HomeMy WebLinkAbout0034o56'
Bsr
of Ct
zulbc-
n82O .Iefferson St'
PO Box
Fort T'own,send, WA 9
!
aet
U)
Dan Titterness, District l{o. I Glen }luntingford, District l{o. 2 Richard Woit, District No. 3
January 28,2002
Mr. Mark Rose
687 Pulali Point Road
Brinnon, WA 98320
Re: Written Decision of the County Commissioners Grievance Hearing held on January 14,2002
Dear Mr. Rose:
This will confirm that the County Commissioners, sitting on Monday, January 14,2002 as a "Grievance
Board" in a manner consistent with the language of the Community Development Block Grant obtained
by Jefferson County for the Brinnon Sub-Area Plan (Contract#F-99-64099-074 with the State Office of
Commrxrity Development or "OCD,") heard two grievances submitted by you, enumerated as Grievances
#13 afi#14.
This hearing occurred as part of the public open meeting of the County Commissioners. The established
Rules for Grievance Hearings were again used. For example, those rules established that only a
"Grievance" which satisfied one or more of six definitions of a grievance found in the applicable federal
regulations would be ruled upon by us. You have previously stated your disagreement with the substance
of those rules.
You represented yourself with respect to these grievances. The Department of Community Development
("DCD") offered a written presentation on behalf of the County. Josh Peters from DCD also provided
some oral testimony. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez was present to guide the
hearing process. Some citizens, about one dozen, were present during this hearing.
Grievance #13: Six questions about the Subarea Plan (or'(SAP") process:
This Grievance asks six (6) questions regarding the alleged non-compliance of this County with the terms
of the grant contract and applicable state and federal statutes. Those six questions are as follows:
Did Kate Marsh and Linda Tudor choose to ignore and delete sections of the grant they did
not agree with?
Did they (Marsh and Tudor) seek to be in compliance with the grant?
Did Marsh and Tudor seek to benefit predominantly low and moderate- income families, as
the federal guidelines stipulate?
Were state agencies notified and included in the planning process as required by the grant?
What is DCD Director Scalf s understanding of the 'pubiic participation' requirements of
the Growth Management Act?
Plrone (360)385-9100 / l-800-831 -2678 lrax (360)385-9382 jeffbocc(r.)co.jefferson.wa,us
Mr. Mark Rose January 28 ,2002 Paee2
What is DCD Director Scalf s understanding of how other communities in other counties
have managed and operated their SAP's?
These questions came to the County via e-mail.
Findings:
To the extent that questions #1, #3,#4 and #5 imply that County personnel, Ms. Marsh or Ms. Tudor acted
(or failed to act) in a manner that was illegal or unlawful, these questions call for us to reach a legal
conclusion. We are neither trained as judges and juries nor authorized to act in that capacity and thus will
not make any type of finding or reach any type of conclusion with respect to those questions.
Regarding question #2, which asks whether certain SAP Group members intended to comply with the
gret, that question might meet the definition of a Grievance laid out in 24 CFR 570.486(a), specifically
subparagraph #2 [ensure citizens have access to information regarding how the government actually uses
the grant funds], subparagraph #3 finform citizens of the range of activities that might be undertaken with
the grant funds] and subparagraph #6 [provide citizens an opportunity to comment on proposed activities
found in the application for the grant monies.] We will respond to this question below.
Regarding question #6, which asks what Mr. Scaif knows about the processes followed by other counties
as they completed Subarea Plans, this question goes only to Mr. Scalf s thoroughness, or alleged lack
thereof. Assuming, solely for this analysis, that it is accurate to state that other counties' methods should
have been but were not investigated, such a statement does not amount to the merest allegation that the
grant contract was violated. Therefore, we find that this question does not meet the definition of a
Grievance.
Conclusion:
We find that you have not met your burden of proof with respect to Grievance #13. In fact, we find it to be
repetitious of other earlier Grievances.
This Grievance is no different than what was alleged in Grievance #8 and Grievance #10 previously. We
rejected both of those Grievances, as did the relevant state agency, the Office of Community Development
or "OCD." In Grievance #8 you made the same allegations regarding pubiic participation, alleging that
the tribes and other interested parties were not notified. You continue to endlessly repeat this false
assertion despite the fact that YOUR DOCUMENTS PROVE THE FALSITY OF SUCH A
STATEMENT.
In that regard, there is a need to again go through the evidence presented by you with respect to
Grievances #1 through #12. Begin with the false allegation that the Tribes have been left out of the
process. End with the equaily false claim that you were not allowed to comment on the draft Brinnon
SAP.
Ted Labbe, a Habitat Biologist for the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe requested a copy of the draft Brinnon
SAP on June 13, 2001 (see page 83 attached.) Mr. Labbe then made more than two pages of comments on
August 8, 2001(see pages 122 to 125 attached.) Mr. Labbe offered additional written testimony to the
County's Planning Commission on October 17,2001. At that same County Planning Commission meeting
Plrone (360)385-9 .l00 / I -800-83 1 -2678 Fax (3(rO)385-9382 jeffboccturco..iefferson.wa. us
Mr. Mark Rose January 28.2002 Page 3
Mr. Labbe added that if he did not attend the SAP Group meetings it was NOT because he didn't know
those meetings were occurring. Instead, if he was absent from those meetings, it was because Brinnon was
too distant from his office for him to attend those meetings. A scientist named Marty Ereth, on behalf of
the Skohomish Tribe, made comments on the draft Brinnon SAP on July 27,2001(see pages 127 to I29
attached.) Of great interest in the e-mail from Mr. Ereth dated July 27,2001 (page 127), in which Mr.
Ereth states "I won't be able to come to the public hearing because I have other commitments." Finally,
the County's DCD notified interested parties on September 7,2001 and gave them 60 days to comment, as
the GMA requires. The Tribes have AGAIN commented during the SEPA-driven comment period,
protesting the County's decision to issue a "Determination of Non-Significance" with respect to the
Brinnon SAP.
We also conciude that the Brinnon SAP has gone through precisely the iterative and reiterative process
that the GMA intended it go through. We are aware of at least three drafts, one dated July 2001, another
August 2001 and finally the December 21,2001 "iine-in, line-out" draft prepared by DCD, reviewed by
the Planning Commission and forwarded to us with a recommendation that we approve it.
Finally, the documents you previously supplied us again CONTRADICT your claim that the public has
not had an opporfunity to comment. You supplied five single-spaced pages of comments (see pages 1 16
to 120) on or about July 16, 2001, or seven months ago, well before the Brinnon SAP came to us for
possible enactment. You have had an opportunity to speak before the Planning Commission and
presumably would have another opportmity to state you position when we hold a public hearing on the
Brinnon SAP.
You are incorrect when you allege that Ms. Marsh and Ms. Tudor deleted or ignored sections of the
contract, which is entirely what lawyers call "boilerplate," that is to say, both standard and non-negotiable.
Distinctly, it is true that the grant application went through numerous changes, including certain revisions
and deletions before it was sent to OCD. While deletions did occur, it is the grant application dated
February 7 ,2000 that was executed by the County, sent to OCD and, ultimately, approved for funding by
OCD. Thus, the grant application of February 7,2000, is the only grant application that carries any
weight. As Ms. Roe stated to you in her memo dated November 7,2001: "[a]lso, many statements quoted
from the application by Mr. Rose were not in the final version of the application submitted to the CDBG
Program for review and ranking." Thus, the omissions that you seem so worried about were not
worrisome to OCD, since OCD approved the revised grant application and chose to fund it, finding it
benefrted persons of low and moderate incomes.
Finally, and most importantly, the state OCD rejected this precise claim and found no contract
violation. See the Kaaren Roe memo of November 7,2001 [attached to a letter from Mr Buxbaum of that
same agency dated November 1,3,2001,1on the second page of the Roe memo. Here is what she wrote:
Paragraph 2(b): "[w]hile some additional outreach to interested parties and organizations occurred,
in some instances it could have been improved during the draft development stage. However, this
issue is not severe enoush to be considered a contract violation necessitating compliance
findings." (emphasis supplied.)
Paragraph 5, last page: "The Brinnon Subarea Plan meets a CDBG National Objective by principally
benefiuing low- and moderate-income persons through an area benefit planning activity."
Plrone (360)385-9100 / l-800-831-2678 Fax (360)385-9382 .jeftuocc(ri)co..iefferson.wa.Lrs
Mr. Mark Rose January 28,2002 Page 4
We would also point out that since OCD was satisfied that the grant monies would be used to benefit
persons of low and moderate income (see paragraph 5, last page of the Roe memo) your oral testimony
during the Grievance hearing that affordable housing was an issue that was barely, if at all, addreSsed by
the Brinnon SAP Group does not represent a violation of the Grant contract.
For all of the above reasons, your Grievance #13 is denied.
One person in the audience during the grievance hearing stated that she would have utilized the Grievance
process had she known of its existence.
Findings:
By definition, this is a contract Grievance and we rule upon it below.
Conclusion:
We find that the County should have taken more affirmative steps to publicize the existence of the
Grievance procedure. However, we also find that the system has worked despite this omission on our
part. We reach that conclusion because 1) those persons opposed to the way this County has handled
these CBDG grant funds have been fully heard and given an opportunity to air their grievances, i.e, not
one but fwo Grievance Hearings have occurred to date and 2) this Grievance leads to unusual evidentiary
problems.
Al1 parties to this Grievance are placed in an unusual situation by the language of this Grievance. Only
upon prompting from DPA Alvarez did we learn that if there had been more widespread publicity about
the existence of the Grievance procedure, then persons other than yourself would have utilized the
Grievance procedure. One person said she would have utilized the Grievance procedure had she known
about its availability. And the truth is that person remains able to do so at any time if she chose to. Why is
such a statement true? Because the Grievance procedure remains available to all citizens until the County
'closes out' its CDBG Grant process sometime in the future. Nor can the County prove the opposite,
which is a 'negative,' that is to say the County cannot prove or offer evidence that you would have been
the only person to utilize the Grievance process no mafier how much publicity was given to the existence
of the Grievance process.
Instead, the reality is that the Brinnon SAP has been the subject of the fuII glare of publicity and all the
proponents and opponents of the proposals found in that Brinnon SAP have been offered and have used
all the possible options to express their opinions. These forums include newspaper articles, letters to the
editor, comments at the SAP Group meetings, written and oral comments to the County's Planning
Commission, a web site devoted to Brinnon and the Brinnon SAP and the 15 Grievances you have fiied to
date. In sum, it is unreasonable to argue that those who wish to dissent from the process and substance of
the Brinnon SAP have been silenced or not provided an opportunity to dissent.
Pl-rone (360)385-9100 / l-800-831-2678 lrrur (360)385-9382 .jeflfboccriico.jeffersorr,wa.us
Grievance #14: Failure of the County to publicize the workings of the grievance process:
in this Grievance you allege that we, as the County Commissioners, and our planning stafl in violation of
24 CFR 570.486(a)(7), "have still not provided citizens the address, phone number and times for
submitting the complaints and grievances."
Mr. Mark Rose January 28,2002 Page 5
We, therefore, find that the County should immediately take affirmative steps to publicize the existence of
the Grievance process. However, we do not find that you have been silenced or chilled in your ability to
speak out against the Brinnon SAP.
These are our "Written Findings," offered in our role as the Grievance Committee. They are not
appealable.
V
G'
Wojt,Dan Titterness,
Member
Glen
MemberChairman
BOCC/Id
Plrone (360)385-91 OO / I -800-83 1-2678 lrax (360)385-9382 jefftiocc@rco.jefferson.wa.us
i/,rr
,Ig ,, I
r"..*-J i lcr:-Yt.:5
qtL
Mark Rose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ted Labbe [tlabbe@pgst. nsn.us]
Wednesoay, June 13, 2001 9:39 PIt/
linda@cbsettlers,com
lVarty Ereth; Mark Rose
request to review the Brinnon Sub-area Plan
Linda
My name is Ted Labbe and I work as a habitat biologist with the Port
Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. As the Brinnon area supports truiy significant
fish, wildlife, and shellfish populations that local lndian 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 lndian Tribes, the
Skokomish and Port Gamble S'Klallam tribes. Both Tribes have been
involved in local Growth [t/lanagement 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
in them. The river looked at him with a thousand eyes - green, white,
crystal, sky blue. How he loved this river, how it enchanted him, how
grateful he was to it! ln his heart he heard the newly awakened voice
speak, and it said to him: "Love this river, stay by it, learn from it."
..,|t seemed to him that whoever understood this river and its secrets,
would understand much more, many secrets, all secrets.
Hermann Hesse
"Siddhartha"
1 CC,_: l)Jii
#v'
1
Submitted into the record via email. Julv 16. 2001
Membership
See 7/13 email to tire Group and Cornmunin'Planning addressing tlus
Introduction
Strike paragraph one - repetition from the Vision
References to i 995 Pian, If the Pinn lvas adopted b1' the Countv ra'h]' rvas it not enacted?
There is a claim in this section tlut the coulrq, asked the citrzens of Briruron to form a conrmittee.
Representations by Conrmissioner Dal Titterness, and BSAP Group and Pianning Commrssion members
indicate that it was the other wav around.
Environment
Tirere is no discussion of the irnportance of the Doservallips. and the Duckabusir, as important sahnon
habitat watenva't's, and the curent efforts at restoradon, There is no discussion of the current studies of tire
Hood Canal shorelines.
Plan Imolementation and Monitorins
The foilorving section is false and should be stricken. Explanatron in parentiresis
The goais. poiicies and strategies contained in tire Bnnnon Subarea Plan have evolved after
consideration of a number of important factors:
L Natural resources of tire area sucir as soils. geoiog1,. ciimate. lvater. topographl'. fish and
rvildiife. and siroreiine features.
(Tirere is no discussion about conservation. presen'ation. or restoration of the abundant
natural resources in tire Brinnon pianrung area. There is no consideratron ofthe
potential impact of proposed developnient on water. topography. fisir and wiidlife.
and shoreline features. Several appropnate consen'ation goups attempted to get
involved in this section of the plan but were rebuffed bv the chairperson. The lack of
discussion about these issues ra,as brought up several times by communiq, members).
2, Cultural resources ofthe area such as its people, comrnuniw facilities and services.
businesses. history, and heritage.
(The oniY people considered in this pian rvere affected propefll olvners and the
irmnediate gIoup. There rvas no concerted outreach to businesses, residents or
iandorvners outside the group. The history and hentage of Brinnon rvas skewed
before rectified b1'a communitv rnember).
3, Past. present. and projected grorvth and development trends.
(Grorth trends ciearlv indicate that popuiatron grou(h in the coLrn[' is stagrunt, or
mimmal at best, and that Brinnon is growing even slower than the count]', Dwelopment
trends indicate virtualil' r'ro cornmercial grorvth in Brinnon in tire last five years)
4, Desires and needs of area residents and proper$' owners as expressed in commuruq' planning
meetings and colnl'nruliW-wide meetings.
u;,liil 6
*e
(Iu several past sun'el's residents have cleariv indrcated that thev favor the small torvn.
rtual natrue of Brinnon and thev do not rvant sigruficant de,r,eiopment. Protection of the
environrnent rs ltiglt imponance. These desrres are nor reflected rn this pian).
Also to be stricken (explanation in parentireses;
, GENERAL GOAI,S AND POLICIES
The follorving general goals aud policies appi-v to all aspects of conrmunity life in the area covered
b1'this plan:
GOALS:
t. Maintain and encourage the small town rural atnrosphere of the Brinnon area.
(The proposals in this plan increase developed land ten fold and do little to
marntain the rural au:rosphere of Brinnon. The broad swath of potential
development. including light indusuial, conference center, condominiums, golf
range. boat tours. irotels. restaurants, is not in keeping with the lvishes ofarea
residents. as expressed in several opinion polls)
2. Prornote and encourage and reinforce a sense of communitv identi$.
(There is no discussion in the plaa about developing an idenug'for Brinnon.
beyond disparate re-zoning of land for development).
3. Maintain a balanced communir.y- that continues to provide for and encollrage a
diversity of activities, interests. and iifestyles,
(There are no.proposals in the pian for drug ueatment for youth (an
acknowledged serious problern). job training. educational development, crrltural
or etluric pursuits).
4. Protect and enhance the natural environmenl
(Environmental groups ll'ere shut out from the planning process. Studies of tire
Dosewallips and Duckabush by North Olympic Salmon Coaiition. Hood Canal
Coordinating Council. and S'KIaIlam Tribes were discounted and igrrored.
Salmon and waterway enhancement groups that tried to get involved in tire
process were rebuffed. Tirere is no discussion about possibie salt vr,ater
intrusion. and the massive amount of water it takes to maintarn a golf course.
There is no discussion of en,ironmental impact of development, and safeguards
to protect the environment. There is no discussion of the significant threateued
and endangered species in ttiis planning district).
5. Maintain ard encourage economic grou'tll and stabilig,.
(There is no discussion about the types ofjobs that night be created in Bnnnon
because ofproposed deveiopnrent. There is no discussion about wages. training.
timeframes, support. Tltere is no discr.rssion about how rnuch migirt be
contributed to the tax base from nelv business. rvhat services would be needed to
support this growttu impaa on taryayers).
6. Ensure and protect properr.r, owners' rights as they pertain to land use. lvater.
minerals, agnculhue use. tirnber. beaches. and qvpes of deeds.
(Tiris is an offensive comment. This is obviously tire personal political agenda
of some rnembers of the group. and lus no piace in the plan. If lve rvant to go in
this direction. I rvorild like to add a felv goals of mv orvn).
tj Irli,I
Land Use & Rural Element
)y^
I arr confused bv tire discounting of populauon figures as a measure of grorvtir. Otirer counties incircate
population figures as the measurement of groutir. as does the Jefferson Countv Cor:rp Plan. Further. you
sav tirat tltere ius been vinualiv no commercial deveiopment in the iast five vears. Further. you sal'that
manv of the building pennits issued in the iasr five 1,ears lvere probabl), for part-ulre residences. I don't
understald the rationaie for growth according to acceptabie grou,th indicators,
I r,r,or.rld like to discr.rss tire foliorving segment of the plan:
The ven' iugh ratio of mobile home to site-built single-famil1, unit is indicative of the need for
affordable housing in Brinnon and hou, that need is currentiy being met. While Census 2000
household income ievels irave not been released as of tire date of this l,nung. information from the
Bnnnon School Board and otirer sources indrcate that irousehoid income levels in Bnnnon are. on
average. tire lorvest in tlie counl'. Indeed tesumony from Scirool Board mernbers indicates that the
Brinnon Sclrool Disuict ranks as tire tirird lolvest distnct in the state in povertl, level (J,Bai,sch).
Board members rndicated tlut approxirnately 40o/o of houseirolds witir cirildren attending the
Brinaon Scirool have incomes belou,the poverq/ level (P, Roger,s.). Again, data from the 2000
Census regarding social and economic ciuracteristics ofthe population has not yet been reieased
so the School Board assessments represent the best avaiiabie and most curent socio-economic
data. For comparison purposes. the 1990 census reported that22%o of the Bnnnon population fell
belou, the poverty lfl,el-a rate almost double that of the counl' as a whole. The apparent increase
in povefi' status for Bnnnon irouseholds betu'een 1990 and 2000 is a distubing trend. It suggests
a need for expalded economic deveiopment opportruutres iurd measures to ensure the avaiiabilit_v
of a.ffordable housrng.
Comurent: It is claimed though not substantiated that Brinnon scirooichildren rank "third in the
state for receiving subsistence for school meals". Evidentiy, again uasubstantiated, 35-40 children receive
breakfast and lunch assistance. Tius could indicate as felv as 20 faruilies rvho fall belora, the povertv ievel.
The Food Bank requrres no identification nor keeps records: there is no salary requirement to 'qualifr,'
According to social sen'ices professionals rviro serve these ciients in Brinnon. their conditions cannot be
termed as "dire." mereiy lolver income. Some irave substance abuse probiems or are eanring "under the
table" flrough other means. Neither of these important issues rvill be addressed bv developing more
businesses or an MPR and belorv living-rvage jobs. nor does tire Plan as rvritten address these significant
Brinnon issues at all (substance abuse, teen pregnanq,. child abuse. domestic liolence, meth labs).
Data should not be skewed to present a "dire" picture tlut is not, in fact. the case, ln fact, tlte
increase in popuiauon in Jefferson Corurtl,is in the higher-income brackets and the famiiies in lower
income brackets ira'i'e been "out-priced" tluoughout the Cor.rng. Of 214 iive births in Jeffco in i999, 134
lvere goverrrment-assisted. This is a relatrvely iorv birtir rate, and most of the government-assisted births
are to teenagers and of course include Forks, which is part of Jeffco. Forks has REAL poverry-: 400
Ilispanic families. manv illegal immigrants. iiving in squalor and fear. For Brinnon, it would be more
efficient to focus on birth control education. substance abuse education and intervention. busting meth labs,
and elder care, According to Health Department and DSHS statistics, Brinnon's rates of low-income
families are inthe sa:ne proportion as in the rest of the counlv.). The lack of local employment and
commuting distance from lit,ing-rvage jobs signal a need to create new opportunitres and actively pursue a
transition to a more diversified economy. The real issues that plague a minority of citizens in Bnnnon will
not be addressed b.v an MPR or b-v- expanding commercial boundaries. The dispiaced workers from the
timber industn' have long since ieft or found altemative employnent.
Rural Commercial - Brimon Rural Villase Center (RVC)
Vision: I object to this section beginning: "Tire residents of Brinnon have a vision that
It should read: "The Brinnon Sub-area group has a vision . .. "
Rural Cornmercial - WaWa Point Rural Crossroads
Vision: I ob.ject to this section beginning; "Tire residents of the WaWa Point neigirborhood
It should read: "The Briruron sub-area gror.rp has a vision . . . "
t,;j .il"-iI
,l-.'6Y
Rural Comrnercial - Blacl. Point
You need to irave flill disciosure in tlus section and discuss tire rea.l situatron. The rvaf it reads nolr. it
sounds iike al NIPR is an abstract idea. and there ius no been no interest to date in deveioping an MPR ar
Black Point. That is not true. The main focus of this piat and the major effons of tius group. irave gone in
to developing tire MPR that will be developed by Chuck Finilia. Potential conflrcts of interest must be
ackuowledged and drscussed.
To discuss in this sectron:
Chuck Finilla has alread1, been seliing nremberships to a golf club anticipating development of an
MPR at Biack Point
On his web site. Chuck Finilia has alreadv promised a 120 seat restal.trart, 290 room hotel. health
club and tennis courts in antrcipation of buiiding an MPR at Black Point
Chuck Finilia. along with his partner, irave arranged for meetings with Jefferson Counry'
Communifi' Piaruung to discuss deveiopment of an NIPR at Black Point
Chuck Finilia has appeared before the Pianning Commission several times to argue on behalf of
his IvPR pro.iect at BlackPoint; likervise, members of the Group have appeared at public meetiags
in support of Chuck Finilla's plan for an MPR at Black Point
Chuck Finilla has drarm up pians for a MPR at Black Point. including single family residences
along Hood Canai
In several public fonrms. Chuck Finilla has promised 180 - 200 jobs in Brinnon rf he gets to build
his MPR at Black Point.
Jefferson Counn, officials have rlroved to amend tlre Comprehensive PIan to allow for more MPRs
in anucipation of Chuck Finilla buiiding 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 beginning and was
initially responsible for developing fte MPR and econonric developnrent sections
Chuck Finilla iras never submitted a business plan for lus proposed development
Althougir asked repeatedly. Chuck Finilla has never substantiated u,hat sort ofjobs would be
created at a Black Point N{PR. who lvouid be iured" ltow they would be trained. or what wages
fiey would earn.
Also to discuss in this section:
A significalt poruon of iard in the proposed MPR belongs to Linda Tudor
Linda Tudor is the chairperson of tire Bnnnon Sub-area group.
The stnp of deveiopment aiong Higiru,al, 101 represents low densitv sprawi.
Shouid be stricken
The suggesTed MPR boundary ond conceptual lond u.se plan shotw in Figure _ is advisorv. It is a
recommended plan basetl on e-rtensive review by the Brinnon Planning Group, property owners in the
uffeaed crea, neighbors ond odjucent property atners undthepublic
This is not true. The MPR PIan was developed in secret by tlte Brinnon Sub-area group. Repeatedly. the
Group reftised to share its plan rvith the public. Onlv when the plar was turned over to the county did the
public get to see it. Most residents of Brinaon rvere completelv unaware of the e.xtent of the plans for an
MPR.
r' '1 -' 1 -- ...Uu,., Il I
Home Businesses and Cottaee Industries
*lv'
-40
I still don't understiurd iron Brimon gets to exernpr itself lrom all the regulauons flrat normallv applv tcr
irome businesses.
Strategies for deveioprng educatronal r.r,orksirops should be expanded rnto rea.i action items. Tius is an
important element that can benefit. the business communiry'' inBnmron.
Natrual Resource Consen'ation Eiement
It is shameful hou, tiris element has been ignored. We are blessed to live in one of the rare. semi-pristine
areas in the lower 48 states. abundant in u,iidlife, shellfish. unspoiied lvaters - and no attention has been
paid to this section. Consen'ation groups tlnt can and wanted to help rvitii this section rvere ignored. No
effort was made to reach out to consen'ation groups. Hou, can you propose dramatic increased
deveiopment and not at least consider the effect on the environment'7 This is reall-v shameful.
Shellfish Harvesting Rigirts - Strike all reference to the tribes. the Federal govemment and details of the
decision of Federal Disuict Judge Rafeedie. It's entrrely inappropnate to discuss in such detail a Federal
Court Ruiing. If vou want to go ur tirat direction, Iet's discuss tire tremendous efforts of the S'Klallam
Tribes to rvork u,rth U.S. government and private owners for saimon restoration. and the devastating effect
of logging and development b)' Euopean settlers on the aquaculture.
Housing Eiement
Again, I dispute the claim of 40% of Brinnon irouseliolds with incomes below the poverty ievel. based on
circumstantial evidence. urisupported by social sen'ices.
Parks & Recreation
Some of the "semi-actirre recreation eiements" Iisted would be inappropnate for a rural village. wouid have
potential negative impacts on the environment and our quality of life, and wouid surely be closely
scrutinized b1. the U. S. Naq,. which has absolute jurisdiction over olu llatenvays: Hood Canal boat tours.
seapiaure/airplane/hot air balloon tous, hang gliding.
Econom.ic Deveiopment
This is a very disappointtng element. There is no serious pian for attmcting qualirv- jobs, strategies,
timeframes. uaining - real action items. It seems iike the Economic Deveiopment portion of the plan is
really the Land Use section. If land is rezoned commercial then somehow there will be jobs, Chuck Finilla
saying ftat Brinnon will have 180 jobs if he gets to buiid a resort is not real economic development
plaming.
Natural Environment Element
This element is pathetic. There are dozens of threatened and endangered species in tlus area. None are
listed. We will compile a real listurg of habitat in this area, and the sensitivity of their habitat, and submit it
at a iater date. I rvould think that after 18 months of work. with access to iocal experts on this subjecl the
Group would have seriousll'addressed this element.
Capital Faciiities Element
Questions: Who pa1's for this proposed development? Wirat is the irnpact on roads. parks, tideiands.
resources. qualitv of life? How u,ill it irnpact taxes. the aquifer?
l: i:.:i i 0
Mark Rose
\r'1 , ,:. Lc :-., t s 7 ;.1 [ - sj-' <' 's f,.a\ C'l"z-6\.,
d-or tc{ .-..\
Subject FW: Fw. Brinnonlnfo update
-----O.rigina.I Message-----
From: Mark Rose [mai]to:pu]a1i-pointGyahoo. coml
Sent: Friday, August 10, 200L 10:27 PM
To : markroseGmarkrose, o.rg
Sub3ect: Fwd: Fw: Brinnonlnfo upciate
--- Lynnette Ant,i j unEi <coveparlcG j upj-tercity, com>
wrote:
F.rom: "Lynnette Antijunti"
<coveparkG j upitercity . com>
To: "Ma!k Rose" <pulalipointGyahoo.com>
Subject: Fw; Brinnonlnfo update
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 15:08:26 -0?00
Original Message
From: Lynnette Ant,r j unti
To r Josh Peters
Cc: Ted Labbe ; Loni Beringer i El-eanor Sather
Ma.rty Ereth ; Kirie Pedersen
Sentr Friday, August 10, 2001 1t28 PM
Subject: Re: Brinnonlnfo update
Josh
We request that, the publlc comment period for the
Brinnon plan be extended to August 3l-, 2001 . Sure111
such matters of lmportance to t,he cornmunity deserve
better than 10 days?
Lynecce Antijuntl, Brinnon
Robe-rt Wat,kj-ns, Brinnon
Brady Blake, Brinnon
Eleanor
Parks i
4e
Original Message
From: Mark Rose
To: Lynnette AnEijunti ; Loni Beringer ;Sarher ; Kirj-e Pedersen i Paula Mack.row i
Pete/Debbie Siefert ; Wayne G. King , WaIt
Marty Ereth ; Ron Hirschl , Todd McGuire
Cc: Ted Labbe
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 10:14 PM
Subject: Brlnnonfnfo update
Brinnonlnfo. com News Update
Additlon co Bri-nnon Plan Revealed section on site
Visit www.brinnoninfo.com for more news
August 8, 2001
Corunents f rom:
Ted Labbe
Habitat Bioloqist
C;ii,;?21
Por: Gami.;ie !' '!il-aI_t-am 1':rbe f,i
'. m^.
).
> Please
cf the
> B:.innori
B::-nnor: SuL.-area Pranninc
incrude this s:a:ement in anr,'
sub-area plan
Grcup
D:esent c: proooseo iega- or envircnmen:ai revle.u.'
Thank you fcr the oppo-rtunity t,o ccmmeni on t,he B.rinnon Subarea Plan. The Port GambLe
S'K1aLl-am ?ribe maincains a specj-ai inierest in the Brinnon a.rea as the T:ibe ciepends on
l-ocal- fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources for i:s cu.Lturaf and economic well-being.
TldeLancis ha:bor commercially-significant shelifish populations, and the Dosewallips and
Duckabush rive.rs and therr deLtas serve as c.rlt,ical habitat for threatened salmon. Past
habitat loss and degradation stemming from poor development st,andards and destruct,ive Land
use practlces has resuLted in closure of shell-fj-sh harvest areas and drastic salmon
population declines, thereby jeopardizing our Tribe's court-aff:-rmed treaty righ*"s to
fish.
In particula.r, we are concerned that new development impacts permitted under the Brinnon
Sub
area PIan wil-I furiher erode the health of native fish, shellflsh, and'wildlife
populaticns and
undermine our Treaty rights.
In partj-cu1ar, we. are concerned that new devel-opment impacts permitEed under the Brinnon
Subarea Plan wil-I further erode the health of native i!-sh, shellfish, and wil-dlife
popuJ-ations and underminij our Treaty rights.
In our review of the Plan, a number specific issues emerged that are J-mportant to the
fribe and the protection of our Treaty-reserved r5-ghts:
For an accurate history of Tribes (p, 1) please refer to ierry Gorsline's i99-l book,
Shadow of Our Ancestors for a timeline of events from the time of the Stevens Tieaiies to
the present. Though Treat,ies were s5-gned in 1855, most Tribes ciid not receive federal
recognition until after 1900.
?he designation of the Black Point as a Mast,er Planned Resort (MPR) is inconsistent with
both the splrit and intent of the Growth Management Act, the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, and the Brinnon Planning Group's own stated goaIs.
Limiting the Extent and Intensity of New Land Use - The deslgnation of the Black Point as
a Master Planned Resort (MPR) 1s inconsistent wit,h both the spirit and intent of the
Growth Management Act, the Jefferson County Comprehensive P1an, and Lhe Brinnon Planning
Group's own stated goals. The startling income-housing cost gap that the Brlnnon Planning
croup has identified in their comrnunity 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
sit.uation 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
intens i-ve
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 resj-dentj-aI 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 partj-cuIar, the Dosewallips and Duckabush delLas are important
sites of Triba1
shellfish acEivity.
The startling lnccme-housing cost gap that the Brinnon
.2
Plannlng Group has identrfl'ed in
[;ri;/3
th'e ir
communi E], may no: be amelioracei by the cievel-opment of the BLa:i: Po:-nt MPR.
rhe Port Ludl-ot^r MPR serves as any example, the ajforciable housing sit,uati-on
worsened as weal:h]'seconi home-buyers flock tc tire area and ci:i-ve up iiving
'-",4 J
In fac:,
mav be
l^licl: --he loss of res:-l-i-ent salmon pcpula:ions capable of suppcr:l:rg t:ioal ha:vest
opporEuni;l-es /
the Por-" Gamb-Le S'?iLaii,am Trrbe has shrft,ed r-ts focus increasingJ-1' cowards shellfrsh.
'l'nus
development proposals in this rmmed,iate area are of conce.rn to the Tribe.
Misunde.rsianding Of Tribal Shell-fish Harvest Issues (p. 55-7) - Unfortunat.ely, Ehe Brinnon
Pl-an
misrepresenr-s a number of facts surroundj-ng Tribal shellfish harvest on private lands.
Under the
Rafeedie decision and subsequent federal court decisj-ons, the Tribes .right to harvest
shell-fish on tidelands that are not staked or cultivated was sustained. This r:.ght is
explrcitly recognized in the Stevens Treaties and supersedes the rights of shoreline
property owners. However, the courts reguire the Tribes to follow strict landowner
notrfication and pre-harvest survey procedures to ensure shellfish populations and t,heir
habitat are protected. Management of fish and shellfish harvests is not under the
authority of the Brinnon Planni ng Group or Jefferson County, but rests with the Washington
Department of fish and Wildlife and the Tribes (the "co-managers").
Further development within floodplain j.s inconsistent with the twin goals of protecting
sensitj-ve aguatic resources and safeguarding existing shoreline/floociplain propeity
owners. New
development in the Dosewallips Rrver floodplain should be designed so as to resuLt in no
increased burlding footprint.
Development of a Comprehensive Salmon Recovery PIan (p. 56) - One stated objecti.ve of the
PLan is
thd development of "a reasonable salmon enhancement plan.that takes into acccunt factors
such as
overfishing, harvest mechods of treaty tribes and the salmon habltat to include the impactof logging, weacher conditj-ons and property development." The plan also speaks to che
need for cicj-zen invol-vemenE, which is a.l-so i-mportant. One such plan has already been
developed, the Surnrner Chum Salmon Conservation Ini-tiative (WDFV,I and PNP?T 2000) and I
would encourage members of the Brinnon Planning Group to review this documeni-. It is
avai-labl-e over
the internet aE: htEp t / /www,wa. gov,/wdfw/ f;-sin/chum/chum.htm
Flooding and Floodplain Development Issues (p.?8-80) - Floodplain environments are
inextricably
linked with cheir rivers and habitat that sustains imperiled fish populations. As
development on the ffoodplain occurs, Ehere is Ioss of essentia] flood water storage
functions, bank armoring increases to the detriment of in-channel fish habitat, and
flooding impacts become more severe for both shorel-ine property owners and fishpopulations. Further development within floodplain is
inconsistent wit,h the twin goals of protecting sensitive aquatic resources and
safeguarding
exlsting shoreline/floodplain properly 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 minimlze river channel
constrictj-ons (which j-ncrease the severity and frequency of floodJ-ng) should also be
identified in the PIan. Historj-c logjam removaL and floodplain loss j-n Ehe upper watershed
has also IikeIy played a roLe in increasing flood impacts in the Lower river by reducing
water resj-dence times,'the Plan should identrfy the linked needs for riverine fish habit,at
and floodplain resioration in the upper watershed as a mltigaEion tool for downstream
flooding concerns.
Fina11y, Brinnon residents anci the local- flood control board should request that the U.S.
Geological- Service re-actj-vate an hisLoric flow gage at rivermile 7.1 to provide real-time
flooding al-erts to area residents and as basic planning tool- for effectrve fj-sheries and
3
L;1,:L,r,4
wa tre:rtJ
Ef f ecr-rve .Conserva-"ion PlanninE T'ools (p. 84 j - Finally', the Pian men::-ons the use of '
conservat.ion tool-s such as easements ani trans f.er cf deveiopmen: !'lghts (TDRs ) bu: cioes
not la:r/ a framewo:i: fo: thel: crea:ive use or .Lmprernen;ation, Tc be effec:ive, t,he
B:i-nncn Subarea Plan neeCs to rel-ace these toois to the problems.it iaentifies in t,he
ccmmunlty (iack cf affc-dabJ-e hcusing, r-aapD:op.rra:e iloodplain/shoreiine developmen:,
neec for prcEec:ion fish anci wiidlife popuia.-ions anc their hab.rta:s, e:c) Fo.r examoie,
how might TDRs be employed lc shift development densities away from the river and onto t.he
gravel prt anci EolrnE propercies whrch are ou;sj-cie of the floociplain?
ei rnaral r,Jrrr99!g-J,
Ted Labbe
HabiLat Biologlst
Port GambLe S'KIallam Tribe
31912 Little Boston Road
Kingston, WA 98346
=====
Mark Rose
phone: 360-796-3300
email-: pulalipointGyahoo.com
web : www. brlnnonpfan . com
Do You Yahoo ! ?
Send instant messages 6 get email alerts with Yahoo I Messenger
http: / / im, yahoo. com,/
:eSOU::t: manaqemen-L
i-;i.)- iil54
*r
Mark Rose
From: tUarty Ereth lmarty@skokomish.org]
Sent: Friday, July 27,2001 4:47 PM
To: lt/lark 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 I have other commitments but I agree with your assessment of
the Brinnon Plan in that it was drafted by those who have the most to benefil economically and is definitely a
conflict of interest for those who participated in its drafting.
I breezed through the plan and had some very general 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.
Marty Ereth
Skokomish Habitat Biologist
9119101 [r ; ,-i 't:l'i
*s
Preliminar,v Brinnon-sub-area plan comments
Pg 21. The increase in mobile homes in the Brinnon area and the ratio of mobiie homes
to stick-buiit homes does not necessariiy reflect the "need for affordabie housing" as
much as the reaiization that newer mobile homes are cheaper and are of a finer quality
than oider mobiie hbmes. In fact, if you look at rural areas in other counties, you will
find a plethora of newer mobile homes as well.
P9.32 Agree with Goal G2,0 to update FEMA's FIRM maps (Shouid add using the
most current and best avaiiabie 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'klaliam 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 iater and mills
were closing down prior to that. New technology in the woods and the mills resulted in
job iosses as well as these activities were becoming more mechanized,
Pg. 42 New forest practice rules due to ESA iistings (Forest 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 stiil 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 McDonaid 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 #3. Do not try to advance the development of a "put and take"
approach for supplementation of natural production on pubiic 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 popuiations
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 substantiai. Loss of
4fr'
fish resources is a prominent reason for increased restrictions and there are multiple
causes, mainly the continuing loss of habitat.
P9.79 Installation of rip-rap to "contain anl,possible flooding" is often counter
productive and does not change the boundaries of a floodpiain. Ivlost times. rip-rap banks
are installed to control iocalized erosion and oniy contain small floods. In rivers the size
of the Dosewaliips 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 site) but
often fail to achieve long-term goals (maintaining ecosystem function and quaiity fish
habitat and flood reduction).
Pg 80 Policy P L 1 . Utiiizing land and resources for their "highest and best use" has
different connotations for different people depend;ng on their philosophy. Obviousiy a
Iandowner or real estate developer may vielv 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 ofa 100 year flood plain.
Pg. 82. Natural Heritage Vegetation, Wildlife and Landforms. The marine habitats
mentioned are utilized by all 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 iess significant In addition, beach habitat is also
important for other species of bait and forage fish other than herring, including surf smeit,
shiner perch and many others . Not mentioned are the numerous inveftebrates which
currently have no commercial or sport value but are nevertheless important components
of the marine ecosystem.
Pg. 83. Steelhead (sea-run rainbow) and resident rainbow trout were not included in the
species list. Other species not in the species iist inciude candlefish, surf smelt, shiner
perch, sand lance and others.