, in
trailers or shacks. But they've chosen Brinnon because it's a rural place
they can afford to live. Many have disabilities; they don't 'not work'
because they don't want to. They worked, were injured, and some of them end
up here."
Regardless of your individual reaction to these criticisms, it is safe to say that the BPG has a public relations challenge at
this point. The decision to be made is how to respond. Here are some ideas to consider in the interest of initiating this
group discussion:
· Hold a public forum meeting soon to present the SAP and MPR concepts earlier than planned
· Make arrangements for the next meeting space to accommodate more guests comfortably (including people with
disabilities), so that people can be seated, can hear the proceedings, and are warm (the gym? re-arrange the library
set-up? a classroom? the Booster Club?)
· At the next BPG meeting (Tues., March 13), allow more time for public comment and note ideas presented by guests
for the record
· Advertise more effectively for meetings, including posters at key locations: post office, Brinnon store, senior center,
Booster Club
· Develop a survey instrument for the Brinnon community to be mailed to each address
· Mail a post card or letter briefly explaining the SAP process and soliciting ideas about how people would like Brinnon
to be in the future: community visioning
I encourage BPG members to discuss these ideas and others for handling this situation through email and phone
communication. Please let me know how I can help facilitate the process. We need to submit our meeting announcement
to the Leader newspaper by Friday (tomorrow) noon. Do we want to print a message that public participation is welcome
at the next meeting or that the agenda is full and public participation will be limited to 10-15 minutes? From what I've been
told, many Brinnon residents don't read the Leader, so perhaps it isn't essential what is printed next week. The decision
about how time will be used in the next meeting remains a decision to be made, however. We should anticipate mo['e than
the usual number of guests.
On another note: Deb Harper of USDA Rural Development is unable to make the March 27 meeting. She suggested April
24. Patrice Daylo is available April 24. Should we pencil them in for that date as guests? This change frees up March 27
for other agenda items. As suggested by George, I will write a message to the email crew soon summarizing the potential
nexus between the SAP and the USDA RD programs, so that we can craft specific questions for our guests to research
prior to their visit.
Please feel free to email or call me with questions or comments about these issues. My direct number at work is (360)
379-4466,
Regards,
Josh
******************************************************************
Josh D. Peters, Associate Planner
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368
Direct: (360) 379-4466, Main: (360) 379-4450, Fax: (360) 379-4451
http://www.co.jefferson.wa, us
L
JEFFERSON COUNT'Y
DE~T OF OOMMI_INI'TV OEVFLOPMFNT
2,'1ar. 4, 2001 MAR 0 7 200' "--
360-796, 4472
JEFFERSON t"r"i'N rY
Attn, Country Commissioners Voigt, Huntingford, Titterne~J?DOFCflMMrS$ION~R5
The ~Br innon ~ '
Co~nmunzty Meeting, held in the overcrowded
Bri~non School Library and classroom, was an insult to many
Brinnon citizens who attended, later heard about it.
As speakers were not clearly introduced to the audience,
they also did not speak clearly. Audience members seemed to
be insulting minority groups, the peer, Indians, those who
lived in isolation. No handouts were available.
The Changes in Land Use Density on Property in Brinnon,
owned by the Boy Scouts of America from Parks, Preserves, &
Recreation, border on our property. They also threat~ our
low wells in this neighborhood. Fire took our small cabin
in 1982 because we had little water pressure. In the 1930's
the entire forest area burned. Our great, scarred cedar, and
f~r stumps attest to this tragedy.
When my husband and his war-veteran buddies purchased
our waterfront in the late 1950's, we had no power. We
blasted rocks off the beach to built our cabin's foundation,
and sea-walls. Selling oysters kept us in cash. May we
note that many residents did their own building.
The Black Point Development shculd be carefully
analyzed as well, but Brinnon / citizens must be informed of
its value to all citizens.
Sincerely,
v'u~R~LYY ~. PEDERSE~
~rs. Jo~n V. Oedersen, and family
of six)
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ma rk Rose [ma rkrose@ ma rkrose, org]
Thursday, June 07 2001 4:41 PM
Kate Marsh; Tom McNerney: Bud Schindler: George Sickel
David Alvarez: Mark Personius: Linda Tudor: A Scalf; Josh Peters: Mark F~apozo
RE: Brinnon Plan
Importance: High
I have conferred with several officials, property owners and citizens and have been diligently working on the
WaWa Point section of the plan. Why was a copy g~ven to Lynette on May 8. and why won't you honor my
request? How can you selectively choose who sees nformation and when, especially when I am actively
working on the plan? How can I possibly discuss it with anyone if I/or they are not allowed to see it?
I am requesting clarification on this on the State level.
Either the Group or Mr. Alvarez needs to state the legal justification for regulating information according to
the whim of the Group.
Mark Rose
..... Original Message .....
From: Kate Marsh [mailto:kmarsh@waypoint.com]
Sent: Thursday, 3une 07, 2001 3:07 PM
To: Tom McNerney; Bud Schindler; George Sickel
Cc: Hark Personius; Linda Tudor; Al Scalf; .~osh Peters; Hark Rose
Subject: Brinnon Plan
George, Bud, and Tom:
Linda and I have discussed Mark Rose's request and have come to the same conclusion
as before: Anyone not a member of the Brinnon Community' Planning Group must
request documents from the countaT. \Vhen the BCPG has a draft to g~ve to Mark
Personius (by paper or electronic means) to work on it can then be made available to
others outside the planning group, as well. This per Josh, who conferred with Deput7
Proscuting Attorney David Alvarez and DCD Director A1 Scalf.
The last Sub-Area Plan version sent outside the BCPG was an electronic version sent to
Mark Personius on or about 4/16. After that, a Max- 8 version was gnven to I,vnnette to
refer to while working on the Cove Park/\VaWa Point information.
Regards,
Kate
10/6/01
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Wednesday, June 13, 2001 6:12 PM
Al Sca f
Mark Rapozo; Josh D. Peters: Mark Personius: Bud/Val Schindler; George Sickel
Officia Requests
Al:
Has the Brinnon sub-area plan been submitted to the county?
If not, do you know when it will be?
I am (again) requesting 5o see a draft copy of the plan now. If the group is continuing
to deny public access to the plan I am requesting to see the plan as soon as the county
receives it.
Have you set a date for public input into the plan?
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.brinnonplan.com
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Tuesday, April 10, 2001 10:48 PM
Glen Huntingford; Dan Titterness
Warren Hart; Al Scalf
Brinnon Group Non-compliance
Mr. Huntingford & Mr. Titterness:
About six weeks ago both of you called Kirie Pedersen to assure her that the Brinnon
Community Planning Group would be sharing documents with the community during its twice-
monthly meetings. This was after several futile attempts for us to get a copy of the
draft of the sub-area plan.
Last meeting the group again refused tO share documents with visitors. I took this up with
A1 Scalf and Warren Hart and they expressed similar concern, and they assured me that they
had a'talk with the group about this.
However, at the meeting tonight the sub-area group once again did not pass out copies of
their plan to the 10 people from the community who showed up at the meeting. As I
mentioned to A1 Scalf and Warren Hart, it is insulting and exclusionary for the group to
do that. Can you imagine going to a meeting and listening to people talk for two hours
and they won't share with you what they are talking about? When Mark Personius and Josh
Peters discussed documents they at least had the cournesy to hand oun copies to community
members, and actually solicit opinions from communiny members.
Can somebody intervene and open this process up?
Thank you.
Mark Rose
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Thursday, June 14. 2001 12:58 PM
Josh Peters: Mark Personius (E-mail); Linda Tudor (E-mail); Kate Marsh (E-mail)
Colette Kostelec: Jerry Gorsline: Marty Ereth: Janet Welch: Ron Hirschi: Glen Huntingford: Dan
Titterness: Richard Wojt; Al Scalf; David Alvarez: Mark Rapozo; Wayne G. King; Ted Labbe: Paula
Mackrow
RE: Sub Area Plan
Josh:
After several requests from Group members. Commissioners and the county, a draft of the Brinnon Sub-Area
Plan was finally made available to the public on March 6 Another draft was released on March 29. Lynnette
Antijunti a resident of Brinnon. was given a copy dated May 8.
Although I put in dozens of hours working on a section of the Plan, including interviewing several members of
the community, I was refused a copy of the Plan. The county is now refusing to let interested padies get
involved in development of the plan. What is the purpose of public comment if people cannot see what they
are supposed to comment on, as the plan develops? Is the Group supposed to spend 16 months in secret
deliberations and then let the community see what it has come up with? Are you sure that's what the Blue
Book. Comp Plan and GMA specify?
What is the policy for public access to drafts of the Plan? Can the Group selectively and arbitrarily decide
when it makes information public, and to whom?
I have asked for the legal and regulatory justification for this and have received no reply. I have also asked
for all drafts of the Plan currently in possession of the county, or contractors and consultants employed by the
county. I have received no reply. I have asked about the Group's compliance with The Open Meetings Act. I
have received no reply.
Mark
..... Original Hessage .....
From: Josh Peters [mailto:jpeters@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 10:44 AH
To: Hark Personius (E-mail); Linda Tudor (E-mail); Kate Harsh (E-mail); Hark Rose (E-mail)
Cc: Al Scalf; David Alvarez
Subject: FW: Sub Area Plan
Greetings:
Below is the response I sent to someone requesting the working draft of the Brinnon Subarea Plan.
This is my unaerstanding of the process and schedule at this point. Please let me know if my
understanding is flawed in some way.
Regards
Josh
..... Original Hessage .....
From: Josh Peters
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 10:39 AFl
To: 'Kings Hail'
10/6/01
Page 2 of 3
Cc: Richard Wojt; Al Scalf
Subject: RE: Sub Area Plan
Hello Wayne:
A preliminary draft of the Brinnon Subarea Plan is scheduled to be ready by June 26. The consultant
is in the process of editing and integrating various sections authored by individual Committee
members. Some of these sections have been discussed at the Tuesday meetings, while others have
not. The maps are also in the working stage. The Committee and and the Department of Community
Development plan to make the preliminary draft of the Plan available at the June 26 meeting.
The official draft of the Plan will be issued shortly thereafter, as the Committee may desire changes
based on discussion at the June 26 meeting. The official draft will be made available as far and wide
as the budget will allow including and especially at places of publ!c gathering in Brinnon. It was never
the intention of this Department orthe Committee to make the draft Plan available only in Port
Townsend. Where did you get that information? 'm curious...
After the official draft is released, the Board of County Commissioners will consider it and either
forward it to the Planning Commission for public testimony and their recommendation or send it back
to the Brinnon Subarea Plan Committee for further work. Thers will be a full public process before a
decision is made by the BOCC to adopt a Brinnon Subarea Plan.
When the preliminary draft is available I will email a copy to you When the official draft is published
and noticed in the Leader, wil mail a copy to you or you could come into town to pick it up. Let me
know if you have any more questions.
Regards,
Josh
Josh D. Peters. Associate Planner
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend WA 98368
Direct: (360) 379-4466. Main: (360) 379-4450 Fax: (360) 379-4473
http:/lwww, co .je ffe _r_s_9_n .w__a. us
..... Original Message .....
From: Kings Hail [mailto:kinghyd@olypen.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 9:16 AH
To: jpeters@co.jefferson.wa.us
Cc: Richard Wojt
Subject: Sub Area Plan
Hello Josh:
Having attended one (I wil be attending more often) Planning meeting at
Brinnon it was announced the plan will be available at the Court House in Port
Townsend. This plan should be made available to the PUBLIC in the
community without having to drive to Port Townsend to get one. When our plan
was done in Gardiner our Plan was available at our Community Center.
It appears to me that the PUBLIC is being left out on the dec'sions being
made in Brinnon Is this a wise thing to do???
I am interested in obtaining a copy of the Brinnon Sub area plan. I am the
10/6/01
Page 3 of 3
P.U.D Commissioner (District 3) for that area. I have heard that the PlOD will
be the Water purveyors for this area. I am newly elected and would like to be
brought up to speed. I have some concerns of the water quality (saltwater
intrusion) in that area
Will this letter be accepted for a request of documents or do I need to fill out
a request form?
Thank You
Wayne King Commissioner
Jefferson County
P.U.D #1 District#3
360-797-7491
www.jeffpud_org/
10/6/0
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:26 PM
Al Scalf
Josh D. Peters; George Sickel; Dan Titterness; Glen Huntingford; Richard Wojt; Walt Parks;
Pete/Debbie Siefert; Scott Wilson; David Alvarez; Mark Rapozo; Kate Marsh; Linda Tudor;
David Whipple; Todd McGuire; Michelle Sandoval; Todd McGuire
Freedom of Information
Can you explain the legal or regulatory justification for a group of citizens - appointed
by the county - arbitrarily witholding information? A copy of the sub-area Plan was given
to Lynnette Antijunti, a business owner in Brinnon. She is not a member of the Group. In
the five months I have been attending Brinnon Sub-area Plan meetings she has attended one
meeting. What is the justification for giving information to selective members of the
community, and not others?
I am again requesting a copy of the latest draft of the Brinnon sub-area plan. The
Brinnon Sub-area Group has consistently ignored and refused requests for documents for
residents of this community to aid in the planning process. What is the justification for
this?
This is a sritical juncnure in the planning process when the Group should be reaching out
to the communisy for involvement and input. Why is it allowed to ~ontinue 5o operase as a
semi-autonomous secret society that pushes away the public?
Mark Rose
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.br±nnonplan.com
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:13 AM
Al Scalf
Randy Kline; Josh D. Peters
Brinnon Sub-area Plan Meeting
A1:
The last meeting of the Brinnon sub-area plan was frustrating and disappointing. I sat in
the audience for two hours, listening to the group speak about a plan that they did not
share with us. If they want input and involvement from the community they are supposed to
serve then they need to open up. The community at large does not attend these meetings
because they are shut out and similarly frustrated. Would you attend a two hour meeting
where you were not given the document that was being discussed? Would you feel a little
foolish and perhaps insulted?
I have made requests of the Committee to see drafts of the plan they are working on. I
have not heard back. Do you have a policy on this?
Also, I do not doubt that Mark Personius is very capable, experienced and qualified. I do
not doubt that he can be very helpful in the planning process. However, we - taxpayers -
are paying his fee to work for a citizens committee that is working on a plan that
excludes the public or any public input as it goes through the drafting process.
I have reque~sted drafts of the plan from Bud Schindler of the Committee.
drafts of the plan and a copy of Mark's contract from Josh and Randy.
I have requested
I wanted mo keep you informed.
Thank you.
Mark
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
FAX: 888-733-4866
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I I I
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Thursday, May 24, 2001 3:13 PM
Josh D. Peters; Randy Kline
documents
Randy:
I would like to see copies of all drafts of the Brinnon sub-area plan, all elements of the
plan, sections, or any piece of the plan that is distributed to members of the BSAP or
community members who are working on the plan. I would like to see drafts as they are
produced.
Can you please convey this request to whoever might be in charge of dissemination of
information.
Thank you very much.
Mark
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.brinnonplan.com
Josh Peters
t-'age Iot I
From: Walter C Parks [wparks@jupitercity.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:55 AM
To: Josh Peters
Subject: Brinnon Plan
I agree with others in the community that the response time to this plan be extended so that the significant
disagreements with it can be adequately addressed. This is not a "plan." It is a co-ordinated attempt by realtor-
developers to rezone as much land commercial as possible so they can sell and move out of the area and/or get
the County to OK future unregulated commercial sprawl with little oversight as to the environment or the pre-
existing rural village culture. The basic idea is to paint a picture that we are m dire need and thus must have the
County step in and encourage commercial growth in the area. The issues are far more complex and are not
adequately addressed due to idee fixe of the authors of the plan and lack of outreach to anyone who has
additional viewpoints. The fact is a large number of people have located i~ this area entirely for the reasons that
the plan finds so disturbing, ie., to live in a rural village setting as it now exists. In many cases due to age or
disability these are the very people who do not wish to participate in a political agenda-driven plan, but who wil
be most adversely affected due to the inevitable tax and bond increases to support the commercial build-out.
Further, those who clamor for restaurant/golf/commercial venues often are not full-year residents to adequately
patronize these enterprises. The PT Leader quotes the new owner of The Old Alcohol Plant as saying golf
couses do not make money; you make it on the condos around it. He also says food service is a tough business
and comments on prior unsuccessful restaurants at that location. Local folks often do their shopping out of the
area due to wholesale buying opportunities. The existing family-owned businesses in Brinnon survive by filling a
key niche role, heavily dependent on the summer tourist trade. If the proposed commercial development in the
plan proceeds, inevitably these local businesses which I as a full-year resident rely on will not survive. This
means the County is sponsoring a major shif in the economic focus and rural culture of Brinnon and this
proposition demands careful and serious consideration. Please allow the response time to this plan to be
extended at least until the end of August.
Walt Parks, 100 Seal Rock Road, Brinnon
8/14/01
Re: Community Involvement in the Brinnon Planning Process
6.5.0l
I feel sad when l see others attacked and called names.
Last week. I invited my Mom and Dad to a Democratic meeting held in Brinnon. Because of distance and
the times of meetings held in Port Townsend and Hadlock. my parents and other Democrats in Brinnon
never get to attend such meetings. My mother had a mini-stroke last week. and was just out of the hospital,
but I expected the meeting to be open and friendly and thus trusted that my parents would be sate.
The Democratic meeting disintegrated into a pre-planned attack coordinated by members of this Brinnon
sub-area planning group. Although the meeung was not planned to discuss land use, many in town were
warned ahead of time bv Linda Tudor. chairperson of this committee, of her intent to disrupt the meeting
by discussing the proposed master planned resort at Black Point and increased commercialization of
Brinnon.
I've never been against increased and improved commercial development in Black Point and downtown
Brinnon. 1 do feel protective of my own neighborhood and of the creatures and people who live here.
mostly retirees, as well as the Scouts and Shellfish [Jab We've managed to be neighbors in harmony for
more than halfa century.
From the start. I've failed to understand why some members of the planning committee are hostile to
members of the community who attend meetings. If this plan represents the community; well. *I'm* a
member of the community, and so are others who question parts of the plan. So why should Ibe treated
with hostility and rudeness? 1 don't get it.
One member of this group stated that I arrived "at the eleventh hour" and "expected to be part of the
group." For seven years. I was in a daze of full-time work. my late husband's prolonged illness from
cancer,' and raising a small child safely to adulthood. Now I'm helping care for m.~ parents. As do others, [
feel as ifI stumbled into a mine field, aud I didn't even know there was a war.
Although some members of this committee have appeared to reach out. the general lack of respect for
different points of view never fails to astound me. How can a committee claim to represent the community
when they deliberately disrupt community discussion, ostracize those with dilq~'erent opinions, or make
written threats to county employees that they wilt lose their jobs if they thil to provide for individual
interests by some m this group?
It has been claimed that my husband and I provide only negativity and negative press. How
about when Republicans attend a Democratic meeting, then send their "minutes" and "report" to the
Peninsula Daily News?
I, as well as others from this community, approached the BSAP group because the Planning Office
suggested we attend This is the community where my family and I have spent our lives. Mv mother held
Ruth Mueller in her arms as Ruth (and her husband and youngest daughter, my sister's best friend) died
from a terrible car accident on Highway 101. leaving the remaimmz three children orphans.
This is my birthplace. These are my roots. My parents and I have dedicated our lives to working for those
unable to advocate for themselves as the result of poverty, unemployment, or injury. Though derided as an
outsider, Mark Rose saved lives and risked his own for seven years as a forest firefighter for the State of
Washington: he always intended to return once able to afford it. Two years ago, he did so. Thus, he's no
more an outsider than some of those who publicly attack him. individuals who vacationed or visited, and
determined to return.
When individuals use abusive tactics to make their point, it's called *abuse.* Bullies and tyrants--abusers--
most often practice these tactics ~n privacy and secrecy. To the world, they reveal their smiling face and
charm. In these conditions, normal and open communication does indeed fail. Unfortunately, legal
recourse then becomes the sol e solution.
I've never written secret letters to try to get someone fired. I've never circulated anonymous documents.
nor requested anyone else to do so. I've never sent fake repons to the press pretending to be someone I'm
not Indeed. I have a copy ora letter I sent to Ms. Tudor years ago,,offering to assist in planning for
increased services at Black Point. I understand that I was one of only eight individuals to respond to Ms.
Tudor's inquiry about commumty members wanted to see at Black Point: I also have a copy of Ms. Tudor's
reply to thank me.
I have a folder of documents from the public record. Several attack ANYONE who questions whether a
golf course and resort provide the best economic "solution" for Brinnon rather than a source of income for
the individuals who invested in this land.
As I know from numerous phone calls, e-mails, and letters to thank me for standing up to the "bullies." the
behavior expressed towards my husband and me supports what others are afraid to report.
I spent dozens, ma5 be hundreds of hours researching and writing the habitat section using documents on
file with the County and other research on South County wildlife and habitat. Yet in the latest
draft of the Brinnon Plan. which Lynette had a copy of but which despite repeated requests I still haven't
'received. the habitat section still consists of three paragraphs of erroneous information
I suspect that those who want increased commercial zoning and development do not wish to point out that
this part of the county has the greatest diversity of habitat and species, including threatened and endangered
species, than anv other pan of the State of Washington Therefore a great asset to our area. and a draw for
tourists. ~s suppressed because it might adversely impact plans that would destroy iT
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Thursday, June 07, 2001 1:37 PM
Kirie Pedersen
FW: Freedom of Information request/Brinnon
FYI
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose lmailEo:markrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 12:37 PM
To: Tom McNerney; Bud/Val Schindler; George Sickel; Kate Marsh; Linda
Tudor
Cc: Dan Titterness; Josh D. Peters; Randy Kline; Mark Rapozo; David
Alvarez; A1 Scalf
SubjecE: Freedom of Information request/Brinnon
Thursday, June 7, 2001, 12:30PM PST
I am officially requesting nhe latest draft of the Brinnon sub-area plan under the federal
Freedom of Information Act, and all applicable state and local laws and regulations. I
first requested the information in public 5esuimony at the Brinnon sub-area plan meeting
on the evening of June 5.
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.brinnonplan.com
Mark Rose
From: Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 3:11 PM
To: Kirie Pedersen
Subject: FW: Mark Rose's "Official Request"
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:markrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 3:09 PM
To: A1 Scalf
Subject: RE: Mark Rose's "Official Request"
That's not the issue, Al. They have given the plan to people who they want to, and kept
it from people they don't. They have held meetings, taken action, and developed tacit
policies with people they want, while excluding others and the public. They have
manipulated this process in many ways. Arbitrarily deciding who does and does not get
information is an egregious violation of freedom of information and subverts the public
planning process. If there is no policy on this, there needs Eo be one. It's a shame
that the people of Brinnon have been robbed of a real planning process. How can you work
on a plan that you canno5 see, how can you have public discussion about documents they do
not sharD? 16 months of work have been a colossal wasEe of 51me. This ~s really a
~ragedp.e
If you won't at least ask the questions that open up this process, I'll find somebody who
will.
..... original Message .....
From: A1 Scalf [mailto:ascalf~co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 2:42 PM
To: 'Mark Rose'
Cc: Josh Peters
Subject: RE: Mark Rose~ "Official Request"
Mark
No
Check this out:
Yesterday, I got a letter from Office of Financial Management, Olympia on
letterhead with slgnature,
with preliminary April 1, 2000 population determinations.
These are preliminary counts and subject to revision.
The closing sennence sEa%es: "The figures are provided for administrative
review and are subjecn ~o change. They should noE be released Eo the public
oz to the press until final."
Isn't there a comparison here. OFM doesn't wan~ to give out the population
numbers until final, because the draft information hasn't been perfected.
A1
> ..... Original Message .....
> From: Mark Rose [SMTP:markrose@markrose.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:33 PM
> To: A1 Scalf
> SubjecE: RE: Mark Rose's "Official Request"
>
> So, are you going to ask the questions?
>
> ..... Original Message .....
> From: A1 Scalf [mailto:ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us]
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:56 PM
> To: 'markrose@markrose.org'
> Cc: Charles Saddler; David Alvarez
> Subject: FW: Mark Rose's "Official Request"
>
>
> FYI
> A1
>
> > ..... Original Message .....
> > From: Kate Marsh [SMTP:kmarsh@waypoint.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 5:34 PM
> > To: A1 Scalf
> > Subject: Mark Rose's "Official RequesE"
>>
> > Al,
> > In reference to Mark Rose's request Sent to you June 8 at 9:56 AM:
> > county-directed discussion, exploration, conclusion nor judgment
> regarding
> > that social event at my house should take place without first asking me
>a
> > few questions. In was not as
> > issue is hoe an issue.
> > Regards,
> > Kate Marsh
in has been characterized, and the quorum /
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Rose [eaglel@eaglecottage.com]
Monday, August 06, 2001 7:24 PM
Josh Peters
RE: Brinnon Public Meeting
Keep it in the files, thank you. I'm sure they have seen this email through other
sources.
..... Original Message .....
From: Josh Peters [mailto:jpeters@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 8:19 AM
To: 'Mark Rose'
Subject: RE: Brinnon Public Meeting
Mark:
Do you want me to forward this to the Chair and Recorder of the Brinnon
Subarea Plan Committee or ]us~ keep it in the files here?
Josh
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:eaglel@eaglecottage.com]
Sent: Saturday, ~ugusn 04, 2001 3:52 PM
To: Richard Woj~; Dan Titterness; Glen Huntingford
Cc: Mark Rapozo; Josh D. Peters; Randy Kline; A1 Scalf
Subject: Brinnon Public Meeting
August 4, 2000
Email from Mark Rose
Brinnon, WA
I reques5 that this email be placed in the public record. I request this
email be included in any environmental or legal review of the Brinnon
sub-area Plan.
On Tuesday, July 31, a public meeting was held in the Brinnon gym. The
supposed purpose was Eo explain the Brinnon sub-~rea plan Eo the community
and gee comments and suggestions before finalizing the Plan.
However, the format of the meeting, and attempts to manipulate the process,
did not allow for a true representation of the broad community to be
presented. I recommend that the counEy set standards for another public
meeting In Brinnon as soon as possible, with a trained outside facilitator
who can help explain the plan Eo the public, and encourage open dialogue.
Consider:
A "survey" was passed around asking attendees to sign their name if
they
supported the Black Point project. The survey was one-sided, there was no
opportunity on the "survey" Eo disagree. More importantly, the "survey" was
selectively'offered only co those most likely uo agree. I spoke ~o eight
attendees of the public meeting who neve~ saw the "survey" - me included.
- For many, the Plan was not available until five days before the
public
meeting. That meanE absorbing an often technical, detailed 100 page
document in five days. That documen~ cook a 15 meraber committee, 'staff from
Community Developmenn, and an experienced consultant 18 months to develop.
Hence, most people an the meeting did not read the Plan. How can
they
adequately comment on, or agree to support (through the "survey"t a Plan
they were non given a chance to read or openly discuss.
- The Plan was non explained at the public meetmng. Linda Tudor,
chair of
Committee, offered a historical perspective of local planning, and the
consultant showed proposed land-use designations. There are 11 ~a]or
elemenns of the Plan. They were non explained or discussed.
- Committee members were not available to answer questions or explain
the
Plan, as we would have expected. Instead they were in the audience, and
gave comment in support of the Plan, and signed a "survey" that a large
portion of the attendees never saw.
Again, I need to bring up the issue of conflict of interest. The Plan
proposes 19 acres of strip development along Highway 101, on land owned by
Linda Tudor, chair of the Brinnon sub-area group, and moderator of the
public hearing. Linda Tudor denied public access 5o the Plan during its
developmenE, denied involvement from environmentalists and habitat
biologlsts who wanted no contribute no the Plan, and has continually
manipulated and subverted public participation. Chuzk Finnila, who proposes
to build a resorn on his land a5 Black Point, is also on the Brinnon
Committee. Was iT his idea 5o selectively pass around the "survey"?
Not only are Tudor and Finnila allowed ~o serve on the committee - a clear
and obvious conflict of interesu their stake in the outcome of the
proposed re-zoning is non even disclosed in the Plan.
I first brought the issue of conflict of interest no the attention of the
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) an public commenE in the Commissioners
chambers on April 17, 2001. This issue, like many other Brinnon committee
violations, has been ignored. When will the BOCC accep5 responsibility for
what is going on in Brinnon?
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.brin.nonplan.com
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Josh:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Tuesday, March 13, 2001 4:47 AM
Josh Peters
Randy Kline
RE: Brinnon meeting
Quid pro quo. If you forward my emails to anybody then i want to see theirs. Simple as
that. Otherwise, I do not give you permission to forward my emails to the BPG. This
compromises our communication and I consider it a breach of confidentiality.
Isn't there a policy on distributing the agenda? I know that the Board of Commissioners
has a policy so that the public gets to see the agenda in advance. Why have a public
meeting if the public doesn't know what is to be discussed?
Who is in control of this process? If you are under an impressmon - how did you get that
impression? Communication does not flow one way, Josh.
If you have an "open communication" policy then I want to see all emails, any wrlt5en form
of communication, and a summary of all meetings, between all members of the BPG, with you
or any member of your office for the last 12 months.
Please let me know when yoq will have that available, or what I need to do to officially
request that information. You say that you are doing what your managers instruct you to
do. Who are your managers and how do I reach them directly?
Pursuant 5o your regulations discussed, from now on any written communication between your
office and any member of the BPG, should be copied to me au:
Mark Rose
Box 519
Quilcene, WA 98376-0519
Thank you.
Regards,
Mark
..... Original Message .....
From: Josh Peters [mailto:jpeters@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 4:40 PM
To: 'Mark Rose'
Cc: Randy Kline; A1 Scalf
Subject: RE: Brinnon meeting
Mark:
The Chair of the Brinnon Planning Group (BPG), Linda Tudor, is responsible
for the agenda. I have yet to receive tomorrow's agenda from her 5o print
ouE extra copies for the meeting.
I have your email address on my list of "interested parties" in the Brinnon
sub-area planning process. Kate Marsh, the Recorder of the BPG, and I are
in the process of matching our lists. We'll probably touch base on this
zomorrow. My understanding was thaE she had your email on her liss. There
haven't been any broadcast emails lately.
I am also under the impression that a discussion ztem tomorrow night will be
the public participanlon process for the development of the Sub-Area Plan
(SAP). The BPG hasn'n asked me to facilitane the type of town-hall
discussion that you describe below.
On another none, I would like to forward your note to the BPG for their
consideration. The BPG has requested that all communication that comes to
me or any other County staff concerning the Brinnon SAP be forwarded To them
for the record. The County policy on public records disclosure/Freedom of
Information is Eo provide almost all records and documents uo the public,
excepting communication with a~norney-client privilege and other exceptions
per the Revised Code of Washinguon. I'm hoping that you give me permission
to forward your input to the group. I must also warn you that email or
other written com~unlcaElon from you to me ox Randy Kline will be forwarded
to the BPG pursuanu to this policy. This is regardless of the disclaimer
that appears au the bottom of your email. I hope you understand that I'm
just doing my job and what my managers instruct me to do. If you have any
questions about the public disclosure policy, I can help pun you in touch
with the appropriate County official.
Forwarding your email to the Chair and Recorder will also alert them to your
request for an agenda and question about whether you are on the BPG email
distribution list. Please let me know that you've read this email and
understand the public records disclosure policy as I've described it. Feel
free ko call me if you have further questions.
Regards,
Josh
Josh D. Peters, Associate Planner
Jefferson County Deparnment of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368
Direct: '360' 379-4466, Main: 360. 379-4450, Fax: {360) 379-4451
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:markrose@markrose.org]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 4:18 PM
To: Randy Kline; Josh D. Peters
Subject: Brinnon meeting
randy and josh:
Is there an agenda for the meeting tomorrow night?
Can I see it please?
I signed up to be on the email list the last meeting. Am I on that list?
I know that there are concerned citizens who would like to have their voices
heard Eomorrow night.
Maybe there can be an open Eown-hall nype discussion for at least one hour -
maybe one of you can moderate.
Might be consnrucnive.
mark
markrose@markrose.org
CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE:
Informatio~ herein is intended for the
2
Mark Rose
From: Mark Rose [eaglel@eagtecottage,com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:18 PM
To.'- Mark Personius
Cc: Mark Rapozo: Al Scalf: Josh D. Peters
Subject: GMA - Open Meetings Compliance/Brinnon
Importance: High
I request that this email be entered into the official record, and be referenced with any
legal or environmental review of the actions of the Brinnon sub-area Group.
Mark:
Below is the passage from the GMA that Tom McNerney referred to tonight at the Brinnon
sub-area meeting. Are you sure that you wane to counsel the group that they are in
compliance with this secEion of the GMA? Have you read it carefully? Do you want to be
in a position of giving your sEamp of approval, and encouraging this group, that they are
in compliance?
,~Rourther, do you want To be in the p~sition of counseling the group that comments from the
ads Committee and commen~s from habitat biologists are noE relevant? As a hired
consultanE, is it your role to perpetuate this group's disdain for public opinion and open
process?
By the way, weren't you hired to address affordable housing? Isn't that in your contract?
Yet, affordable housing was not discussed at the 7-31-01 public meeting and I can't
remember the last time it was discussed within the group.
Also, I sent everybody in the group and community planning, copies of The Open Meetings
Act. I'm sure that you are aware of the Act, and that unscheduled meetings without the
public present to "take action" is not allowed.
Finally, I do not understand how you advocate additional commercial zoning, when there is
no justification for it according to Growth Management Act, and the county's Comprehensive
Plan.
What's going on here, Mark?
Mark Rose
Brinnon
August 14, 2001
Comprehensive plans - Ensure public participation. Each county and city that is required
or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall establish and broadly disseminate to the
public a public participation program identifying procedures providing for early and
continuous public participation in the developm¢~ and amendment of comprehensive land use
~lans an~_dev~____elopment regulations implementing such plans. The procedures shall provide
for broad dissemination of~%-a~I~-~'~I~erna~ves, o~portunity for written comments
publi~-~r effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication
programs, information services, and consideration of a response to_public comments. In
~hacting legislation in response to~-~ ~bard's decision puk~uant to RCW 36.70A.300 [.302]
declaring part or all of a comprehensive plan or development regulation invalid, the
county or city shall provide for public participation that is appropriate and effective
under the circUmskances presented by the board's order. Errors in exact compliance with
the established program and procedures shall not render the comprehensive land use program
or development regulations invalid if the spirit of the program and procedures are
observed.
Mark Rose
1
June 6. 2001
Via email and postal service
Mr. Glen Huntingford
Mr. Richard Wojt
Mr. Dan Tittemess
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Commissioner's-Offi ce
PO Box 1220
Pon Townsend, WA 98368
Commissioners:
I spoke before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on April 16, 2001,
concerning conflict of interest, lack of due process and public involvement, withholding
of public documents, and a violation of the Open Meetings Act bv the Brinnon Sub-area
Planning Group ("the Group")
No action was taken by the BOCC concerning these issues. Instead, the BOCC
recommended that I read the Jefferson County Community Planning Guidelines and
Comprehensive Plan Revision Process (':the Blue Book") to familiarize myself with the
commumtv planning process
I have read the Blue Book very carefullv. It ~s an excellent document that provides
guidance for community groups. However, theory' always gets tested in real experience.
Based on actions and attitudes of the Group, the Blue Book could benefit from some
revision so the next commumtv planning group will be more [bcused Following are mb.'
recommendations.
Conflict of interest:
Recommendation: No member of the Group will vote on an issue that involves
development on land they own or have an interest in. The Group will be required to
disclose potential conflicts of interest at the start-up meeting
Reasoning: After 14 months of work. the only economic and development segments of
the Plan involved a resort on the land of Group member Chuck Finnila and development
of housing and services on the land of Group Chair Linda Tudor. Development and
future planning for the recognized town of Brinnon. and another potential commercial
zone at WaWa Point. were not discussed until late in the process too late to be given
serious consideration. These were clear and obvious conflicts of interests that skewed the
process of the Plan. and did not consider the will of the broader community. It also
hindered the production of a forward-looking plan
Other conflicts of interest have undermined the Brinnon planning process. Thomas
McNernev occasionally attends Brinnon planning meetings. He is also the Chairman of
2
the Jefferson County Planning Commission. As Chairman of the Planning Commission
he has managed dialogue and voted on zoning issues that effect development favorable to
members of the Group. I understand that under current RCW's this is technically legal.
However. these actions have added to a general sense of impropriety in the Brinnon
planning process
Freedom of information:
Recommendation: The Group should be instructed that all information, as required by
law will be freely and openly available to the public. The Group should maintain a web
site where the public can access all documents, minutes, agendas, drains and comments
The web site costs approximately $20 per month to maintmn, with a few hours of time
per week required for updating The Group can designate a"wet, master' "who can be
trained through the county, if necessary, in rudimentarv web development and
maintenance. One person in the Group should be responsible for dissemination of public
document s.
Reasoning: The Group refused to share its documents with local citizens and the Chair
instructed Community Planning (Staff) not to pass out documents to the public. We had
to protest to county officials, the Group and Stafffor several weeks before we were
reluctantly given public documents. This %hell game" has continued throughout the
process.
On June 5. 2001. the Group again refused to share its plan with the public, and voted to
withhold the document until they were finished This attitude has driven away citizens
who want to get involved in the process, and alienated the Group from the br~)ader
community The Blue Book is clear about involving the public and gemng input
throughout the process. How can the public be involved when thev are prohibited from
seeing what is being discussed?
Open Meetings Act:
Recommendation: The Group should be instructed that it must adhere to the Open
Meetings Act ("the Act") Staff should brief the Group about the Act, what constitutes a
violation, and the importance of fair and open meetings.
Reasoning: April 11, 2001. several members of the Group held a pre-planned meeting at
a private residence for the purpose of discussing public testimony and taking action.
Thomas ~ lcNerney, a member of the Group and Chairman of the Jefferson County
Planning Commission, admitted to the meeting ~n public testimony. Mr. McNerney
stated that since there was not a"quorum, "the meeting was legal. I quesnon Mr.
McNerney's interpretation of the Act In any case. it is bad advice and puts the Group in
jeopardy of censure. It also fosters a process of exclusion, and mocks the spirit of the
Act
Political influence:
Recommendation: It should be made clear that partisan politics has no place in the
community' planning process, and will not be tolerated.
Reasoning: On January 3, 2000, Group member Eleanor Sather sent a strongly worded
memo to the Group deploring the discussion of politics. "During our 3rd Brinnon
Community Planning Meeting, several planning members decided to bring up their own
political issues prior to adjournment, and once adjourned they continued to drum up
additional support." Ms Sather wrote Ms. Sather is owner of Whitney Gardens, a
prominent Brinnon horticultural business that attracts 15~000 visitors per year. She left
the Group because of conflict of interest and partisanship by some members. The Group
Chair is a Republican property rights actiwst who wanted the group to support a
Republican candidate for Commissioner.
On May 29. 2001. the Group Chair attended a Democratic Party meeting in Brinnon and
called others in town. imploring them to attend or stay away because there xvould be
trouble. At the meeting, the Group Chair used the Plan (as yet unwritten) as a rallying
cry for Republicans. The Group Chair was not even invited, yet she represented
"minutes" of the meeting to a reporter An anonymous, incendiarv leaflet was passed
around town to disrupt the Democratic Party meeting. Such behavior is inappropriate and
is meant to further alienate the broad community and exclude them from the planning
process.
Organization, accountability and process:
Recommendation: The Group should be thoroughly briefed on the Blue Book There
should be bi-monthly meetin~os of the Group and Staff to ensure that the Group is on
target and following guidelines. A group member should be designated as the point
person on compliance.
Reasoning: The Group has gone astrav by not adhering to several guidelines in the Blue
Book and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan ('~Comp Plan").
l.?ision: The Comp Plan stipulates that planning begins with a vision, yet the Group did
not attempt to draft a wslon until the end of the process. A resort, convention center,
amphitheater, golf course, single family dwellings were the first proposals after 15
months of work. Had the vision been written and agreed to first, in keeping with the
wishes of the community chronicles in the Jefferson 2000 poll, the plan would be more
relevant and cohesive.
Public involvement: The Group has not adequately involved the broad community, as
clearly stipulated in the Growth Management Act and the Blue Book Property owners.
environmental organizations, government and civic organizations, tribes, were not
consulted or involved throughout the planning process, as mandated. Notices were not
posted in public places In fact. the Group has expressed displeasure at public
involvement, refused to share documents with the public, and conducted meenngs
witho9ut letting the public see what it is discussing.
4
Such behavior has lessened the likelihood of adoption and enactment of the Plan.
Timi~g: The Blue Book states that each member will be responsible for one element of
the Plan. including involvement and input from the broad community before the whole
plan is drafted. It also states that one of the first tasks of the Group will be a work plan.
with timing for completion. If these guidelines were followed, the Brinnon Group would
have been more on target, and less likely' to stray through politicization, withholding of
infbrmation, and conflict of interest
I look tbrward to discussing these recommendations at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Mark Rose
687 Pulali Point Road
Brinnon. WA 98320
360-796-3300
markrose~ markrose, org
w~_~'w&ri_nno_~_plan, corn
CC~
Mark Rapozo
Audit Manager
600 Kitsap Street
Suite 201
Port Orchard, WA 38366
David Alvarez
Chief CMl Deputy Prosecutor
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend. WA 98368
A1 Scalf
Director
Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Thursday, June 14. 2001 8:29 AM
George Sickel; Kirie Pedersen
Scott Wilson: Bud & Val Schindler; Linda Tudor: Kate Marsh: Mark Personius; Richard Wojt;
Dan Titterness: Gle~ Huntingford; shelly@ptleader.com: Pat Rogers; Tom McNerney; Dalila
Dowd: Charles Finnila: Mark Rapozo
RE: Meeting of 12 June BSAP
Maybe there is somebody who can actually address these questions so 5he community can be
involved in developmenE of the plan, as stipulated in the Blue Book, Comp Plan and
numerous Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board rulings. On one hand you are
encouraging ideas, on the other you won'n acknowledge or address them. Which is it?
..... Original Message .....
From: George Sickel [mailto:GKPROFSVC@TSCNet.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 7:40 AM
To: Kirie Pedersen
Cc: Bud & Val Schindler; Linda Tudor; Kate Marsh; Mark Personius; Mark
Rose; Richard Wojs; Dan Titterness; Glen Huntingford;
sheliy@ptleader.com; Pat Rogers; Tom McNerney; Dalila Dowd; Charles
Finnila
Subjecn: Fw: Meeting of 12 June, BSAP
Kirie -
You are asking questions about the discussion items (item # 5 of your none) from our
Tuesday's meeting like they were a done deal
and all going To be included in the Sub-Area plan. Treat them for what they are,
discussion items.
We ssrongly encourage group members and community members who attended Eo bring up all
ideas thaE come Eo their minds or those they
have heard from friends and neighbors. This is our way of thinking outside the box.
because a discussion item may non be to
one persons liking does non mean we should not listen to what they have to say.
Jusn
Cool your jets and waiu a couple weeks to review the public comment draft of the Sub-Area
plan.
George Sickel
Original Message
From: "Bud and Val Schindler" <schindler@olympus.net>
To: "George Sickel" <GKPROFSVC@TSCNet.com>; "Linda Tudor" <settlers@olympus.net>; "Kate
Marsh" <kmarsh@waypoint.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:15 PM
Subject: Fw: Meeting of 12 June, BSAP
FYI
Original Message
From: "Kirie Pedersen" <kiriep@jupitercity.com>
To: "Josh Peters" <jpeters@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: "Mark Personius" <mpersonius@earthtech.com>; "Mark Rose"
<markrose@markrose.org>; "Richard Wojt" <rwojt@co.jefferson.wa.us>; "Dan
Titterness" <dtitterness@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
<ghuntingford@co.jefferson.wa.us>; "Kirie Pedersen"
<kiriep@jupitercity.com>; "Bud and Val Schindler" <schindler@olympus.net>;
<shelly@ptleader.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 3:02 PM
Subject: MeeEzng of 12 June, BSAP
> Questions, Comments, and Concerns:
>
> 1. Does zoning accompany ownership? Can one section of an owner's land
be
> zoned commercial, another forest, and yet another rural-residential? How
> does the CounTy address "breaking up" portions of an owner's property, and
> how does this affecn the sale of said property?
>
> Cases in point: Ivind Hjelvick owns a large quantity of contiguous acres,
> some used as pasture, some heavy equipment storage, some shoreline, some
> lagoon/pond, one store with living quarters attached, and forest.
>
> Maury Anderson owns 120 acres, used as forest, shoreline, pasture, and
> residential.
>
> The County has potentially designated half of Camp Parsons PPPR, and half
as
> rural-residential ~the Pulali Point section.) Prior to July 1990, the
> portion of Camp Parsons on Pulali Point was foresttand and shoreline,
> undeveloped. Why isn't the entire Camp Parsons designated PPPR?
>
> 2. When the use prmor no July 1990 was tourist/recreational, and has been
> since the late 1930s, why is the *entire* Cove Park RV Camp ~one small
> store, and almost 2 acres for RVs~ now being considered for commercial
> designation? Doesn't this lead to precisely what as prohibited in terms
of
> ~potentiat low density sprawl? Given that the Cove Park RV park directly
> abuts a salmon spawnmng stream identified as significant, does this not
> violate RCW 36.70A.060 in terms of protection of critical areas and
surface
> and ground water resources?
>
> Case in point: The current owners plan to sell Cove Park, currently used
as
> RV Park with a 180 day stay limit, and small store which primarily serves
> their own customers. If redesignated as commercial, a larger structure or
> enterprzse could be built, thus changing the character of the area. Why
is
> the designation being changed simply because the current owner wanes it to
> so they can sell the acreage for a higher amount? Shouldn't historical
use,
> local needs, and the rural character be considered and addressed now?
>
> 3. If a structure, residence, or excavation was executed without a permit
> and in direcE violation of County, State, and Federal law, why does this
> structure, residence, or excavation qualify as the "built envzronment" or
> "logical outer boundaries?"
> Case in point: Hjelvick constructed his commercial structure, the heavy
> equipmenn storage behind it, and excavated the shoreline and
salt/freshwater
> lagoon, without evident permits. According ~o Joy Baisch, the pasEure
> contains an "underground irrigation sysnem." If four (4) acres of
> Hjelvick's holdings have been designated by the County as as "commercial"
> based on an illegally built envlronmenu and outer boundary, does this not
> represenE an endorsement by the CounEy of "go ahead and do what you want,
> because you'll then get what you want?" Should "logical outer boundaries
be
> based on structures in direct violation of the CP (and community and the
> actual owner's ("Ma" Hjelvick) protest an the time and subsequently), even
> though they adversely impact a primarily rural-residential neighborhood?
Is
> not the purpose of the RCW to "preserve the character of existing natural
> neighborhoods and communities?"
>
> 4. What is the definition of "low density sprawl?" when applied to a
rural
> area?
>
> Case in point: WaWa Point End Cove Park abut small neighborhoods of
> residences and vacation homes that occupy fairly small lots. Virtually
all
> directly adjoin the shoreline, streams, and a lagoon. When placed in the
> context of this neighborhood, A_NY additional cormmercial designation
creates
> sprawl and degrades the character of the existing neighborhoods.
Commercial
> services such as stores, video, hardware are available within three miles
> (Brinnon) or seven miles (Quilcene) . Compared ~o the deficits of creating
> additional eyesores on the rural and shoreline landscape, what are the
> benefits of increasing the commercial designation for WaWa Point/Cove
Park?
>
> Case in point: Increased ~r expanded commercial development at the Cove
> Park/Bee Mill Road/Highway 101/H]elvick's Road intersection will produce
> adverse effects on Camp Parsons, Whitney Point Shellfish Lab, area
> residents, and sensitive habitat and shorelines due 50: increased traffic,
> danger ~o pedestrians, noise, run-off, and need for infrastructure.
>
> Whitney Point Shellfish Lab currently provides 20 well-paid jobs for
Brinnon
> residenns, and 20 jobs for residents from other parts of Jefferson County
> I40 jobs total). If public traffic increases, the State may decide to
>relocaEe the Whitney Point Shellfish Lab outside the Brinnon area.
> Therefore, in exchange for dubious and unknown benefits of future
commercial
> establishments, Brinnon loses a significant resource for well-paid jobs,
as
> well as an educational resource for children and other citizens.
>
> 5. In last night's BSAP meeting, multi-family and/or iow-income
residences
> were discussed in association with managed or assisted care facilities.
How
> and why are iow-income and disabled or elderly linked? Why would there be
> discussion about placing such facilities among "light industrially" zoned
> areas? Do poor people and their children, elderly, or disabled want 5o
live
> close to light industrial? Why, in direct violation of every survey taken
> of Brinnon citizen opinion since 1976, as well as the current Vision
> Statement of the BSAP, would multi-family residences or apartments be
> considered for Brinnon? Though a proportion of Brinnon's school children
> qualify as living below the poverty level, Ia misleading figure given
> Brinnon's iow school census), does this mean than Brinnon's lower-income
> families want to live in apartments or multi-family dwellings?
>
> In ~rinnon, "iow-cost housing" is defined and socially accepted as a
trailer
> on a piece of property. Poorer people in Brinnon thus enjoy privacy and a
> sense of pride and ownership unknown in larger areas; many live here ]use
> for that reason. Multi-family "iow income" dwellings and apartments are
> demeaning, result in increased crime and child abuse, are more susceptible
> to fire, and are not in character with Brinnon historically or now. In
> Brinnon, historically, we are a *communmty* reuardless of income; even the
> more wealthy tend not ~o build ossentatious homes. Conversely, some who
> qualify as "wealthy" live in mobile homes (and save their money 5o
travel.,
> In Brinnon, you "can'E judge a family by its dwelling." This is one of
our
> community's positive features.
>
> Whenever possible, managed or assisted care should be home-based (e.g.
> mobile service tha5 attends ~o needs in the persons' own home). Numerous
> statistics support this conclusion. In a community with a small
population,
> and with retired and elderly enjoying homes they waited decades 5o occupy,
> assisted care should be defined differently than ina larger city, where
the
> elderly may lack family or friends to provide assistance. The elderly who
> choose Brinnon are a hardy lot. Several mobile services already exist to
go
> 5o their homes; these services could be increased and thus additional
> home-based and/or consage industry crea5ed.
>
> Let's think out of the box.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kirie Pedersen
>
> Kirie Pedersen, M.A.
> Writer, Editor, & Researcher
> www.brinnonplan.com
> www.eaglecottage.com
> Pulal~ Point Sunset Zone 5
> 360.796.4532 home
> 360.796.3300 office
> 36C.796.4300 - fax
>
Brinnon is indeed a "unique community."
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Sunday, July 15. 2001 10:23 PM
Al Scalf; Mark Personius: Josh D. Peters
George Sickeh Bud/Val Schindler: Kate Marsh
Comments To Brinnon Sub-area Plan
SAP CommenTs 72
Draft MRdoc
~ am submitting the attached comments regarding the Brinnon Sub-area Plan. I
these commenEs to become pare of the official record, and to be considered in
environmenEal rev±ew.
Thank you.
Mark Rose
markrose~markrose.org
PHONE: 360--96-3300
www.brinnonplan.com
would like
any
Mark Rose Comments on the July 2, 2001 Brinnon Sub-area Plan Draft
Submitted into the record via email. July 16, 2001
Membership
See 7/13 email to the Group and Co~nmtmitv Planning addressing this
Introduction
Strike paragraph one - repetition from the Vision
References to 1995 Plan. If the Plan uas adopted by the Count5.' wlw was it not enacted?
There is a claim in this section that the county, asked the citizens of Bnnnon to form a committee.
Representations bv Commissioner Dan Titterness. and BSAP Group and Plmming Commission members
indicate that ~t was fl~e other way around.
Emdronment
There is no discussion of fl~e ~mportance of the Dosewallips, and the Duckabush. as important salmon
habitat waterways, and the current efforts at restoranon. There ~s no discussion of the current studies of the
Hood Canal shorelines.
Plan hnplementation and Monitonng
The following section is false and should be stricken. Explanation in parenthesis:
The goals, policies and strategies contained in the Brinnon Subarea Plan have evolved after
consideration of a nmnber of important factors:
1. Natural resources of the area such as soils, geology,, climate, water, topography, fish and
wildlife, aud shoreline features.
(There is no discussion about conservation, preservation, or restoration of the abundant
natural resources in the Bmmon plmming area. There ts no consideration of the
potential impact of proposed development on water, topography, fish and wildlife,
and shoreline features. Several appropriate conservation groups attempted to get
involved in this section of the plan but were rebuffed bv the chairperson. The lack of
discussion about these ~ssues uas brought up several times by commm~itv members).
2. Cultural resources of the area such as its people, communit~- facilities and services,
businesses, tfistory, and heritage.
(The only people considered in this plan were affected property owners and the
iunnediate group There was no concerted outreach to businesses, residents or
landowners outside the group. The history and heritage of Brinnon was skewed
before rectified by a community member~.
Past. present, and projected growth and development trends.
tGrowth trends clearly indicate that popnlation grox~th in the county is stagnant, or
m~mmal at best. and that Brim~on ~s growing even slower than the counB'. Development
trends indicate virtually no commercial grox~lh in Briunon in the last five years)
4. Desires and needs of area residents and propem.' oxvners as expressed in commumtv plmming
meetings and commm~i~'-wide meetings.
(In several past stm'eys residents have clearly indicated that they favor the small town.
rural nature of Brinnon and they do not want significant development. Protection of the
enviromnem ~s high importance. These desires Me not reflected in tiffs plan).
Also to be stricken ~explanation in parentheses)
. GENERAL GOALS AND POLICIES
The following general goals and policies apply to all aspects of communiD- life in the area cox, ered
b~ this plan:
GOALS:
Maintain and encourage the small town rural atmosphere of the Brinnon area.
(Thc proposals in this plan increase developed land ten fold and do little to
maintain the rural aunosphere of Brim~on. The broad swath of potential
development, including light industrial, conference center, condominitm~s, golf
rm~gc, boat tours, hotels, restaurants, is not in keeping with the wishes of area
residents, as expressed in several opinion polls)
Promote and encourage and reinforce a sense of commtmitv identi .ty.
(There is no discussmn in lhe plan about developing an identity for Brinnon.
beyond disparate re-zoning of land for development)
Maintain a balanced commtmit~- that continues to provide for and encourage a
diversi~v of activities. ~nterests. and lifestyles
/There are no proposals m the plan for drag treat~nent for youth (an
acknowledged serious problem), job training, educational development, cultural
or ethnic pursuits).
Protect and enhance the natural environment.
(Enviromnental groups were shut out from the plmming process. Studies of the
Dosewallips and Duckabush by North Olympic Sahnon Coalition. Hood Canal
Coordinating Council. and S'Klallam Tribes were discounted and ignored.
Salmon and waterway enhancement groups that tried to get involved ~n the
process u-ere rebtfffed. There is no discussion about possible salt water
intrusion, and the mass,ye amount of water it takes to maintain a golf course.
There is no discussion of environmental impact of development, m'~d safeguards
to protect the environment. There is no discussion of the significant threatened
and endangered species in this planning district).
Maintain and encourage economic growth and stability.
(There is no discussion about the h. rpes of jobs that might be created in Brinnon
because of proposed developmcm There is no discussion about wages, traimng,
timeframes, support. There is no discussion about how much might be
contributed to the tax base from new business, what services would be needed to
support this growth, impact on taxpayers).
6. Ensure and protect property oxvners' rights as they pertain to land use. water,
minerals, agriculture use. timber, beaches, and .types of deeds.
(This is an offensive comment. This is obviously the personal political agenda
of some members of the group, and has no place in the plan. If we want to go in
this direction. I would like to add a few goals of mv own).
Land Use & Rural Element
I mn cmffused bv the discounting of population figures as a measure of gro~vth. Other counties indicate
population figures as the measurement of growth, as does the Jefferson Count' Comp Plan. Further. you
say that there has been virtually no commercial development in the last five years. Further. you say that
many of the building penmts issued in the last five years were probably for part-time residences. 1 don't
understand the rationale for growth according to acceptable growth indicators.
I would like to discuss the following segment of the plan:
The very high ratio of mobile home to site-built single-family unit is indicative of the need for
affordable housing in Brumon and how that need is currently being inet. While Census 2000
household income levels have not been released as of the date of this writing, information from the
Bmmon School Board and other sources indicate that household income levels in Brinnon are. on
average, thc lowest in the coum~ Indeed tesmnom from School Board members indicates that the
Brim~on School District ranks as the third loxx est district in the state ~n poverty level fd. Baisch;.
Board me~nbers indicated tlmt approximatel? 40% of households with children attending the
Brinnon School have incmnes below the poverty leveD ~P. Rogers;. Again. data from the 2000
Census regarding social and economic characteristics of the population has not vet been released
so the School Board assessments represent the best available and most current socio-economic
data. For comparison pta'poses, the 1990 census reported that 22% of the Brinnon population fell
below the poverty level a rote ahnost double that of the counw as a whole. The apparent increase
m poverty status for Brinnon households between 1990 and 2000 is a disturbing trend. It suggests
a necd for expanded economic development opportumues and measures to ensure the availabilib'
of affordable housing.
Comment: It is claimed though not substantiated that Brinnon schoolchildren rank "third in the
state for receiving subsistence for school meals". Evidently, again unsubstantiated. 35-40 children receive
breakfast and ltmch assistance. Tins could indicate as few as 20 ,Camilies who fall below the poverty level.
The Food Bmtk reqmres no identification nor keeps records: there is no salary, requiremem to 'qualify.'
According to social services professionals who serve these clients in Brinnon_ their conditions cannot be
termed as "dire." merely lower income. Some have substance abuse problems or are earmng "under the
table" tttrough other means. Neither of these important issues will be addressed bv developing more
businesses or an MPR and below living-wage jobs. nor does the Plau as written address these significant
Brinnon issues m all (substance abuse, teen pregnancy, child abuse, domestic violence, meth labs).
Data should not be skewed to present a "dire" picture that is not. in fact. the case. In fact. the
increase in population in Jefferson County is in the higher-income brackets and the families in lower
income brackets have been "out-priced" throughout thc Count3'. Of 214 live births in Jeffco in 1999. 134
were govermnent-assisted. This is a relativeh low birth rate. and most of the govermnent-assisted births
are to teenagers and of course include Forks. which is part of Jeffco Forks tins REAL povem.-: 400
Hispanic fanfilies, many illegal umnigrants, living in squalor and fear. For Brim~on. it would be more
efficient to focus on birth control education, substance abuse educauon and inten'ention, busting meth labs.
and elder care. According to Health Depamncnt and DSHS statistics. Brinnon's rates of low-income
families are in the same proportion as in the rest of the county ). The lack of local employment and
commuting disttmce from living-wage jobs signal a need to create new opportunities and actively pursue a
transition to a more diversified economy. The real ~ssues that plague a nunoritv of citizens in Brinnon will
not be addressed by an MPR or by expanding commercial boundaries. The displaced workers from the
timber industrx have long since left or found ,'alternative employment.
Rural Commercial - Brinnon Rural Village Center (RVC)
Vision: I object to this section begim~ing: "The residents of Brim~on have a v~sion that ..."
It should read: "The Bmmon Sub-area group has a v~sion ..."
Rural Commercial - WaWa Point Rural Crossroads
Vision: I object to this section beginning: "The residents of the WaWa Point neighborhood ..."
It should read: '~The Brinnon sub-area group has a vision ..."
Rural Commercial Black Point
You need to have full disclosure in this section and discuss the real situation. The way it reads now. it
sounds like an MPR is an abstract idea. and there has no been no interest to datc in de~Teloping an bvlPR at
Black Point. That is not true. The main focus of this pimp. and file major efforts of tlus group, lmve gone in
to developing the MPR ttmt will be developed by Chuck Flotilla. Potential conill :ts of interest must be
acknowledged and discussed.
To discuss in tiffs section:
Chuck Fimlla has already been selling memberships to a golf club anticipating development of an
MPR at Black Point
On his web site. Chuck Finilla has already promised a 120 seat restaurant. 290 room hotel, health
club and tenms courts in anticipation of building ,Tn MPR at Black Point
Chuck Finilla. along with his panner, have arranged for meetings with Jefferson Count).,
Conmumit)-Plamung to discuss development of an MPR at Black Point
Clmck Finilla has appeared before the Plamfing Commission several times to ,argue on behalf of
his MPR project at BlackPoint: likexvise, members of the Group have appeared at public meetings
in support of Chuck Finilla's plan for an MPR at Black Point
Chuck Finilla has drax~n up plans for a MPR at Black Point. including single family residences
along Hood Canal
In several public forums. Chuck Finilla has promised 180 - 200 jobs in Brinnon if he gets to build
his MPR at Black Point.
Jefferson Conntv officials have moved to alnend the Comprehensive Plan to allow for more MPRs
in anticipation of Chuck Finilla building an MPR at Black Point
Also to discuss in this section:
Chuck Finilla has been a member of the Brinnon Sub-area group from the begnming and was
initi~ly responsible for developing the MPR and economic development sections
Chuck Fimlla has ncvcr submitted a business plan for his proposed development
Although ~lsked repeatedly. Chuck Finilla has never substantiated u-hat sort of jobs would be
created at a Black Point MPR. who would be hired, how they would be trained, or what wages
they would earn.
Also to discuss in this section:
A significant portion of land in the proposed MPR belongs to Linda Tudor
Lind~ Tudor is thc chairperson of thc Brinnon Snb-area group.
The strip of development along Highway 101 represents lox~ densi .ty sprawl.
Should be stricken:
The suggested MPR boundary and conceptual land use phm shown in Figure is advisory. It is a
recommended plan based on extensive review by the Brinnon Planning Group, property owners in the
affected area, neighbors and adjacent property owners and the public
This is not tree. The MPR Plan was developed in secret bv the Brinnon Sub-area group. Repeatedly, the
Group refilsed to share its plan with thc public. Only when the plan was turned over to the countx~' did tile
public get to see it Most residents of Brinnon were completely unaware of the extent of the plans for an
MPR.
Home Businesses and Cottage Industries
I still don't understand how Brim~on gets to exempt itself from all the regulations that normally apply to
home businesses.
Strategies for developing educational workshops should be expanded into real action items. This is an
important element that can benefit the business communit~~ in Bmmon.
Natural Resource Conservation Element
It is shamefnl how tlfis element has been ~gnored. We are blessed to live ~n one of the rare. semi-pristine
areas ~n the lower 48 states, abundant in wildlife, shellfish, unspoiled waters - and no attention has been
paid to tkis section Conservation groups that can and wanted to help with this section were ignored. No
eft'on was made to reach out to conservation groups. How can vou propose dramatic increased
development and not at leas! consider the effect on the environment? This is really shameful.
Shellfish Harvesting Rights - Strike all reference to the tribes, the Federal government and details of the
decision of Federal Distric~ Judgc Rafeedic. It's entirely inappropriate to discuss in such detail a Federal
Court Ruling. If you want to go in that direction_ let's discuss the tremendous efforts of the S'Klallam
Tribes to work with U.S. govermnent and private owners for salmon restoration, and the devastating effect
of logging and development by European settlers on file aquaculture.
Housing Element
Again, I dispute the claim of 40% of Brinnon households with incomes below the poverty level, based on
circum stannal evidence, unsupported by social serviccs.
Parks & Recreation
Some of the "semi-active recreation elements" listed would be inappropriate for a rural village, would have
potential neganve m~pacts on the environment and our quality of life. and would surely be closely
scmtuuzed bx the U.S. Navy, which has absolute jurisdiction over our waterways: Hood Canal boat tours.
seaplane/airplane/hot air balloon tours, hang gliding.
Economic Development
This is a very, disappointing element. There is no serious plan for attracting qualit3.,jobs, strategies.
timcframes, training real action items. It seems like the Economic Development portion of the plan is
really the Land Use section. If land is rezoned commercial then somehow there will be jobs Chuck Finilla
saying tha~ Bri~mon will have 180 jobs if he gets to build a resort is not real economic development
plamfing.
Natm-al Environment Element
This element is pathetic. There are dozens of threatened and endangered species in this area. None are
listed We will compile a rcal listing of habitat in this ,area. and the sensitivity of their habitat, and submit it
at a later date. I would tlfink that 'after 18 months of work. with access to local experts on this subject, the
Group would have seriously addressed this element
Capital Facilities Element
Questions: Who pays for this proposed development? What is the impact on roads, parks, tidelands.
resources, quality of life'? How will it ~mpact taxes, the aquifer?
Mark Rose
Subject:
FW: Brinnonlnfo update
..... Original Message .....
From: Kirie Pedersen [mailto:kiriep@jupitercity,com]
Sent: Friday, AugusE 10, 2001 11:25 PM
To: Josh Peters
Cc: Walter C Parks; WindyCrest@aol,com; Mark Rose; Cathie Mooney
Sub]ec~: Fw: BrinnonInfo update
Josh,
I add my agreemen5 to the e-maml that follows. The hard copies of the Plan
were NOT at the post office that I could see unsil Thursday, five or six
days before the public "conversation." Many people don'5 go 5o the pos5
office as a regular habit, as our mail is delivered 5o our more rural
locations. Amd many people, likewise, do not subscribe to the paper or even
get out of their homes much, especially the elderly, nor do they have
computers.
I am also concerned that rumors are being spread about Mark and me by
members of the committee and others, including the chairperson of the
Planning Coramisslon. Actions surh as spreading false rumors in an attempt
to discredit people; holding private meeslngs to discuss "how to handle the
opposition;" provision of such a brief public comment period when many are
busy with suramer guests, building pro3ecEs, or increased business
requiremenEs; and the passing around of false documenEs to imply more
support for the Plan than is actually the case, shows that these people are
desperate 5o sneak this one by.
Mark spent eight years in service to Washington State, risking his life as a
firefighter, and has visited a5 least once a year ever since; I spent 30
years in service to this State; surely we have as much right to have
opinions and comments as the other recent arrivals to Brinnon who are
proposing much of the development? Why should Chuck Finnila, who arrived zn
1994 and invested in commercial propersy in 1998 be nurEured and ~rea~ed
like a precious son while the rest of us are drowned ous, interrupted, and
ignored?
Many in Brinnon are really angry that they were never provided any
information about the nature and scope of this Plan unsil the "final hour,"
and deeply offended that the chairperson then stated (as reported in the
Leader. that she didn't hear any signmficant disagreement. I heard people
disagree with the entire concep5 and Plan as it stands; there were so many
parss of the Plan that need work that five minutes would barely begin to
cover it.
The continued confusing information from the DCD about when meetings are
being held and what the meesings' significance is or is not also seems
desicned to mislead.
I agree with others in the community that the response time to this Plan be
extended.
Sincerely,
Kirie Pedersen
Mark Rose
Subject:
FW: Fw: Brinnonlnfo update
..... Original Message .....
From: Mark Rose [mailto:pulalipoint@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, August t0, 2001 10:27 PM
To: markrose@markrose.org
Subject: Fwd: Fw: BrinnonInfo update
--- Lynnette Amtiounti <covepark@jupitercity.com>
wrote:
> From: "Lynnette Antijunti"
> <covepark@jupitercity.com>
> To: "Mark Rose" <pulalipoint@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Fw: BrinnonInfo update
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 15:08:26 -0700
>
· Original Message
> From: Lynnette A!atijunti
> To: Josh Peters
> Cc: Ted Labbe ; Loni Beringer ; Eleanor Sather ;
> Marsy Ereth ; Kirie Pedersen
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 1:28 PM
> SublecE: Re: Brinnonlnfo update
>
·
> Josh
> We request that the public commen~ period for the
· Brinnon plan be extended to August 31, 2001. Surely
· such ma£Eers of imporEance to the communisy deserve
> better than 10 days?
>
> LyneEse Antllunti, Brinnon
> Rebert Watkins, Brinnen
> Brady Blake, Brinnon
>
>
· ..... Original Message
· From: Mark Rose
> Te: Lynnette Antijuns1 ; Loni Beringer ; Eleanor
· Sather ; Kirie Pedersen ; Paula Hackrew ;
· Pete/Debbie Siefert ; Wayne G. King ; Walt Parks ;
> Marty Ereth ; Ron Hirschi ; Todd McGuire
·
>
>
>
·
>
·
·
>
·
·
·
>
Cc: Ted Labbe
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 10:14 PM
Subject: BrinnonInfo update
BrinnonInfo.com News Update
Addition 5o Brinnon Plan Revealed section on site
Visit www.brinnonlnfo.com for more news
August 8, 2001
Comments from:
Ted Labbe
Habitat Biologist
Port
Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
>
> To: Brinnon Sub-area Planning Group
>
> Please include this statement in any present or proposed legal or environmental review
ortho
> Brinnon sub-area plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Brinnon Subarea Plan. The Port Gamble
S'Klallam Tribe maintains a special interest in the Brinnon area as the Tribe depends on
local fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources for its cultural and economic well-being.
Tidelands harbor commercially-significant shellfish populations, and the Dosewallips and
Duckabush rivers and their deltas serve as critical habitat for threatened salmon. Past
habitat loss and degradation stemming from poor development standards and destructive land
use practices has resulted in closure of shellfish harvest areas and drastic salmon
population declines, thereby jeopardizing our Tribe's court-affirmed treaty rights to
fish.
>
In particular, we are concerned that new development impacts permitted under the Brinnon
Sub
area Plan will further erode the health of native fish, shellfish, and wildlife
populations and
undermine our Treaty rights.
In particular, we are concerned that new development impacts permitted under the Brinnon
Subarea Plan will further erode the health of native fish, shellfish, and wildlife
populations and undermine our Treaty rights.
In our review of the Plan, a number specific issues emerged that are important to the
Tribe and the protection of our Treaty-reserved rights:
For an accurate history of Tribes (p. 7) please refer to Jerry Gorsline's 1997 book,
Shadow of Our Ancestors for a timeline of events from the time of the Stevens Treaties to
the present. Though Treaties were signed in 1855, most Tribes did not receive federal
recognition until after 1900.
>
The designation of the Black Point as a Master Planned Resort (MPR) is inconsistent with
both the spirit and intent of the Growth Management Act, the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, and the Brinnon Planning Group's own stated goals.
Limiting the Extent and Intensity of New Land Use - The designation of the Black Point as
a Master Planned Resort (MPR) is inconsistent with both the spirit and intent of the
Growth Management Act, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and the Brinnon Planning
Group's own stated goals. The startling income-housing cost gap that the Brinnon Planning
Group has identified in their community may not be ameliorated by the development of the
Black Point
MPR. In fact, if the Port Ludlow MPR serves as any example, the affordable housing
situation may be worsened as wealthy second home-buyers flock to the rea and drive up
living costs.
>
More importantly, the designation of an MPR at Black Point will expand, not limit
intensive
development in outlying areas, near sensitive shoreline habitats potentially jeopardizing
native
populations and ecosystems upon which the Tribe depends. As embayments of Hood Canal have
been
developed as marinas and where intensive residential development has resulted in water
quality
degradation, shellfish harvest has been limited or closed. Many of these areas are among~
the most productive habitats, undermining the long-term viability of our Tribe's natural
resource-based economy. In particular, the Dosewallips and Duckabush deltas are important
sites of Tribal
shellfish activity.
>
The startling income-housing cost gap that the Brinnon Planning Group has identified in
2
their ~~
community may not be ameliorated by the development of the Black Point MPR. In fact, if
the Port Ludlow MPR serves as any example, the affordable housing situation may be
worsened as wealthy second ho~e-buyers flock to the area and drive up living costs
> ·
With the loss of resilient salmon populations capable of supporting tribal harvest
opportunities,
the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe has shifted its focus increasingly towards shellfish
Thus '
development proposals in this immediate area are of concern to the Tribe.
>
Misunderstanding Of Tribal Shellfish Harvest Issues (p. 55-7) - Unfortunately, th~ Brinnon
Plan
misrepresents a number of facts surrounding Tribal shellfish harvest on private lands.
Under the
Rafeedie decision and subsequent federal court decisions, the Tribes right to harvest
shellfish on tidelands that are not staked or cultivated was sustained. This right is
explicitly recognized in the Stevens Treaties and supersedes the rights of shoreline
property owners. However, the courts require the Tribes to follow strict landowner
notification and pre-harvest survey procedures to ensure shellfish populations and their
habitat are protected. Management of fish and shellfish harvests is not under the
authority of the Brinnon Planning Group or Jefferson County, but rests with the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Tribes (the "co-managers").
>
Further development within floodplain is inconsistent with the twin goals of protecting
sensitive aquatic resources and safeguarding existing shoreline/floodplain property
owners. New
development in the Dosewallips River floodplain should be designed so as to result in no
increased building footprint.
- >
Development of a Comprehensive Salmon Recovery Plan (p. 56) - One stated objective of the
Plan is
the development of "a reasonable salmon'enhancement plan.that takes into account factors
such as .
overfishing, harvest methods of treaty tribes and the salmon habitat to include the impact
of logging, weather conditions and property development." The plan also speaks to the
need for citizen involvement, which is also important. One such plan has already been
developed, the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative (WDFW and PNPTT 2000) and I
would encourage members of the Brinnon Planning Group to review this document. It is
available over
the internet at: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/chum/chum, htm .
>
Flooding and Floodplain Development Issues (p. 78-80) - Floodplain environments are
inextricably
linked with their rivers and habitat that sustains imperiled fish populations. As
development on the floodplain occurs, there is loss of essential flood water storage
functions, bank armoring increases to the detriment of in-channel fish habitat, and
flooding impacts become more severe for both shoreline property owners and fish
populations. Further development within floodplain is
inconsistent with the twin goals of protecting sensitive aquatic resources and
safeguarding
existing shoreline/floodplain property owners. New development in the Dosewallips River
floodplain should be designed so as to result in no increased building footprint.
>
Opportunities for property buyout and dike setback to remove or minimize river channel
constrictions (which increase the severity and frequency of flooding) should also be
identified in the Plan. Historic logjam removal and floodplain loss in the upper watershed
has also likely played a role in increasing flood impacts in the lower river by reducing
water residence times; the Plan should identify the linked needs for riverine fish habitat
and floodplain restoration in the upper watershed as a mitigation tool for downstream
flooding concerns.
Finally, Brinnon residents and the local flood control board should request that the U.S.
Geological Service re-activate an historic flow gage at rivermile 7.1 to provide real-time
flooding alerts to area residents and as basic planning tool for effective fisheries and
3
water resource management. ,$'16/
>
Effective Conservation Planning Tools (p. 84) - Finally, the Plan mentions the use of
conservation tools such as easements and transfer of development rights (TDRs) but does
not lay a framework for their creative use or implementation. To be effective, the
Brinnon Subarea Plan needs to relate these tools to the problems it identifies in the
communiEy (lack of affortable housing, inappropriate floodplain/shoreline development,
need for protection fish and wildlife populations and their habitats, etc). For example,
how might TDRs be employed To shift developmenE densities away from the river and onuo the
gravel pit and Beling properties which are ouEside ef the floodplain?
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ted Labbe
Habitat Biologist
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
31912 Little BosEon Road
Kingston, WA 98346
Mark Rose
phone: 360-796-3300
email: pulalipoint@yahoo.com
web: www.brmnnonplan.com
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & gee email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com/
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Rose [markrose@markrose.org]
Saturday, July 28, 2001 8:50 AM
Josh D. Peters
Al Scalf
Brinnon Public Record
erethcomments doc
Saturday, July 28, 2001
Josh Peters:
I request that this email and attached document be submitted into the public record and be
part of any environmental review in the Brinnon planning district.
Attached are preliminary comments of Marty Ereth, Skokomish Habitat Biologist. Ereth
works with Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist for Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribes. Ereth cannot
attend the Tuesday, July 31 public hearing in Brinnon due to prior committments. Labbe
cannot attend the meeting because of a pre-planned vacation. They will submit detailed
comments and testify at public hearings at a later date. Like the rest of us, they only
had one week notice to read and comment on a detailed 100 page document. Hence, these are
only preliminary comments.
On June 14, 2001, both Ted Labbe and Paula Mackrow, Executive Director of the North
Olympic Salmon Coalition, sent emaiis to Linda Tudor, chair of the Brinnon sub-area group,
requesting copies of the plan. They also wanted to have in-put concerning environmental
issues impacting the Brinnon district. Linda Tudor denied their requests (documentation
will be sent in separate emails).
I also spoke with Dan Hannafious, biologist for Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC).
He was not aware of the Brinnon sub-area plan or the meeting on Tuesday. HCCC is the lead
agency in serious study of the Dosewallips and Duckabush rivers for resoration of salmon
habitat.
To my knowledge, the Brinnon sub-area group has made no attempt to include appropriate
environmental groups in drafting the plan. In fact, the chair of the group denied
requests for such groups to become involved. This is a violation of the Growth Management
Act, the county's Comprehensive Plan and the Blue Book. This behavior has seriously
compromised the integrity of the Brinnon sub-area plan. Many times during the drafting of
the plan, community members implored the group to consider environmental impact o~ the
plan. They refused.
Mark Rose
Brinnon
Mark Rose
markrose@markrose.org
PHONE: 360-796-3300
www.brinnonplan.com
Mark Rose
Page I of I
From: Marty Ereth [marty@skokomish.org]
Sent: Friday, July27 2001 4:47 PM
To: Mark Rose
Subject: Brinnon Plan
Mark,
I did receive your 2 emails and your latest voice-mail. I have been extremely busy and have not spent much
time in the office. Ted told me that he was going to be on vacation but he was going to try and get some
comments on the Brinnon Plan out the door. I haven't seen them so I am not sure of their status I won't be
able to come to the public hearing because have other commitments but agree with your assessment of
the Brinnon Plan in that it was drafted by those who have the most to benefit economically and is definitely a
conflict of interest for those who participated in its drafting.
I breezed through the plan and had some very genera bullet points that I attached to this email. I know it isn't
much but hopefully Ted Labbe and us can become more involved in this in the near future. I will be out of the
office on Monday and Tuesday of next week but will be back in on Wednesday. Take care and good luck
Monday night.
Marly Ereth
Skokomish Habitat Biologist
9/19/01
Preliminary Brinnon-sub-area plan comments
Pg 21 The increase in mobile homes in the Brinnon area and the ratio of mobile homes
to stick-built homes does not necessarily reflect the "need for affordable housing" as
much as the realization that newer mobile homes are cheaper and are ora finer quality
than older mobile homes. In fact, if you look at rural areas in other counties, you will
find a plethora of newer mobile homes as well
Pg. 32 Agree with Goal G2.0 to update FEMA's FIRM maps. (Should add using the
most current and best available information available).
Pg. 33 Appears that the documents authors have a pre-conceived idea of the boundaries
of the Dosewallips floodplain and is somewhat contrary to Goal G2.0 to update the
FEMA maps. (Should be careful what you ask for because you might get it). Port
Gamble S'klallam Tribe is pursuing a study to map the Dosewallips River with LIDAR
technology which may help define the Dosewallips floodplain.
Pg. 42 Inappropriate to blame mill closures in the early 80's entirely on environmental
regulations and spotted owls restriction Spotted owl restrictions came later and mills
were closing down prior to that. New technology in the woods and the mills resulted in
job losses as well as these activities were becoming more mechanized.
Pg. 42 New forest practice rules due to ESA listings tForest and Fish Agreement) will
not adversely impact forest land owners to a significant degree because new riparian
buffers are not significantly larger than previous buffer standards and non fish streams
are still left un-protected to a great degree.
Pg. 51 DNR lands, although constrained by their HCP does not take their land out of the
forest inventory.
Pg. 54 I believe McDonald Creek empties into McDaniel Cove and the creek at Beacon
Point is called Shaerer Creek
Pg. 55 Future Objectives- These are not really objectives but statements. Objective #2
has some serious racist overtones.
Pg. 55 Objective/t3. Do not try to advance the development ora "put and take"
approach for supplementation of natural production on public tidelands by using the
WDFW models of their "put and take" trout and steelhead programs. These programs
have been to a large extent detrimental to native trout, steelhead and salmon populations
and have failed to enhance the overall production of trout and salmon over the long term.
Pg. 69. Logging and fishing opportunities in the area have not been reduced primarily
due to environmental restrictions Market forces as noted has been substantial Loss of
fish resources is a prominent reason for increased restrictions and there are multiple
causes, mainly the continuing loss of habitat..
Pg. 79 Installation of rip-rap to "contain any possible flooding" is often counter
productive and does not change the boundaries of a floodplain. Most times, rip-rap banks
are installed to control localized erosion and only contain small floods. In rivers the size
of the Dosewallips and the Duckabush, 100 year flood events generally can not be
contained within a channel bounded by rip-rap unless major dredging and or dikes are
constructed Hardening banks may satisfy short-term goals (bank protection at s~te) but
often Fail to achieve long-term goals I maintaining ecosystem function and quality fish
habitat and flood reduction ).
Pg 80 Policy P 1.1. Utilizing land and resources for their "highest and best use" has
different connotations for different people depend:ng on their philosophy Obviously a
landowner or real estate developer may view thi:. ~rase differently than a photographer
or biologist.
Pg. 80 P2.4. Again rip-rapping may seem to be an improvement to some but should not
reduce or change the designation and extent of a 100 year flood plain.
Pg. 82. Natural Heritage Vegetation, Wildlife and Landforms. The marine habitats
mentioned are utilized by al! species of' salmon and trout. Chum salmon may tend to use
them to a greater extent as far as juvenile residency times, but the importance of these
habitats to other salmonids is no less significant In addition, beach habitat is also
important for other species of bait and forage fish other than herring, including surf smelt,
shiner perch and many others. Not mentioned are the numerous invertebrates which
currently have no commercial or sport value but are nevertheless important components
of the marine ecosystem.
Pg. 83. Steelhead (sea-mn rainbow) and resident rainbow trout were not included in the
species list. Other species not in the species list include candlefish, surf smelt, shiner
perch, sand lance and others.
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON
Page 1 of 2
-4{
RCW 36.70A.035
Public participation -- Notice provisions.
(1) The~ublic participation requirements of this chapter shall
include notice prJcedures that are reasonably calculated Eo provide
~~ ?o. rope~5:l gwners and other affected and interesEed
-i-h~dividuals, tribes, government agencies, Dusinesses, ~c-h-~ol
d~s~cust and organizations of proposed amendments 5o
c~mprehensive plan~--and developmen~ regulation. £~x~mpl~s of
~sonable ~-~t~ce provisions ~Sclude: ~
(a) Posting the property for site-specific proposals;
(b) Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in
the county, city, or general area where the proposal is located or
that will be affected by the proposal;
or private groups with known interest in /
proposal or ~n the type of pr9posal bein~ considered~
(c) Notifying public
a certain
(d) Placing notices in appropriate regional, neighborhood,
ethnic, or trade journals; and
~ (e) Publishing notice in agency newsletters or sending'~notic~e
lists for
to agency mailing lists, ~ncluding general lisEs or
specific proposals or subjecE areas.
(2) (a) Except as otherwise provided in (b) of this subsection,
if the legislative body for a county or city chooses to consider a
change to an amendmenE to a comprehensive plan or developmenE
regulation, and the change is proposed after the opportunity for
review and comment has passed under the county's or city's
procedures, an opportunity for review and comment on the proposed
change shall be provided before the local legislative body voEes on
the proposed change.
(b) An additional opportunity for public review and comment is
not required under (a) of this subsection if:
(i) An environmental impact statement has been prepared under
chaDter 43.21C RCW for the pending resolution or ordinance and the
proposed change is within the range of alternatives considered in
5he environmental ~mpact statement;
(ii/ The proposed change zs within the scope of the
alternatives available for public comment;
(iii) The proposed change only corrects typographical errors,
correcEs cross-references, makes address or name chances, or
clarifies language of a proposed ordinance or resolution without
changing its effect;
0 0 0
http ://search. leg. wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW '/020 ¼2036 ¼20.../RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A. 035. ht 4/2/01
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON
Page 2 of 2
(iv) The proposed change is to a resolution or ordinance
making a capital budget decision as provided in RCW 36.70A.120; or
(v) The proposed change is to a resolution or ordinance
enacting a moraEorlum or interim control adopted under RCW
36.70A.390.
(3) This section is prospective in effect and does not apply
to a comprehensive plan, development regulation, or amendment
adopted before July 27, 1997.
[1999 c 315 § 708; 1997 c 429 § 9.]
NOTES:
Part headings and captions not law -- 1999 c 315: See RCW
28A.315.901.
Prospective application -- 1997 c 429 ~§ 1-21: See note
following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Severability -- 1997 c 429: See note following RCW
36.70A.3201.
' http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%2036%20.../RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A 035.ht 4/2/01
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON
RCW 36.70A.070
Comprehensive plans -- Mandatory elements.
Page 1 of 7
The comprehensive plan of a county or city that is required or
chooses 5o plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall consist of a map or
maps, and descripEive 5ext covering objectives, principles, and
standards used 5o develop the comprehensive plan. The plan shall be
an internally consistent document and all elements shall be
consisEenE with the future land use map. A comprehensive plan shall
be adopted and amended with public participation as provided in RCW
36.70A.140.
Each comprehensive plan shall include a plan, scheme, or
design for each of the following:
(1) A land use element designating the proposed general
distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land,
where appropriate, for agriculEure, timber production, housing,
commerce, industry, recreaEion, open spaces, general aviation
airports, public utiliEies, public facilities, and other land uses.
The land use element shall include population densities, building
intensities, and estimates of future population growth. The land
use element shall provide for proEection of the quality and
quantity of ground waEer used for public water supplies. Where
applicable, the land use element shall review drainage, flooding,
and sEorm water run-off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and
provide guidance for corrective acElons to mitiga£e or cleanse
those discharges that pollute wa5ers of the state, including Puget
Sound or waEers entering Puget Sound.
/
(2) A housing element ensuring the vitality and character of
established residential neighborhoods that: (a) Includes an
inven£ory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs; (b)
includes a statement of goals, policies, objectives, and mandatory
provisions for the preservation, lmprovemenE, and development of
housing, including single-family residences; (c) identifies
sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to,
government-assisted housing, housing for iow-income families,
manufactured housing, multifamily housing, and group homes and
foster care facilities; and (d) makes adequaEe provisions for
existing and projected needs of all economic segmenEs of the
community.
'- (3) A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) An
inventory of ex~sEing capital facilities owned by public entities,
showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b)
a forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities; (c) the
proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital
facilities; (d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such ~
capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly
identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) a
requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding
http:#search.legwa, gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%2036%26.../RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A.070.N 4/2/01
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 2 of 7
falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land
use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan
within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and
consistent.
(4) A utilities element consisting of the general location,
proposed location, and capacity of all existing and proposed
utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical lines,
telecommunication lines, and natural gas lines.
(5) Rural element. Counties shall include a rural element
including lands that are not designated for urban growth,
agriculture, forest, or mineral resources. The following provisions
shall apply to the rural element:
(a) Growth management act goals and local circumstances.
Because circumstances vary from county to county, in establishing
patterns of rural densities and uses, a county may consider local
circumstances, but shall develop a written record explaining how
~ the rural element harmonizes the planning goals zn RCW 36.70A.020
and meets the requirements of this chapter.
(b) Rural development. The rural element shall permit rural
development, forestry, and agriculture in rural areas. The rural
element shall provide for a variety of rural densities, uses,
essential public facilities, and rural governmental services needed
to serve the permitted densities and uses. In order Eo achieve a
variety of rural densi£ies and uses, counties may provide for
clustering, density transfer, design guidelines, conservation
easements, and other innovative techniques that will accommodate
appropriate rural densities and uses that are not characterized by
urban growth and that are consistent with rural character.
(c) Measures governing rural development. The rural element
shall include measures that apply to rural development and proEec~
the rural character of the area, as established by the county, by:
(i) Containing or otherwise controlling rural development;
(ii) Assuring visual compatibility of rural development with
the surroundin__Q_q_~u~ral area,
~/ (iii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undevl~
~O sprawling, low-density development in the ai~~~
/// (iv)Protecting critical areas, as provided in ~
and surface water and ground water resources; and /
(v) Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural,
forest, and mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170.
(d) Limited areas of more intensive rural development. Subject
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
http ://sear6h.leg.wa. gov/wslrcw/RCW ¼20 ¼2036 ¼20.../RCW ¼20 ¼2036 ¼20.¼2070A. 070. ht 4/2/01
REVISEDCODEOFWASH~GTON Page3of7
to the requirements of this subsection and except as otherwise
specifically provided in this subsection (5) (d), the rural element
may allow for limited areas of more intensive rural developmenE,
including necessary public facilities and public services to serve
the limited area as follows:
(i) Rural development consisting of the infill, development,
or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential,
or mixed-use areas, whether characterized as shoreline development,
villages, hamlets, rural activity centers, or crossroads
developments. A commercial, industrial, residential, shoreline, or
mixed-use area shall be subject to the requirements of (d) (iv) of
this subsection, but shall not be subject to the requirements of
(c) (ii) and (iii) of this subsection. An industrial area is hOE
required to be principally designed to serve the existing and
projected rural population;
(ii) The intensification of development on lots containing, or
new development of, small-scale recreational.or tourist uses,
including commercial facilities to serve those recreational or
tourist uses, that rely on a rural location and setting, but that
do not include new residential development. A small-scale
recreation or tourist use is not required to be principally
designed to serve the existing and projected rural population.
Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those
necessary to serve the recreation or tourist use and shall be
provided in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl;
(iii) The intensification of development on lots containing
isolated nonresidential uses or new development of isolated cottage
industries and isolated small-scale businesses that are not
principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural
population and nonresidential uses, but do provide job
opportunities for rural residents. Public services and public
facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the
isolated nonresidential use and shall be provided in a manner that
does not p.erm_~ln.~..--deeeity ....... ~
./~ (iv) A county shall adopt measures to minimize and contain the
existing areas or uses of more intensive rural development, as
appropriate, authorized under this subsection. Lands included in
such existing areas or uses shall not extend beyond the logical
outer boundary of the existing area or use, thereby allowing a new
pattern of iow-density sprawl. Existing areas are those that are
clearly identifiable and contained and where there is a logical
boundary delineated predominately by the built environment, but
that may also include undeveloped lands if limited as provided in
this subsection. The county shall establish the logical outer
boundary of an area of more intensive rural development. In
establishing the logical outer boundary the county shall address
(A) the need to preserve the character of existing natural
neighborhoods and communities, (B) physical boundaries such as
bodies .of water, streets and highways, and land forms and contours,
http ://search.leg.wa. gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%2036%20.../RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A.070.ht 4/2/01
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 4 of 7
(C) the prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries, and (D) the
abiliEy to provide public facilities and public services in a
manner that does not permit iow-density sprawl;
(v) For purposes of (d) of this subsection, an existing area
or existing use is one that was in exisEence:
(A) On July 1, 1990, in a county that was initially required
to plan under all of the provisions of this chapEer;
(B) On the date the county adopted a resolution under RCW
36.70A.040(2), in a county that is planning under all of the
provisions of this chapter under RCW 36.70A.040(2); or
(C) On the date the office of financial management certifies
the counEy's population as provided in RCW 36.70A.040(5), in a
county that is planning under all of the provisions of this chapter
pursuanE to RCW 36.70A.040(5).
(e) Exception. This subsection shall not be interpreted 5o
permit in the rural area a ma-or industrial development or a master
planned resort unless otherwise specifically permitted under RCW
36.70A.360 and 36.70A.365.
(6) A transportation element that implements, and
consistent with, the land use element.
(a) The transportation element shall include the following
subetements:
(i) Land use assumptions used in estimating travel;
(ii) Estimated traffic impacts to state-owned transportation
facilities resulting from land use assumptions to assist the
department of transportation in monitoring the performance of sta~e
facilities, to plan improvemenEs for the facilities, and Eo assess
the impact of land-use decisions on state-owned transporEation
facilities;
(iii) Facilities and services needs, including:
(A) An inventory of air, water, and ground transportation
facilities and services, including transit alignmenEs and general
aviation airport facilities, to define exzsElng capital facilities
and travel levels as a basis for future planning. This inventory
muse include state-owned 5ransportation facilities within the ciEy
or counEy's jurisdiction boundaries;
(B) Level of service standards for all locally owned arterials
and transit routes to serve as a gauge Eo judge performance of the
system. These standards should be regionally coordinated;
http://search.legwa, gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%2036%20.../RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A.070.ht 4/2/01
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON
Page 5 of 7
(C) For state-owned transportation facilities, level of
service standards for highways, as prescribed in chapters 47.06 and
47.80 RCW, Eo gauge the performance of the system. The purposes of
reflecting level of service standards for state highways in the
local comprehensive plan are to monitor the performance of the
system, to evaluate improvement strategies, and to facilitate
coordination between the county's or city's six-year street, road,
or transit program and the department of ~ransportation's slx-year
investment program. The concurrency requirements of (b) of this
subsection do not apply to transportation facilities and services
of state-wide significance except for counties consisting of
islands whose only connection to the mainland are state highways or
ferry routes. In these island counties, state highways and ferry
route capacity must be a factor in meeting the concurrency
requirements zn (b) of this subsection;
(D) Specific actions and requirements for bringing into
compliance locally owned transportation facilities or services that
are below an established level of service standard;
~J (E~) Forecasts of
adopted land use plan
timing, and capacity
traffic for at least ten years based on
to provide information on the location,
needs of future growth;
(F) Identification of state and local system needs to meet
current and future demands. Identified needs on state-owned
transportation facilities must be consistent with the state-wide
multimodal transportation plan required under chapEer 47.06 RCW;
(iv) Finance, including:
(A) An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against
probable funding resources;
(B) A multiyear financing plan based on the needs identified
in the comprehensive plan, the appropriane parts of which shall
serve as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit
program required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for
counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public transportation systems. The
multiyear financing plan should be coordinated with the six-year
improvement program developed by the department of transportation
as required by RCW 47.05.030;
(C) If probable funding falls short of meeting identified
needs, a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, or
how land use assumptions will be reassessed Eo ensure that level of
service standards will be met;
(v) Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an
assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use
assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent
httpY/search.legwa.gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%2036%20.../RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A.070.ht 4/2/01
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON
jurisdictions;
Page 6 of 7
(vi) Demand-management strategies.
(b) After adoption of the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions
required Eo plan or who choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, local
jurisdictions muse adopE and enforce ordinances which prohibit
development approval if the developmenE causes the level of service
on a locally owned transportation faciliEy to decline below the
standards adopted in the Eransportation element of the
comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or
sErategies to accommodate the impacEs of developmenE are made
concurrent with the development. These straEegies may include
increased public transportation service, ride sharing programs,
demand management, and other transporEation sysEems managemenE
strategies. For the purposes of this subsecEion (6) "concurrent
with the development" shall mean that improvements or strategies
are in place at the time of development, or that a financial
commitment is in place to complete the improvemenEs or strategies
within six years.
(c) The transportation element described in this subsection
(6), and the slx-year plans required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities,
RCW 36.81.121 for counties, RCW 35.58.2795 for public
transportation sysEems, and RCW 47.05.030 for the state, must be
consistent.
[1998 c 171 § 2; 1997 c 429 ~ 7; 1996 c 239 § 1. Prior: 1995 c 400 § 3; 1995 c
377 ~ 1; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 7.]
NOTES:
Prospective application -- 1997 c 429 §§ 1-21: See note
following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Severability -- 1997 c 429: See note following RCW
36.70A.3201.
Construction -- Application -- 1995 c 400: "A comprehensive
plan adopted or amended before May 16, 1995, shall be considered to
be in compliance wlth RCW 36.70A.070 or 36.70A.110, as in effect
before their amendment by this acE, if the comprehensive plan is in
compliance with RCW 36.70A.070 and 36.70A.110 as amended by this
acE. This section shall not be construed to alter the relationship
between a county-wide planning policy and comprehensive plans as
specified under RCW 36.70A.2t0.
As to any appeal relating to compliance with RCW 36.70A.070 or
36.70A.110 pending before a growth management hearings board on May
16, 1995, the board may take up to an additional nineEy days 5o
resolve such appeal. By mutual agreement of all parties to the
appeal, this additional ninety-day period may be extended." [1995 c
http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%2036%20.../RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A.070.ht 4/2/01
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON
400 ~ 4.]
Page 7 of 7
Effective date -- 1995 c 400: See noEe following RCW
36.70A.040.
http://search.leg.wa, gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%2036%20.../RCW%20%2036%20.%2070A.070.ht 4/2/01
JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
_Long-R_ange Planning ndGrowth _Management__
Jefferson County Courthouse P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368
(206) 385-9123 FAX: (206) 385-9357 1-800-831-2678
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEES
Rev/$ed June 12,94
Introduction
The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners and the Jefferson County
Planning Commission have jointly determined that the most effective way to
encourage citizen participation in the comprehensive planning process required
by the Growth Management Act is to vigorously promote the formation of
Community Planning Committees to produce community plans and provide
input on the comprehensive plan.
in direct support of this policy, the Board, planning staff, and Planning
Commission have produced this document to guide the formation and
operation of the Community Planning Committees.
Community residents, property owners, or business owners/operators
interested in forming or participating in a community planning committee are
encouraged to study these guidelines closely and contact the Board, planning
commission, or planning staff for assistance.
Administration
While each Community Planning Committee will be in charge of its own
destiny, situations may arise where the committee needs'help from the County
to move along with their plan. In order to support the planning process and
allow individual citizens and community committees to identify who they need
to work with on a particular issue, administration and support responsibilitres
have been assigned as follows:
GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEES
PAGE 1
HOW TO BEGIN THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS
Any interested citizen[s) can begin the job of forming a planning committee
for their community. One way to begin ~s by asking which residents or
property owners need to be involved (whatever their views) in order for the
planning process to work.
For this effort to result in the successful formation of a
produces a community plan, it will be necessar~
o Be completely open in conducting their business;
o- Sustain interest in the planning process;
committee that
Have adequate facilitation and leadership; and
Prepare a community plan consistent with, among other things, the goals
of GMA, the County-Wide Planning Policies, and with community values
and needs.
DEFINING YOUR COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA
Defining a community planning area is essential. Communities provide the
opportunity for social interaction and political participation. Features of
community interests include self determination (having a say about the future)
and a familiarity with local issues.
While defining your community planning area you may wish to consider the
following features commonly used to define a community.
· Size (measured by population and geographic areas);
· Boundaries (defined by noticeable edges, landmarks, or manmade or
natural features);
· The presence of institutions or facilities (a school, hospital, church);
· A central point of congregation; and
· The street system.
COMMITTEE SELECTION PROCESS
A Community Planning Committee should:
o be representative of the diversity found in each community;
o reach out and involve the community; and,
o understand the tasks and processes involved.
GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEES
PAGE 3
report on a regular basis to the
progress and committee workplan.
planning department on committee
In addition to being responsible for conducting meetings, the committee
chair shall act as the primary contact between the community committee
and planning department staff.
The committee shall appoint a secretary to produce summary minutes. The
secretary shall be responsible for forwarding copies of these minutes to
'planning staff, and for assuring that the minutes are easily available for
public review.
4. Following adoption of its ground rules, the Committee shall develop a draft
work program that identifies the approximate schedule for undertaking the
various tasks required for completion of the plan. This work program
s~ould be reviewed and revised periodically, as needed.
.~ s.~'he committee shall use this schedule to divide responsibilities betw-~en its
members, identify work priorities, and inform other members of the
community who wish to help on specific issues when their input can be
~OSt effectively used.
Committee chairs will have an important role to play in assuring the success
of the committee. They will need to conduct the meetings in a friendly and
impartial manner and be prepared to act as a negotiator, peacemaker, and
spokesman on various occasions. If there is sufficient interest on the part of
committee chairs, or other interested persons, the county will hold a workshop
on facilitation skills to help meet these challenges.
/~.roduction of a work schedule will serve to inform interested citizens when I
they can participate in the production of soecific p. lan elements. In addition,_.J--
"~-~t Will provide the "community committee' with t~ opp~-~-E~U~'"t~-~tdentify
exactly what needs to be done to produce the plan, when it needs to be done,
and how it can be accomplished. By identifying these definite needs, the work
plan will encourage people to look at the 'big picture' and adopt realistic
schedules for completion of the various plan elements.
DRAFT COMMUNITY PLAN REVISION AND ADOPTION
After a pre-draft community plan has been completed, it is recommended
that it be submitted it to the planning department for initial review and
commie_hr for:
v~/~o consistency with the County-Wide Planning ~olicy;
internal consistency;
consistency with the Growth Management. Act;
assurance that no unfair discrimination exists; and
GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEES
PAGE 7
The draft will then be returned to the community planning committee for
any required amending.
Following any required revision of the pre-draft plan, the co~mmunity
planning committee shall effectively advertise and hold an open community
meeting to present, explain, and receive comment on the revised pre-draft.
Should this meeting indicate that substantial revision of the pre-draft plan
is necessary, a second public meeting shall be held to reconsider it after
needed revisions have been made. A taped record of the proceedings of
this meeting shall be made, and summary minutes shall be prepared.
Following the adoption of draft community plan by the community at-large,
it shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Should this
review indicate that substantial revision of the draft plan may be necessary,
the Planning Commission and planning staff will work with community
groups to resolve these issues.
ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES
In order to allow for the growth and change of the community planning
committee over time, each committee should allow some flexibility in its
membership. A way in which this might be accomplished is to allow citizens
who want to join the committee -- but missed the start-up meeting -- to
participate as unofficial members until the next public meeting is held. Their
membership of the committee may then be confirmed by community members
wiqo attend the meeting.
Some additional flexibility in committee operations may also be desirable to
accommodate any shift workers who cannot attend evening meetings. Their
participation could be encouraged by scheduling sub-committee meetings (for
plan element production, etc.) during the day or on weekends. Additional
participation could be generated by encouraging written submissions from area
residents who are unable to attend committee meetings.
Finally, in order to promote coordination between the community planning
committees and provide an opportunity to discuss common planning issues,
the County will host a monthly meeting of committee chairs, and other
interested committee members throughout the comprehensive plan revision
process. The date and time of each meeting will be arranged by planning
staff.
Existing and Potential Community Planning Areas
Based on the existence of current community plans, citizen interest, and staff
research, the following areas have been preliminarily Identified as being likely
to produce community plans:
GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNITY ~LANNING COMMITTEES
PAGE 8
Brinnon; Coyle; Discovery Bay; Gardiner; Lake Leland; Marrowstone Island;
North Port Ludlow; Shine; Paradise Bay; Port Ludlow; Port Townsend;
Quilcene; Quimper; Tri-Area; and West Jefferson County.
While the community planning requirements and suggestions contained within
this document are primarily intended for use by the unincorporated
communities of Jefferson County, its provisions may also be applied to
residents of Port Townsend who wish to participate in the county planning
process.
CONCLUSION
The Board, Planning Commission, and Planning Staff of Jefferson County hope
that the committee formation and operation guidelines provided in this policy
paper will be easy to use and effective in promoting a truly democratic
community planning process.
Approved as revised by BOCC 6/13/94
GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMIT'TEES
PAGE 9
Fiolations of contract F-99-64099-074 by Jefferson Coun~ /'Mark Rose 1
October 3. 2001
Mr. Stephen H Buxbaum
Managing Director of Community Development Programs Unit
Washington State Office of Community Development
906 Columbia Street SW
Olympia. WA 98504
Contract F-99-64099-074
$24,000 CDBG funds awarded to Jefferson County for community planning
Dear Mr. Buxbaum:
I am requesting a formal investigation into the misuse of funds by Jefferson
'County under the terms of Contract F-99-64099-074 ("The Contract").
Over the past eight months, I (and others) have made numerous attempts to force
the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Board of County
Commissioners and the Planning Commission to investigate violations of law and county
regulations, pertaining to terms of The Contract. Many legitimate written grievances
have been ignored, dismissed or derided.
I request that corrective and remedial action be taken under subpart o, 570.910, to
comply with either (b) (5) or (b) (8), which read as follows:
(b) Actions authorized. The following lists the actions that HUD may take in response
to a deficiency identified during the review of a rec~pient's performance:
(5) Advise the recipient to reimburse its program account or letter of credit in
any amounts ~mproperly expended and reprogram the use of the funds in
accordance with applicable requwements;
(8) In the case of an entitlement recipient, condition the use of funds from a
succeeding fiscal year's allocation upon appropriate corrective action by the
recipient pursuant to 570.304(d). The failure of the recipient to undertake
the actions specified in the condition may result in a reduction, pursuant to
570.911, of the entitlement recipient's annual grant by up to the amount
conditionally granted
I understand that under subpart c. 570.205, outlining the terms of the grant to hire
a consultant, the county is given wide latitude for planning. However. the county must
adhere to the Federal guidelines enacted by Congress in the Community Development
Act of 1974 I HCD Act), as amended in 1981. to give each State the opportunity to
administer CDBG funds for non-entitlement areas
['?olations of contract F-99-64099~074 by Jefferson Count,/'3,[ark Rose 2
According to Congress, one of three major responsibilities of States participating
in the CDBG program is "ensuring that recipient communities comply with applicable
State and Federal laws and requirements." By any measure, this has not been done, as I
will demonstrate.
As a result, the people of Brinnon have been robbed of genuine opportunity to
plan for their future, the taxpayers money has been wasted. State agencies have been
mislead and used for political and monetary gain by unscrupulous individuals, the needs
of lo~v and moderate income families will continue to be unthlfilled, and the general
citizenry of Brinnon has been used and manipulated
A summary of issues I am requesting OCD to investigate:
1. No grievance procedure
Congress mandated that States "follow the Act's citizen participation
requirements." ensuring that a grant recipient "provides for a timely written answer to
written complaints and grievances within 15 working days where practicable."
According to the Code of Federal Regulations. Subpart I. State Community
Block Grant Program. 24 CFR Sec. 570.486, Local government requirements: (7)
"Provide citizens the address, phone number, and times for submitting complaints and
grievances, and provide timely written answers to written complaints and grievances,
within 15 working days where practicable."
In a letter to Josh Peters. Associate Planner of Jefferson County, September 27,
2001, CDBG Project Manager Kaaren Roe states: "It appears the Brinnon Planning
Group and other interested parties were initiallv provided the grievance procedure as part
of the grant materials, but also that this procedure was hidden within the paperwork and
not clearly communicated."
I strongly disagree with that statement. A review of the materials shows
numerous references to. and examples of, a grievance procedure. It is not possible that
the grievance procedure was "hidden within the paperwork." or that the county can
backtrack to create one after the Brinnon plan has been created. A sampling of references
to the grievance procedure in paperwork given to the county:
According to the "Federal Citizen Participation Requirements," ("The
Document") submitted with The Contract, "To apply for CDBG funds, a jurisdiction
must show it has involved its citizens in the CDBG application process and complied
with the specific federal citizen participation requirements outlined in 24 CFR 570.486."
The Document lists six (6) requirements. Number five (5) states:
"Adopt a grievance procedure for the use of CDBG funds. A sample
grievance procedure is provided on page 16 (see below)."
The Document also states: "The required citizen participation
documentation to be submitted with the application includes: A copy of
the jurisdiction's adopted grievance procedure."
Violations of contract F-99-64099-074 b.t,, Jef. fbrson Coun(F / g~lar/~. Rose
Five (5) of the citizen participation requirements are discussed in
greater detail. Number five (5) reads:
5. Grievance procedure
What must the procedure do? - The grievance procedure must
provide c~tizens the address, phone number, and times for
submitting complaints and grievances, and provide timely written
answers to written complaints and grievances, within 15 working
days where practicable. A sample procedure to be adopted is
provided on page 16 (discussed below/.
The "CDBG Planning Only Grant Application Checklist," submitted with The
Contract asks: "Has the required Citizen Participation Documentation been enclosed with
the application and does it meet the minimum requirements.'?" One of the requirements
states: ~A copy of the jurisdiction's adopted Grievance Procedure."
The "Grievance Procedure for Brinnon sub-area planning process," included with
The Contract, is also referred to as tpage 16)~'A sample procedure." The first sentence
reads: "The process to be used for any complaints/grievances that arise from the
Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) Brinnon sub-area
planning process (funded partially through a CTED CDBG grant) is described below." In
summary, the process allows for a petitioner to submit a written complaint to DCD for
resolution within 15 working days If the complaint is not resolved to the petitioner's
satisfaction, it will be for~varded to a grievance committee or heard by the Board of
County Commissioners ("The governing body") in an open hearing. The grievance
commmee or the governing body has 30 days to render a final decision. "A record of
action taken on each complaint will be maintained as a part of the records or minutes at
each level of the grievance process."
Legitimate, written grievances included violations of:
- Open Public Meetings Act
Freedom of Information Act
Growth Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
CTED CDBG grant
- Community Development Act
Agreements with State agencies
At no time was any grievance given appropriate hearing. No grievance procedure
was established, discussed or promoted Consequently, the Brinnon sub-area planning
process was conducted in an illegal manner The plan should thus be nullified and funds
used for production of the plan should be recovered and re-allocated to conduct a new
planning process in compliance with the law.
Fiolations of contract F-99-64099-074 by Jefferson Coun.~ /,~lar~' Rose
4
2. Violations of "Opportunity/Problem Statement"
a) Paragraph three (3) of the "Opportunity/Problem Statement" reads (my
emphasis):
In order to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act, Jefferson
County adopted a Comprehensive Plan in the fall of 1998. A goal of this plan (LNP
4 8.3-70} states that the countv will "assist the commumty of Brinnon. within the limits
of available resources, in a public process to investigate the feasibility of additional
locations for future commercial development through a comprehensive study to examine
factors (including, but no~ limited to. environmental issues, economic viability, future
growth projections, and infrastructure requirements) consistent with GMA requirements.
Additionally, the Hood Canal region has received an Endangered Species Act listing
and a component of this plan will be to develop Critical Areas, Shorelines, and
Stormwater Management goals and policies that comply with regulations that
evolve from this listing.
Members of the Brinnon sub-area planning group and the Jefferson County
Planning Commission have repeatedly stated that the Brinnon sub-area plan does not
have to comply with the countv's comprehensive plan. There are numerous
inconsistencies in the Brinnon plan with the county's comprehensive plan and the Growth
Management Act.
This plan is not in compliance with requirements of the CTED/CDBG grant, and
funds for creation of the plan should be recovered and re-directed to creation ora plan in
compliance with the law.
The plan makes no allowances for. and does not address, the Endangered Species
Act or issues concerning stormwater managemem, critical areas or shorelines. In fact,
when habitat biologists who are very familiar with the Brinnon Planning District,
attempted to get involved in the plan. they were rebuffed When habitat biologists who
are very familiar with the Brinnon Planning District attempted to submit comment after a
draft of the plan was completed, their testimony was discounted and ridiculed. Local
residents who are very familiar with critical areas, shorelines and stormwater
management, attempted to participate in production of the Plan. Their involvement,
expertise and testimony was ignored and discounted In the Plan, endangered species are
dismissed as "nothing more than an ~nteresting observation"
This plan is not in compliance with reqmremems of the CTED/CDBG grant and
several other federal, state and local mandates Ftmds for creation of the plan should be
recovered and re-directed to create a plan in compliance with the grant, and State and
local mandates.
;5olations qf contract F-99-64099-074 ~v defferson CounO: / g~ark Rose
b) Paragraph five (5) of the "Opportunity/Problem Statement" reads:
The development of a sub-area plan is a labor-intensive effort that requires input,
data. and participation from a wide spectrum of the community. Private enterprises such
as the local Chambers of Commerce. community groups, service clubs, individual
citizens, and advisory groups have all become involved in the earliest stages of this
activity. Public agencies (such as DSHS, Jefferson County Public Works, DOE, DNR,
National Marine Fisheries Services, WA Department ofFish and Wildlife, DOT, etc.)
have committed to providing staff input and expertise in the development of this plan.
The local PUD. Fire Department. and school system have committed to being involved in
this process. The National Park Service. Department of Natural Resources, and National
Forest Service will be asked to provide input and review on the particular parts of the
plan that impacts their activities and in which they have appropriate expertise. Local
orgamzations and individuals have already participated in organizing meetings that to
develop the ground rules for how input will be gathered, decisions and recommendations
will be made. and consensus will be attained The next step is to determine general goals
and the work schedule.
No outside groups, citizen organizations, state or federal agencies were involved
in creation of the Plan. In fact, the Brinnon sub-area group expressly xefused to include
any agencies in drafting the Plan, and refused to share drafts of the plan with individuals
or agencies. On August 9, 2001, Frank Gifford. Director of Jefferson County Department
of Public Works, sent an email to A1 Scalf. Department of Community Development.
expressing serious concerns about the Plan His department had not seen the Plan and he
was concerned that the the Plan was not in compliance with the Growth Management
Act. His memo was dismissed as a "misunderstanding" and the Jefferson County
Department of Public Works was refused any involvement m drafting the Plan.
This plan is not in compliance with requirements of the CTED/CDBG grant, and
funds for creation of the plan should be recovered and re-directed to creation ora plan in
compliance with the grant.
Further. no work schedule was established, as stipulated in the last line of
paragraph five (5). This work schedule would have allowed state and federal agencies,
and citizen groups, the opportumty to participate in drafting the Plan.
This plan is not in compliance with requirements of the CTED/CDBG grant, and
funds for creation of the plan should be recovered and re-directed to creation ora plan m
compliance with the grant.
c) The last half of paragraph six (6) reads:
The project will be reviewed periodically by the county Planning Commission.
Meetings between the community planning group and staff members will be held at least
monthly in a scheduled format These meetings will be advertised and open to the public.
Individuals having particular interest in the process will be encouraged to participate and
asked to focus on the components of the plan that most affects them and uses their
Violations of contract F-99-64099-074 by Jefferson County/~kIark Rose
knowledge most effectively Public and private organizations will be asked to provide
input m their areas of expertise or interest All stakeholders (public and private) will be
provided with copies of the chapters as they are drafted and encouraged to make
suggestions as the document is being written.
At no time was there a meeting with the Planning Commission and the Brinnon
sub-area planning group At no time did the Planning Commission review the project.
At no time was anv public or private organization asked to provide input. Stakeholders
were not provided copies of chapters as they were drafted.
In fact. the chair of the Brinnon sub-area planning group expressly forbade
indMduals from seeing any documents that the group was drafting. Despite numerous
requests, individuals and organizations were refused copies of the Plan. Despite
numerous complaints to the Planning Commission, Department of Community
Development, and the Board of County Commissioners, no agency intervened to
establish a fair and open public process.
This plan is not in compliance with requirements of the CTED/CDBG grant, and
funds for creation of the plan should be recovered and re-directed to creation of a plan in
compliance with the grant.
Violations of "Solution Statement and Work Plan"
a) The first two sentences of paragraph one (1) read:
"This project will develop a sub-area plan for the Brinnon area in Jefferson
County. The Department of Community Development will form a working community
planning group and hire a contract planner to specifically assist in professionally
coordinating and facilitating their efl:brts to develop a community plan that is in
compliance with the Growth Management Act. the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan, and other applicable state and local mandates."
The Plan was drafted with the understanding that it does not have to comply with
the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. and is not in compliance with other applicable
state and local mandates. Funds for creation of the plan should be recovered and re-
directed to creation of a plan in compliance with the grant and state and local mandates.
b) The last sentence of paragraph one (1) reads:
"Public meetings (where members of the community are invited to make written
or verbal comment) will occur at the document vision, the local planning group "final"
draft, the Planning Commission. and the BOCC implementation stages.
There was no "documen~ vision" stage at the beginning of the process. In fact,
the "vision" was not crafted until 15 months into the process. The public was not invited
to share in commenting on the vision. Thus, funds for creation of the plan should be
recovered and re-directed to creation of a plan in compliance with the grant and the
[qolations of contract F-99-64099-074 br' d~['ferson Coun~'/2¥lar~' Rose
7
county's comprehensive plan and planning guidelines (which state that community
planning "begins with a vision").
c) The last sentence of paragraph five (5) reads:
Environmental protection issues (such as stormwater management, shorelines
protection, habitat protection and restoration, etc.) will be prioritized and addressed on a
community level.
This was not done. In fact. as stated before, all testimony regarding
environmental issues by experts was dismissed and derided. Thus. funds for creation of
the plan should be recovered and re-directed to creation ora plan in compliance with the
grant and federal and state mandates.
a)
Tasks five (5), six (6), and nine (9) of the Brinnon sub-area plan Work
Plan read
5. Review prior plans by 2/15/00
develop work process and protocol
develop community vision statement
(published and community response
requested)
corn planning group
corn planning group
com. planning group
6. Review GMA indicators by 3/10/00
publicize work schedule and process
contact community stakeholders
develop commumty ed process
form working committees
Elements provided to community
stakeholders for comment
9. by 8/1/00
DCD/contract planner
com. planning group
com. planning group/
contract planner
com. planning group/
contract planner
corn planning group/
contract planner
com. planning group/
contract planner
In fact, the community vision was not established at the beginning of the process,
and it was not published with a request for community response. Community
stakeholders were not contacted and there was no community education process.
Elements of the Plan were not provided to community stakeholders for comment.
Funds for creation of the plan should be recovered and re-directed to creation ora
plan in compliance with the grant and federal and state mandates.
e) The Brinnon sub-area plan Project Budget, section B, reads:
.B Personal Services
Planning Commission
local planning group
54 hrs X $8= $432
650 hrs. X $8- $5,200
Fiolations of contract F-99-64099-074 by Jefferson County/3:/ark Rose
Jeffco DOH. 25 hrs X $20= $500
Brinnon School District. FD 50 hrs. X $20= $1000
PUD 25 hfs X $20= $500
JeffEDC, Brinnon C of C 65 hfs X $20= $1,300
WADOT 20 hrs. X $25= $500
DOE, DNR 40 hrs. X $25= $1.000
WA Dept of State Parks 25 hrs. X $20= $500
WA Depart of F &W 20 hrs. X $25= $500
NN'LFS 20 hrs. X $25= $500
These "in kind" services were never supplied. In fact. as previously stated, when
State agencies attempted to get involved in the Brinnon sub-area planning process, they
were denied.
Funds for creation of the plan should be recovered and re-directed to creation ora
plan in compliance with the grant and federal and state mandates.
0 The Brinnon sub-area plan Project Budget, section C, reads:
Project related expenses (CTED)
professional printing services(cash) 200 copies of drafts X $2.50=$400
copies for planning groups, stakeholders (cash) 1500 X 07:$1,050
1 telephone/computer lines (cash) 12 months X $19.80:
20 planning group mailings (cash) 320 items X $3.00=
$230
$960
In fact, community members were told repeatedly that they could not have copies
of the Plan or documents being discussed because they could not afford to make copies.
As we see, over $l.000 was designated to make copies.
Thus, funds for creation of the plan should be recovered and re-directed to
creation ora plan in compliance with the grant and federal and state mandates.
4. Violations of Project Management Statement and Budget
Paragraphs three (3) and four (4) read:
The Brinnon sub-area planning group will be comprised by stakeholder group
representatives, community residents, and representatives of local government agencies.
State and federal government a~encies will participate through informational and review
roles. DCD staff and the contract planner will facilitate this participation. The PC will be
responsible for reviewing public input processes, insuring stakeholder involvement, and
insuring appropriate agency reviews.
The Public Works Department. DOT, the local PUD. the local fire district, and
DOE will be involved in infrastructure planning aspects and mapping requirement
activities. The WA Department offish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries
Service will be involved in reviewing compliance with habitat restoration and protection
compliance and methods. The local Chambers of Commerce. schools system, and
Yiolations of contract F-99-64099-074 by Jefre,'son Cou,?(V / Mark Rose 9 .~/ 0
Economic Development Council will review the economic development aspects of the
project. DSHS and the Jefferson County Housing Authority will be requested to provide
input and review on the housing and social components of the project The Jefferson
County Prosecuting Attorney will review the project for compliance with legal and
process requirements The DCD will have overall project completion responsibility and
fiscal grant management responsibility.
In fact, the Planning Commission never reviewed public process, or stakeholder
involvement, or appropriate agency reviews. The Chairman of the Jefferson County
Planning Commission served as a "member" of the Brinnon sub-area planning group.
knew precisely what was going on in the group.
No State or County agencies were contacted, and they were not allowed to
provide input. Funds for creation of the plan should be recovered and re-directed to
creation of a plan in compliance with the grant and federal and state mandates. ·
5. Non-compliance with "Outcome Statement"
The entire "Outcome Statement" has not been achieved since the Plan was
produced in egregious and continual violation of federal, state and local law, grant
requirements, the Open Public Meetings Act, the Growth Management Act and the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
I request your prompt attention to the issues discussed in this letter. Thank you.
He
Sincerely,
Mark Rose
Director
Better Brinnon Coalition
Box 437
Brinnon. WA 98320
360-796-33300
Brinnon~hotmail. com
Attached:
Cc~
Ms. Kaaren Roe
CDBG Project Manager
Office of Community Development
906 Columbia Street SW
Olympia, Washington 98504-8350
Fiolations of contract F-99-64099-074 b.v deJ~ferson Countv
District Inspector General for Audit
Department of Housing and Urban Development
909 First Avenue
Seattle. WA 98104-1000
Mr. Brian Sonntag
Washington State Auditor
PO Box 40021
Olympia. WA 98504-0021
Mr. David S Mann
Bricklin & Gendler, LLP
1424 Fourth Ave., Suite 1015
Seattle. WA 98101
Mark Rose 10 z~" / O